Follow BB:
Schizophrenia and Psychosis – Brain Disease or Existential Crisis?
With the most recent schizophrenia/psychosis recovery research, we discover increasing evidence that psychosis is not caused by a disease of the brain, but is perhaps best described as being a last ditch strategy of a desperate psyche to transcend an intolerable situation or dilemma. To better understand how this conclusion which is so contrary to the widespread understanding of psychosis has come about, it will help if we break down this discussion into a short series of questions and answers.
What? Schizophrenia may not be caused by a brain disease?
The emerging recovery research and continuous lack of substantiation of any of the various brain disease hypotheses have cast serious doubts about the validity of the brain disease theory (as discussed in more detail in my book Rethinking Madness and my previous posts (Full Recovery from Schizophrenia? and Is Schizophrenia Really a Brain Disease?): 1) regarding the anomalous brain structures or brain chemistry that is sometimes found in people diagnosed with schizophrenia, these are only found in a small minority of cases, and even in these cases, there is no significant evidence that these are caused by anything other than unusual life circumstances (e.g., trauma, nutritional deficiencies, and substance abuse) or by the use of psychiatric drugs themselves; 2) the research is clear that, in stark contrast to well established diseases of the brain (such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, and multiple sclerosis), many people diagnosed with schizophrenia/psychosis make full and lasting medication-free recoveries; and 3) that many of those who experience full recoveries do not just return to their pre-psychotic condition, but experience profound healing and positive growth beyond the condition that existed prior to their psychosis, again in stark contrast to well established diseases of the brain.
So, if schizophrenia/psychosis is not caused by a disease of the brain, then what does cause it?
This is not a simple question, and it’s further compounded by the fact that there continues to be widespread controversy over whether or not “schizophrenia” is even a valid construct. While there is not the room to go into the details of this issue here, the essence of this controversy is that while it is clear that many people experience anomalous beliefs and perceptions (so called delusions and hallucinations), we still don’t have clear evidence that it’s appropriate to lump the vast range of such experiences under a single label. All that we can really say for sure is that people do experience distressing anomalous experiences (so called delusions and hallucinations), and that such experiences cause varying degrees of distress and limitation, last for varying lengths of time, and sometimes arise with varying degrees of strong emotions and/or altered states of consciousness. Therefore, for the sake of this discussion, I find it more helpful to just use the term “psychosis,” acknowledging that what we call “schizophrenia” is essentially just long-term psychosis.
Returning, then, to the question of what causes schizophrenia/psychosis, I’ve devoted an entire book, Rethinking Madness, to a thorough exploration of this question, and unfortunately, it’s just not possible to adequately summarize the thorough answer that this question deserves within such a brief article. What I will attempt to do here, however, is to put forth the most essential concepts of this alternative understanding and encourage others to engage in a fruitful dialogue about this important topic.
What I believe is the most relevant implication of the emerging recovery research (of others’ research as well as my own) with regard to the cause of psychosis can be put like this: The individual we deem “schizophrenic” or “psychotic” is merely caught in a profound wrestling match with the very same core existential dilemmas with which we all must struggle. In other words, it appears likely that schizophrenia/psychosis is not caused by a disease of the brain but is rather the manifestation of a mind deeply entangled within the fundamental dilemmas of existence.
So what exactly are these existential dilemmas?
The term “existential dilemma” essentially refers to the dilemmas inherent in finding ourselves in a state of existence — “Here I am, alive, conscious, and feeling. Now what?” These dilemmas, at their core, relate to our need to maintain our existence, and perhaps even more importantly, our need to create a life that is worth living — where the joys and rewards of living are strong enough to overcome the inherent pain and suffering of life and provide us with the will to go on living. Some of the most important such dilemmas that have been named by various existential thinkers are: finding a balance between autonomy/authenticity and love/belonging; finding a balance between freedom and security; coming to terms with the fact that all of our decisions and actions come at some cost; coming to terms with our own impending death; and cultivating enough meaning in our lives so that we are able to rise out of bed every morning and greet each new day.
In virtually all of the research and case studies I have come across that have looked closely at the actual subjective experiences of those who have fallen into a psychotic process, we see evidence that, prior to the onset of psychosis, these individuals had found themselves in overwhelming existential dilemmas similar to those mentioned above, but to a far greater degree than that which the average person ordinarily experiences. In one of the most well-known such studies, R. D. Laing, a Scottish psychiatrist renowned for his pioneering research on schizophrenia and his clinical work with those so diagnosed, closely studied the social circumstances surrounding over 100 cases of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, and he concluded that “without exception the experience and behavior that gets labeled schizophrenic is a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation”. Bertram Karon, one of the world’s most renowned clinicians specializing in psychotherapy for those diagnosed with psychotic disorders, stated his belief that any one of us would also likely experience psychosis if we were to have to live through the same set of circumstances as those of his psychotic clients. We see other evidence of this again and again in the plethora of biographical and autobiographical accounts that have been written and filmed.
The original focus of my own research was to explore the change within my participants’ experience and understanding of the world and themselves (their personal paradigm) that took place throughout their entire psychotic process, from onset to full recovery. The findings that emerged with regard to the onset of psychosis were very much in alignment with the findings of the other research mentioned above — there is clear evidence that every participant in all three of my own studies had also experienced such an overwhelming dilemma prior to the onset of psychosis. After thorough analysis of the data in the final and most comprehensive of the three studies, I arrived at the conclusion that there are essentially two fundamental dilemmas that appeared to lie at the crux of both the onset and resolution of these participants’ psychotic process:
1) The need to achieve a sustainable balance between autonomy (personal choice/personal freedom/authenticity) and connection (love/belonging/acceptance).
2) The need to maintain a relatively secure and stable sense of self when the very fabric of our being and indeed of the entire universe is profoundly groundless, impermanent, and interconnected.
What is particularly interesting about these dilemmas that seem to play such an important role in psychosis is that they may be the very same dilemmas that lie at the core of all human experience, regardless of one’s degree of sanity or lack thereof. It’s likely that most of us can easily relate to the first dilemma — we only need to think of the various challenges we’ve had in our relationships with family members, partners, and other loved ones. We can easily witness this dilemma occurring within toddlers as they struggle to find a balance between the drive to explore the world and assert their autonomy while still wanting to be unconditionally loved and accepted by their caretakers. And of course this dilemma never fully goes away for most of us. The second dilemma mentioned above is probably a little more difficult for some of us to relate to, especially for us Westerners (many practitioners of some of the Eastern traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta have thoroughly explored this dilemma). This dilemma generally lies a little more deeply beneath our conscious awareness than the first dilemma, though it often becomes conscious in unusual circumstances, such as during contemplative practice (such as mindfulness meditation), psychological/emotional crisis, and hallucinogenic drug use.
So, if these existential dilemmas are universal, then why do some individuals become more overwhelmed by them than others, and go on to develop psychosis?
The research suggests that there are two main factors that may make someone vulnerable to experiencing one or both of these dilemmas to a very high degree:
With regard to the first dilemma (autonomy vs. relationship), it has long been established in the field of developmental psychology that healthy childhood development requires that we find a healthy balance between our sense of autonomy and our trust that we are loved and accepted by others. Attachment research has been exploring and validating this idea for decades. Childhood abuse (physical, sexual, and/or emotional), trauma, neglect, and a poor fit between the temperament of a child and her/his caretaker(s) all clearly interfere with establishing a healthy balance in this regard, and all of these are well established in predisposing someone to developing serious emotional and psychological problems, and in more extreme cases, psychosis.
Regarding the second dilemma, recall that this dilemma refers to our need to maintain the sense that we are a relatively secure and stable self living in a relatively secure and stable world, when the reality of our situation is very different than this. To better understand how someone can be overwhelmed by this dilemma, it will help to first touch on the concept of cognitive constructs. The term cognitive constructs refers to the belief systems and interpretations that each of us has constructed throughout our lives which allow us to make sense of the world. They can act somewhat like a double edged sword for us. On one hand, they provide us with the means to distinguish one object or being from another, and they give us the general sense that we “kinda know what’s going on” so that we can meet our needs and navigate our way through life. They also give us a sense that there is some solid ground beneath our experience — in other words, that we are a secure and stable self living in a relatively secure and stable world. But on the other hand, our cognitive constructs can close our minds to other perspectives, and they create the illusion that the world and our self are much more stable and secure than they actually are.
For most of us, our cognitive constructs are fairly solid, changing only slowly over time. However, in certain cases, such as during acute crisis or trauma, or with the use of certain psychoactive drugs, one’s cognitive constructs can become very unstable. On one hand, this can lead to the potential benefit of having a more open mind (less rigid belief systems) and a greater sense of interconnectedness and “oneness” with all; but on the other hand, the loosening of our cognitive constructs can also lead to the potential terror of experiencing just how precarious and ungrounded our existence and self really are, which can lead to profound shifts within our personal paradigm as we attempt desperately to find some “solid ground” to cling onto once again. Such radical personal paradigm shifting is closely associated with so called delusions and hallucinations — experiences that are generally equated with psychosis.
Why some people are more prone to the loosening of one’s cognitive constructs is still somewhat mysterious — it appears that certain drugs and psychological or physiological distress may play a significant role, and there may even be some genetic or developmental predisposition. However, even though some people may be more prone to the destabilization of their cognitive constructs, it seems likely that virtually anyone has the potential to experience this if exposed to an overwhelming dilemma, situation, or trauma. It’s all too easy to find cases of extreme neglect, abuse, torture, or other trauma that have profoundly shaken up one’s experience of one’s self and the world and led to psychosis or at least psychotic-type experiences.
The research suggests, then, that both of these factors play an important role in the development of psychosis — an overwhelming existential dilemma and unstable cognitive constructs. The research also suggests that these two factors are very closely related, in that the experience of such an overwhelming dilemma makes one more susceptible to experiencing unstable cognitive constructs, and vice versa. It’s also important to emphasize that it is the individual’s own subjective experience of their situation that is most relevant. Sometimes, it’s easily evident to an observer that an individual is experiencing such an overwhelming dilemma (again, think of overt trauma, abuse, torture, etc.); but at other times, the individual’s crisis is not so apparent to an onlooker, though it is often all too apparent to the individual her/himself.
So we finally arrive at the final and perhaps most important question in this discussion: “Why would an individual’s psyche intentionally initiate psychosis?”
In other words, how can something as chaotic and as potentially harmful as psychosis act as a strategy to aid someone in transcending an otherwise irresolvable dilemma? To understand this, it helps to use as a metaphor the process of metamorphosis that takes place within the development of a butterfly. In order for a poorly resourced larva to transform into the much more highly resourced butterfly, it must first disintegrate at a very profound level, its entire physical structure becoming little more than amorphous fluid, before it can reintegrate into the fully developed and much more resourced form of a butterfly. In a similar way, when someone enters a state of psychosis, we can say that prior to the onset of psychosis, for whatever reason, they have arrived at a way of being in the world and experiencing of the world that is no longer sustainable (i.e., is poorly resourced), and it seems that their predicament cannot be resolved using more ordinary strategies. As a desperate last-resort strategy, then, one’s own psyche initiates a psychotic process. As the individual enters into a psychotic process, we can say that their very self, right down to the most fundamental levels of their being, undergoes a process of profound disintegration; and as we have seen in the recovery research, with the proper conditions and support, there is every possibility of their continuing on to profound reintegration and eventual reemergence as a renewed self in a significantly changed and more resourced state than that which existed prior to the psychosis.
This is why the intentional destabilization of one’s cognitive constructs may be so beneficial, although of course very risky. It is this very loosening of one’s personal paradigm — of one’s experience and understanding of one’s self and of the world — that allows an individual to undergo such a profound transformation at such a deep level of their being. When such a process resolves successfully, the potential amount of growth and/or healing that this allows is enormous; but of course, when such a process does not resolve successfully, an individual’s personal paradigm may remain unstable and chaotic indefinitely (think florid psychosis).
This idea is well supported in the recovery research in the findings that many people who make full recoveries from psychosis often experience a degree of wellbeing and ability to meet their needs that far exceeds that which existed prior to their psychosis. It’s important to keep in mind, of course, that such resolution is not always successful, and that an individual may remain in a psychotic condition indefinitely. But we must also not lose sight of the very hopeful findings from the recovery research that suggest that such a successful resolution from a psychotic process is surprisingly common, and may even be the most common outcome given the proper conditions and support (see “Full Recovery from Schizophrenia?” ).
References
Arieti, S. (1978). On schizophrenia, phobias, depression, psychotherapy, and the farther shores of psychiatry. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Bassman, R. (2007). A fight to be: A psychologist’s experience from both sides of the locked door. New York, NY: Tantamount Press.
Beers, C. W. (1981). A mind that found itself. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dorman, D. (2003). Dante’s cure. New York, NY: Other Press.
Greenberg, J. (1964). I never promised you a rose garden. Chicago: Signet.
Hagen, B. F., Nixon, G., & Peters, T. (2010). The greater of two evils? How people with transformative psychotic experiences view psychotropic medications. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Critical Inquiry, 12(1), 44-59.
House, R. (2001). Psychopathology, psychosis and the kundalini: Postmodern perspectives on unusual subjective experience. In I. Clarke (Ed.), Psychosis and spirituality: Exploring the new frontier (pp. 75-89). London: Whurr Publishers.
Karen, R. K. (1994). Becoming attached: First relationships and how they shape our capacity to love. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Karon, B. P., & VandenBos, G. (1996). Psychotherapy of schizophrenia: The treatment of choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc.
Laing, R.D. (1967). The politics of experience. New York: Pantheon Books.
Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1973). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant, New York: Basic Books.
May, R. (1977). The meaning of anxiety. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Mindell. A. (2008). City shadows: Psychological interventions in psychiatry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Modrow, J. (2003). How to become a schizophrenic: The case against biological psychiatry. Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press.
Mosher. L. R., & Hendrix, V. (with Fort, D. C.) (2004). Soteria: Through madness to deliverance. USA: Authors.
Nixon, G., Hagen, B. F., & Peters, T. (2009). Psychosis and transformation: A phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9231-3
Nixon, G., Hagen, B. F., & Peters, T. (2010). Recovery from psychosis: A phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-010-9271-8
Perry, J. W. (1999). Trials of the visionary mind. State University of New York Press.
Rathus, S. A. (2006). Childhood and adolescence: Voyages in development. Belmont, Canada: Thompson Wadsworth.
Schore, A. N. (2002). Advances in neuropsychoanalysis, attachment theory, and trauma research: Implications for self psychology. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22, 433-484.
Slade, A. (1999). Attachment theory and research: Implications for the theory and practice of individual psychotherapy with adults. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 575-594). New York: Guilford press.
Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press.
Williams, P. (2011). A multiple-case study exploring personal paradigm shifts throughout the psychotic process from onset to full recovery. (Doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, 2011). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/54/3454336.html
Williams, P. (2012). Rethinking madness: Towards a paradigm shift in our understanding and treatment of psychosis. San Francisco: Sky’s Edge Publishing.
Image via E. Petersen / Shutterstock.
Paris Williams, PhD
Paris Williams, PhD, works as a psychologist in the San Francisco Bay Area. He holds a PhD in Clinical Psychology from Saybrook University. He offers the rare perspective of someone who has experienced psychosis from both sides -- as a researcher and psychologist, and as someone who has himself fully recovered after struggling with psychotic experiences. In his book "Rethinking Madness," Dr. Williams takes the reader step by step on a highly engaging journey of discovery, exploring how the mainstream understanding of schizophrenia has become so profoundly misguided, while crafting a much more accurate and hopeful vision of madness.35 Responses
-
[...] about, it will help if we break down this discussion into a short series of questions and answers. Schizophrenia/Psychosis–Brain Disease or Existential Crisis? | Brain Blogger Yet inside there is this perpetual nagging doubt; the feeling we are possessed by a 'subtle [...]
Leave a Reply
Popular Posts
Future Posts
- Caffeine Increases Memory for Humans and Honeybees
- Is the Perception of Orientation Affected By Language?
- Electronic Devices Are Unlikely To Cause Cancer
- Personal Experience in Labeling Borderline Personality Disorder
- Change on the Horizon for Psychiatric Medicine
Latest Posts
Comments
- LV Outlet Sacramento Ca: LV Outlet Sawgrass Mills
- Max Sebring: My cousin is in the Army and h
- : first off everyone get u a mas
- nootropics: Alpha GPC – a form of choline,
- jamilah: Hi, I'm searching for good
Thank you so much for posting this. I have been struggling and searching to find the true answer to my 5yr+ diagnosis of schizophrenia/psychosis. I wad never able to accept it just being a brain disease and now I know why. I am completley greatful to have found this article
I know realiillness my childhood belief system is at the root cause of my illness.
Hi Renee, I am really glad you found this article helpful and that you managed to avoid being inculcated into the idea that there is something wrong with your brain. My own research has shown that the belief that one has a diseased brain is one of the most inhibiting factors in one’s recovery (Click HERE and HERE for my other articles related to this idea.) On the other hand, it is helpful to recognize when one’s own experiences are not in line with consensus reality, in order to best meet one’s needs, relate to others, and recognize when to seek support. If you want to look further into finding some alternative kinds of support, including peer support groups and mental health practitioners and clinics who don’t push the brain disease model, go to my own Resources page HERE.
Paris Williams
Now realize * sorry typo
Beautiful article. Everything that you’ve written also seems reminiscent of the transformative process that many shamans throughout various cultures go through. While a Western interpretation would view the behavior of these individuals as symptoms of psychosis, to the culture in question they are signs of shamanic potential and interpreted as the individual having the ability to come into contact with other realities. It is precisely this upheaval and unravelling of the persons sense of self and reality that leads to a recovery process and adoption of the “healer” role. Reading about such processes, which seem to occur with shamans all over the world, and reading your article, seems to point to psychosis not being a “sickness”, but actually a healing mechanism. RD Laing eloquently reffered to it as the “ancient voyage”.
Thanks for bringing up this important idea. Yes! I believe that this is exactly what the recovery research is showing–that the psychotic process may well be to cope/heal/transcend dilemmas/situations that otherwise appear to be irresolvable. Also, it is ironic that in many ways we’ve come full circle, finally coming to recognize what many indigenous societies have known for tens of thousands of years–that individuals who have gone through such a process successfully play a very important role in the health of a society (for example, by having stepped outside of the box of a given society’s paradigm and helping minimize the risk that a rigid, dogmatic social paradigm will prevent that society’s ability to grow and adapt). On the other hand, it’s important not to “romanticize” these experiences, recognizing that they often wreak serious havoc in people’s lives until and unless the individual is able to integrate these experiences successfully into their lives.
You may also be aware of another comment by R.D. Laing (I’m pretty sure it was him)–something to the effect of “The mad person is drowning in the same ocean in which the mystic is swimming.”
Paris Williams
Dear Paris,
the quote you mentioned is from Joseph Campbell. At least that’s what Stan Grof was writing in ‘Psychology of the Future’ on p. 136.
As much as I am sympathizing with this metaphor, I am still wondering how the psychotic came into the water in the first place (considered that entering a psychotic state is, to my knowledge, always involuntary)…
Secondly, it would be interesting to know if there are (former) psychotics who had later in their life a mystical experience, i.e. those ‘who learned to swim’?
Best wishes
——————
“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.“
Joseph Campbell
Is it possible that once the mind reaches a certain threshold of acceptable stress levels that psychosis is triggered. Absolutely yes , its probably the most likely. I think some people are more predisposed to it than others though. In my own circumstances I kept pushing the boundaries on these stress levels and I unfortunately became psychotic. The biggest problem is that the mind has clearly fractured, part of it no longer supports myself and my decisions. In fact it seeks to act in a manner contrary to its best interests. In psychological terms the concept of theory of mind is hit the hardest. The mind can no longer act independently and it can not act in a strategic manner to further its goals , part of it overwhelms it with guilt and shame. So where does this leave us; to pursue the medical model or a holistic model. The medical model try as it may to understand the problem of psychosis has not being able to crack the proplem and the holistic approach seems to carry an ideological emphasis that is almost philosophical. The holistic approach is carried out in a manner that is unscientific at least there are too many variables in its delivery. In any social model the people that are most confident with their views seek subservience to those same views and the vulnerable are overwhelmed with these ‘ideals’ which snowball into group ideals. The scientific approach represented by psychiatry offers more hope , sure there can be a perceived brutality in it but to my mind it is consistent with evolutionary principles. If a person acts in an eratic fashion that makes them likely to harm themselves or others then then can be forcibly treated in a manner that is scientifically consistent. For me the goal of the sufferer should be to seek out and map a path that is most conducive to his/her best interests. I saw a few psychistrists in my time and I remember I had a severe criticism of them at the time , they dont say much , they act and behave in a clinical manner devoid of any real emotion or empathy. If I felt bad the solution was to increase the medication or indeed try new medication. This did irk me but now I understand it. I’ll be honest there was no sence of entrapment I was not being asked to divulge the nature of these halucinations , in fact it felt that I should say as little as possible about these experiences. There was no ideology adanced even with regard that I would need to take medication for the rest of my life. I was not patranised at all. The fact is if a person stays out in a storm and does not seek shelter and if the storm prolongs then the person will die. Is the persons faith brutal absolutely yes it is but its no good to blame the weather.
Thanks for sharing your story, and I’m glad that you’ve had relatively positive dealings with the mainstream psychiatric profession. There are others who have been less fortunate.
I appreciate your thoughts about this topic and resonate with many of them. I do, however, want to challenge your use of the term “scientific.” There are two aspects in particular to this challenge I want to mention here:
Genuine science holds hypotheses and theories as just that–hypotheses and theories. Unfortunately, unsubstantiated hypotheses often move to the category of “fact,” especially when powerful entities benefit from this move–e.g., the “brain disease” hypothesis of schizophrenia and other psychiatric diagnoses. This is certainly a valid hypothesis, but if we are to remain true to the principles of science, then we need to acknowledge that this remains nothing more than a hypothesis.
Second, an unfounded assumption has arisen within the field of science that if it cannot be observed, then it must not exist. This is an assumption from a philosophical paradigm known as “positivism,” a paradigm that emphasizes “objectivism” and “materialism” (that all aspects of the universe and of human experience can be reduced ultimtaely to matter). This paradigm arose from the ideas of Isaac Newton and his peers who perceived the universe as essentially a giant machine that can be broken down into a set of completely isolated and discrete entities knocking into each other like so many billiard balls on a pool table. This paradigm has since been profoundly discredited by Einstein’s work on relativity and further discredited by the discoveries of the field of Quantum Mechanics. So, even what we often think of as “objective science” operates under a set of unfounded and even discredited assumptions about the world.
Third, the continuing influence of positivism plays a strong role in trying to locate qualities of subjective experience (such as “mind,” “mental contents,” and “consciousness”) within the brain, rather than working directly with those subjective experiences on their own merit. The sad tragedy of this is that, regardless of whether or not we can find correlations of mental experiences within the brain, the reality is that people still continue to have subjective mental experiences, many of which are very distressing. So, in order to support people having these experiences and to increase our understanding of them, it makes sense to actually explore such subjective experiences by working with them directly. In fact, there is a perfectly valid method of scientific inquiry that does exactly this (explores subjective experiences directly), known as qualititive inquiry.
So, in short, I just want to emphasize that there is no “purely objective science” devoid of philosophical assumptions, and to not acknowledge this keeps us blind to our own biases and assumptions. This can then lead to devastating results. One such result, in my opinion, is what has been exposed by the recovery research conducted by both the National Institute of Mental Health and the World Health Organization: That those who live in the poorest countries of the world with virtually no access to Western psychiatric treatment have far higher recovery rates than those in the wealthy West with very high access to this treatment (WHO); and that those in the West who decided to terminate their psychiatric treatment have done far better (in general) than those who continued diligently to receive their treatment (NIMH).
Food for thought…
Paris Williams
I understand you when you talk about how hypothesis turning to fact without any clear substantiation. I myself will only use medication in crisis situations because I feel that long term treatment as a means for solving this problem does not work at least it did not work for me. The side effects of the medication are too distressing over the long term and also I am not convinced that the medication as is currently constituted is good enough or niche enough to solve this problem. So the truth is that I am in search of another way at least until I feel the medication is safe and right. I am interested only living in this world within the reality that it has bestowed upon us. Do I believe reality is malible , No, it only moves in a manner dictated by its constituent parts. Spirituality to my mind does not figure in reality. There is no external input , reality quite simply drives itself. If a person has a subjective experience of reality it does not change the objective experience. If a schizophrenic accepts the idea that there reality can be changed by paranormal activity, what is there hope. They have no control over their life and never will. If a person cannot exert control and think for themselves they will be a slave to psychiatry , spirituality and society. The problem of course is this condition because of its nature makes it very hard to either think independently or take control. This is the problem. I await new medication or indeed if I could offer some hope, another way.
If anyone should doubt that reality is somehow malible by external forces , you should study statistical information on any subject you wish and if you have the time and expertise to look at the data draw your own conclusions. If you do not have the expertise read some objective analysis or commentary on the data. I suggest that you will eventually see a blueprint of how reality works and you dont have to look past Charles Darwin for its origins
Paul, I admire your ability to find your own way towards health and a workable life in the midst of all the mixed messages that are found in the mental health field. Thanks for sharing some of this story with us.
I want to clarify something that I think you misinterpreted from me. I never suggested that “reality is malleable,” or at least not the way you seem to be using this term. It seems clear to me that there are certain laws, principles, drives, or whatever you want to call them that are fundamental to the nature of our universe, and I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting that these are malleable. What is malleable is our individual construct, or interpretation of the raw sensory input that we continuously take in from the world. We each have a construct of our self and of the world that has been shaped by our society, our family, or own experiences, and perhaps our innate temperament; and this construct may deviate more or less from that of that which is generally agreed to be the most legitimate one in society (i.e., “consensus reality); and one’s construct may range from being relatively stable over time or shift radically (i.e., what occurs in periods of “florid psychosis,” psychoactive drug use, etc.). Where I think we can get in trouble is when we think that our own personal construct, or that of our society, is a purely objective view of “reality.” I believe that by the simple nature of what is involved in making sense of the world so that we can navigate through it, we are essentially forced to distort it and be blind to the most fundamental aspects of it–especially the profound impermanence,interconnectedness, groundlessness, and self-lessness. I believe that if we were to really be exposed to reality in its most raw form, we would find ourselves being thrashed around by an impermanent, interconnected “sea,” with all manifestations (including our very “self”) arising and passing away not unlike the passages of waves across the ocean. Who could tolerate such clear exposure to these deeper truths? How could one maintain security in the existence of one’s self and meet the needs of that self? There is a reason for our delusions.
So I believe that in many ways we’re on a similar page. Your own comments also make me think of the “free will/determinism” paradox, though that’s another rabbit hole topic. We may not want to venture down that too far.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences.
Paris Williams
Thanks for the reply. One thing, What about if the universe is not their to satisfy our needs , that we look for meaning where their is no meaning at all. That determinisim at least faith based is just coincidence. As a philosophy I ask myself why its there at all. That we just construct all this stuff to satisfy our needs. Anyway thats all I got. Good luck
I feel I should qualify a remark in an earlier post. I think that the goal of anyone suffering from this condition should integrate themselves fully into society and not become sceptical of society. Society can be understood from a psychological point of view and a person should never get caught in the feutility that it is somehow unjust. It is what it is. The goal must be to live and thrive in its midst and I do agree with the sentiment about a person being able to remove themselves from any given social paradigm and being able to think for themselves.
I disagree. Concerns about justice should trump concerns about functionality, and it needs to be recognised that attempting to pragmatically succeed within an unjust system will itself serve to perpetuate injustice. When people simply pursue their own interests, and are unwilling to make sacrifices in order to do what is right, human society degrades itself.
Nice to come across your research and sensible ways to (honestly) examine the prevailing position that simply will not permit a different model the light of day. Dr. Williams demonstrates a solid sense of self by virtue of daring to present his and related research that has accumulated over 50 years.
Like you I gave Laing a fair shake re his research and approach to psychotherapy. Very few mental health professionals know that the dominant approach to treating schizophrenics included the notion that staff members were not to talk with, chat, say hello–how goes it, etc or otherwise communicate with schizophrenics because it would fuel their psychoses. No talking—no communication—definitely no expression of ordinary human kindness. That is what passed as a “therapeutic milieu” during the 1950′s into the 1960′s.
It isn’t hard to conceive that a patient confined to a psychiatric hospital not feeling very safe or secure might find deliberate efforts to eliminate communication between patient and staff-to ban expressions of ordinary human kindness might be construed as deeply disturbing. “Yeah, this is the place they say I get help……little confused because they can’t even bring themselves to look at me…..actually….no more doubts…..I am sure this is hell”.
Thank you for such a solid and refreshing post.
Thanks for your support, Kevin. I appreciate your pointing to the very important factor for recovery of simple kind and healthy human contact. I also want to add some other important factors: hope, including a hopeful and meaningful understanding of one’s anomalous experiences; self connection, self connection, and self worth/dignity; and the pursuit of a rich and a meaningful life, and support in doing so.
For more discussion of these, see one of my other articles on this website HERE.
Paris Williams
…small typo above. I meant, “…self connection, self acceptance, and self worth/dignity…”
Beautiful article. Everything that you’ve written also seems reminiscent of the transformative process that many shamans throughout various cultures go through. While a Western interpretation would view the behavior of these individuals as symptoms of psychosis, to the culture in question they are signs of shamanic potential and interpreted as the individual having the ability to come into contact with other realities. It is precisely this upheaval and unravelling of the persons sense of self and reality that leads to a recovery process and adoption of the “healer” role. Reading about such processes, which seem to occur with shamans all over the world, and reading your article, seems to point to psychosis not being a “sickness”, but actually a healing mechanism. RD Laing eloquently reffered to it as the “ancient voyage”.
http://www.mediafire.com/?50cdjly22skb5hc
Hi Dr Paris,
I was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder 17 years ago. I saw a psychiatrist, listened to what she said and took the pills she prescribed and I got well (depending on how you define that). According to my doctor, I’ve basically recovered, although I still take medication. I don’t have psychotic symptoms or depression. But I’ve been on a 17 year long existential crisis that has never been resolved. In particular, my spiritual beliefs, life philosophy etc fluctuate wildly and rapidly. I can’t hold on to any one set of beliefs, because I feel that everything can be true!! Everything exists, everything has a life inside my head.
What are the practical implications of your work; ie What can I do about it??!!
Thanks.
Jen
I loved – ‘Everything has a life inside my head’ . Some of the life inside my head is bad and some is good and I have never known what to believe. People like us are looking for the truth and losing reality in order to find it.
I have tried reading about existentialism I really have and theirs alot of higher thought stuff their , philosophically complex stuff. When I got sick I was stressed out unbelievably , I was not asking myself ‘Who am I?’ ‘Whats my place in life?’ I was just stressed. I did however afterwards go on my ‘learning’ and my quest for knowledge phase and the only thing that process blessed me with is the realisation thst it was all bolox. Selfhelp groups and spirituality groups talk about joined up thinking and that soul destroying word ‘listening’. If you listen the more chance that your ears will be filled with garbage. Dont get me wrong you have to listen when someone is feeling down ( someone close to you ) its the humane thing to do but to hold this up as a tennant of life ahead of self expression is foolish. People are not seers(spelling) they are not gods , they are flawed , some are distubed and if your willing to listen to all that sh*t and expect to ‘learn’ then you are mistaken.
This article is completely false, ridiculous and misleading. People please beware of quack “psychologists” giving extremely wrong and damaging information. Just because they have a PhD after there name doesn’t mean anything.
According one of best hospitals in world in psychiatry:
“researchers believe that a combination of genetics and environment contributes to development of the disease.
Problems with certain naturally occurring brain chemicals, including the neurotransmitters dopamine and glutamate, also may contribute to schizophrenia. Neuroimaging studies show differences in the brain structure and central nervous system of people with schizophrenia. While researchers aren’t certain about the significance of these changes, they support evidence that schizophrenia is a brain disease.“
Sorry I have few typos in the last comment and couldn’t edit it, so i’m reposting.
This article is completely false, ridiculous, and misleading. People please beware of quack “psychologists” giving extremely wrong and damaging information. Just because they have a PhD after their name doesn’t mean anything.
According to one of best hospitals in world in psychiatry, the Mayo Clinic:
“researchers believe that a combination of genetics and environment contributes to development of the disease.
Problems with certain naturally occurring brain chemicals, including the neurotransmitters dopamine and glutamate, also may contribute to schizophrenia. Neuroimaging studies show differences in the brain structure and central nervous system of people with schizophrenia. While researchers aren’t certain about the significance of these changes, they support evidence that schizophrenia is a brain disease.”
To imply that it is caused by existential thinking is completely retarded.
“Neuroimaging studies show differences in the brain structure and central nervous system of people with schizophrenia.”
These differences are caused by the psychiatric drugs they are given.
This article makes alot of sense to me. When I was 17 I had a manic episode with psychotic symptoms and made a full recovery. I was stuck in a rut at the time after months of problems building up and my relationships with my parents and friends breaking down, I had increasingly been losing my sense of purpose and self and falling deeper into indifference and drug use. The episode was horrific and overwhelming but made me change and become a totally different person and find direction. My own experiences fit very clearly with what this theory describes, luckily my psychotic phase didn’t last very long. I did take a small level of antipsychotics as part of the recovery.
I definitely feel like schizophrenia is the dismantling of an unhealthy cognitive framework, and possibly even the foundation, to further the metaphor. That is the purpose of psychosis… to unlearn some negative beliefs and behaviors, cultural or imprinted, and then to build from the ground up. Great post, great ideas, great research!
So schizophrenia is a motivating force? What about a predisposition to schizophrenia. Do you believe that exists> The truth of the matter is for me personally I heard voices from the age of five. As a five year old do you think I had to unlearn all my ‘negative’ traits build up in my relatively short lifespan. Do you really believe that schizophrenia is some kind of imposed morality. I think you should get real and have a look at the medical basis for the condition.
Your article is incredibly insightful. I agree that psychosis can represent an existential crisis, the experience of the psychotic individual does not conform to consensual reality, and these facts can leave the individual who experiences psychosis in a fearful, traumatizing and perhaps deadly-slippery situation.
The self-expression in your article is somewhat curative for psychosis, if only in that it normalizes what psychotic individuals experience.
This is a great article.
I enjoyed the article and its perspective. I don’t have a primary belief about the source or primary causative factors for schizophrenia as there are so many variables at play. I’m actually writing a play dealing with the subject and have been doing quite a bit of reading on the subject. One of the comments mentioned we cannot ignore research that indicates such important factors as structural brain changes, and differences in levels of certain neurotransmitors. This is true, and also I wonder percentages of persons diagnosed with schizophrenia who don’t have indicators of a structural brain difference. What about individuals with major neurotransmitor chemical imbalances [normally associated with schizophrenia] who do not have it. Even writing the words ‘have it’ feels somewhat limiting to its complex existence. That complex existence may indeed involve physiological aspects to consider such as genetic proclivities, developmental trauma, severe nutritional deficiency or imbalance. The brain chemistry imbalance theory does not really hold solid ground for me. It’s like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. Just because brain chemistry is [often?] part of the person’s experience with schizophrenia does not mean THAT is the primary causative factor.
I’m also intrigued with the ‘spiritual crisis’ model. Stanislav Groff [sp] has writeen about this. For those who have an anathama to the word spiritual I substitute ‘crisis of the psyche’. There are all kinds of reasons why this might be possible and valid. Certainly shamanic initiation stories within indigenous cultures suggests ‘psychosis symptoms’ from our western symptomology perspective. There is speculation about certain prophets and sages having schizophrenia or aspects of it, as well as certain eccentric, creative artists.
What is sad and disturbing is how the medical model has primarily thought of and worked with schizophrenia from brain chemistry and focusing on medication to shift symptoms. And because symptoms are shifted and in many cases individuals are able to life ‘functional’ lives again, then that is interpreted as successful treatment. As holistic perspectives pertaining to physical illness have shown the mainstream medical model over the past few decades, it’s not just about allieviating symptoms; there is often more going on.
Paris,
I looked at your suggested reading material on your website and their is a lot of talk about spirituality , with special mention of angels and the likes.
One question for you , Do you believe that recovery from schizophrenia is possible without buying into the supernatural?
It’s an important question. Are you religeous? Do you consider yourself a spirtualist?
<>
Paris,
I looked at your suggested reading material on your website and there is a lot of talk about spirituality , with special mention of angels and the likes.
One question for you , Do you believe that recovery from schizophrenia is possible without buying into the supernatural?
It’s an important question. Are you religious? Do you consider yourself a spiritualist?
Paul,
A number of the suggested books on my website’s reading list are phenomenological case studies of people with psychotic experiences, and such experiences very commonly include spiritual themes. Also, people having such experiences often find themselves overwhelmed with experiences of self dissolution and self transcendence (perceiving oneself as more than just their limited egoic and/or physical self). While this concept is what is often pointed to when the term “spiritual” is used, there is nothing “airy fairy” about this concept at all, since profound interconnectedness/impermanence and the fact that the boundaries between self and other is more or less arbitrary is a well established concept within any of the major sciences that explore this (i.e., physics, ecology, biology, anthropology, etc.)
Regarding my own personal beliefs, I consider myself strongly phenomenological, putting most faith into direct subjective experience. I personally have a difficult time accepting any kind of blind faith, but I don’t judge people who prefer to go this route as a way to find guidance in their life,
Paris
“boundaries between self and other is more or less arbitrary”
This is presupposed on something you take as fact. If there is a level of truth in this , it rests completely on the subjective experience and projections of the physical matter of the brain. I don’t see it as arbitrary though. Physics is the study of physical matter , how it interacts with itself and the laws that govern this interaction and has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. Biology is the study of living matter and the interaction of its constituent parts. Ecology is the study of a system of living matter and inanimate matter and how they interact with each other. Dependency and interaction are governed and driven by constituent parts obeying local rules and a willingness to maintain themselves in the face of indifference and ruthless opposition.
It seems as if a lot of the ‘Ills” of the world could be lessened by ordinary people taking a little more iniative and tryin to communicate with others around them. It seems to me that we come up with answers and then create questions to satisfy the answers.