• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Schizophrenia is a tool to defeat prophets

Most schizophrenics aren't high functioning.
I didn't mean to imply that it is impossible.
There are exceptions to every rule.
(Hence the word typically.)

I don't mean to offend schizophrenic people.
My point is / was: schizophrenics, and people with other mental disorders, have functionality issues that would have prevented them - historically - from being linked to prophets.
At the time of Ezekiel, in other words, the medications and/or strategies you speak of didn't exist... nor did the possibility of hospitalization.
 
Loosing you identity is not that crazy. You just don't blend very well in, in a modern complex world.
 
Have known several well functioning schizos...They are operating on a different level...Typicals can't perceive everything. They have a wider range and a different reality. That is all.
 
I would have to agree with the herbavore about what can be for schizophrenia.
 
No, not "this".

There's nothing about the OP's short post that warrants/deserves that sort of reaction.
He's reading the OT for the first time.

A lot of people interpret parts of Ezekiel as a first hand account of aliens.
It is quite common to make the schizophrenic / prophet comparison.
Doesn't indicate that the OP is crazy or on so much meth, that he/she appears crazy.

Since meth causes amphetamine psychosis, the suggestion is a little ironic...

Have known several well functioning schizos...They are operating on a different level...Typicals can't perceive everything. They have a wider range and a different reality. That is all.
Click to expand...

I have a family member that is schizophrenic.
He has serious delusions about me, that I can disprove.
There is no extra-sensory perception going on, there.
He is confused.
 
ForEverAfter said:
Most schizophrenics aren't high functioning.
I didn't mean to imply that it is impossible.
There are exceptions to every rule.
(Hence the word typically.)
Click to expand...

Functionally is proportionally relational to how well the human world facilitates access points for them to function. If you compare schizophrenic populations in western Europe to, say, North America, to Africa, etc... you will see a lot of functional range. Most schizophrenics aren't high functioning because the narrow spectrum of "normal" in mainsteam society doesn't allow them to interface, much like with spectrum disorders like autism and aspergers. The "higher functioning" ones don't get flack because they can blend in more easily, but their internal realities are still very different than the average person. Which begs the question, just what is the "average person"? We assume that everyone is relating from the same kind of consciousness but it's probably not true at all, because the only time we generally discover that someone is different is because they lose functionality in the social fabric. It then becomes a pathology, something to be corrected, based on deviance that needs to be brought back into normal range as much as possible.

I do think that the way mental health institutions and protocols are manipulated by the establishment to quell creativity and dissent is really alarming, but this shouldn't sidestep the fact that there are people out there who have genuine conditions that need a lot of support. The philosophical underpinning of this topic though is whether or not these people could play a key role in society if our society were more flexible and less dogmatic about its social norms. In a lot of aboriginal cultures, people with these conditions get honorary roles and they are enabled to do as much as they can. It's just a different view of consciousness... different epistemologies on what these people represent. IMO Christianity really fucked us up, along with the hacks who used science to justify it later. We went from churches and exorcisms to asylums and electroshocks.
 
It really depends on the severity of the schizophrenic.
Having worked with people who need care, my observations are skewed in the sense that I've been exposed to the upper end of the spectrum.
But, I took that into account when I made my initial statement.

I've also head friends, friends family members and my own family members suffer from schizophrenia.
Perhaps my social observations, co-incidentally, aren't representative of the situation either.
But, there are certainly schizophrenics that cannot function very well now... nor would they, in my opinion, have ever been able to do so.

In a lot of aboriginal cultures, people with these conditions get honorary roles and they are enabled to do as much as they can.[/quote

Source? (Of studies showing people with schizophrenia in aboriginal communities and the roles they have, specifically.)
I'm interested.
Click to expand...
 
Foreigner said:
Functionally is proportionally relational to how well the human world facilitates access points for them to function. If you compare schizophrenic populations in western Europe to, say, North America, to Africa, etc... you will see a lot of functional range. Most schizophrenics aren't high functioning because the narrow spectrum of "normal" in mainsteam society doesn't allow them to interface, much like with spectrum disorders like autism and aspergers. The "higher functioning" ones don't get flack because they can blend in more easily, but their internal realities are still very different than the average person. Which begs the question, just what is the "average person"? We assume that everyone is relating from the same kind of consciousness but it's probably not true at all, because the only time we generally discover that someone is different is because they lose functionality in the social fabric. It then becomes a pathology, something to be corrected, based on deviance that needs to be brought back into normal range as much as possible.

I do think that the way mental health institutions and protocols are manipulated by the establishment to quell creativity and dissent is really alarming, but this shouldn't sidestep the fact that there are people out there who have genuine conditions that need a lot of support. The philosophical underpinning of this topic though is whether or not these people could play a key role in society if our society were more flexible and less dogmatic about its social norms. In a lot of aboriginal cultures, people with these conditions get honorary roles and they are enabled to do as much as they can. It's just a different view of consciousness... different epistemologies on what these people represent. IMO Christianity really fucked us up, along with the hacks who used science to justify it later. We went from churches and exorcisms to asylums and electroshocks.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to urge for perfection. Society only values the different if one can really achieve the impossible.
The world is an industry of labeling and I feel sorry for those who suffer within their minds but are not that brilliant to deserve a spot under the sun.
Like you said "from the churches..to asylums and electroshocks".
 
ForEverAfter said:
Source? (Of studies showing people with schizophrenia in aboriginal communities and the roles they have, specifically.)
I'm interested.
Click to expand...

They weren't called schizophrenics, and still aren't. Different epistemologies. That's like asking for Biblical proof of proton accelerators. Apples and oranges.

It might be more appropriate for you to do research into how the disabled tend to be treated in indigenous societies. Most consider them special and not disabled at all.
 
You're making wide sweeping statements with serious accuracy problems. I worked in the disability sector for a long time (10+ years) and there are many many disabilities that would render people unable to live beyond a cursory age 200 years ago, let alone thousands.

They weren't called schizophrenics, and still aren't. Different epistemologies. That's like asking for Biblical proof of proton accelerators.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's like asking you to back up your original statement.
You have no idea, in truth, whether or not schizophrenics were treated the way you initially described them.
It sounded like, when you said it, there had been some study done on diagnosed schizophrenics in an indigenous society.
 
ForEverAfter said:
You're making wide sweeping statements with serious accuracy problems. I worked in the disability sector for a long time (10+ years) and there are many many disabilities that would render people unable to live beyond a cursory age 200 years ago, let alone thousands.



No, it isn't. It's like asking you to back up your original statement.
You have no idea, in truth, whether or not schizophrenics were treated the way you initially described them.
It sounded like, when you said it, there had been some study done on diagnosed schizophrenics in an indigenous society.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that, although modern medicine tends to treat mental illness with a higher degree of recognition, it wasn't the first to do so, and many societies didn't consider these illnesses at all.

Calm down.
 
Skip to the end........ dont worry about jesus, prophets or any of that nonsense, stay in the present mate, its an interesting perspective youve got, sparks fire but at the end of the day you cant live a life with the anticipation of a prophet or whatever.
We are only prophets to are ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top