20 Jul 05
I mean look at the hypocrisy here.
I religious man is still considered 'sane' no matter
what his beliefs are as long as they are of a recognised form.
He is still considered 'sane' if he kills in the name of his lord
or even over minor discrepancies in an age old book.
But if a person in todays paranoid world were to believe things
that a 'doctor' thought was implausable or even just unlikely,
he could be locked up.
20 Jul 05
If we're talking about normative values, then of course, sanity is relative. But on the primary question of whether beliefs could be categorised, yes, of course they can, because no belief is formed in isolation or in a subjective-solipsistic bubble. We may be island universes, but we formed those universes by looking at other islands: you only need to look at the tribal, strangely iterative left-right debates on most internet forums for a demonstration of this truism.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckyou have to be pretty out-there to be locked up without your consent.
I mean look at the hypocrisy here.
I religious man is still considered 'sane' no matter
what his beliefs are as long as they are of a recognised form.
He is still considered 'sane' if he kills in the name of his lord
or even over minor discrepancies in an age old book.
But if a person in todays paranoid world were to believe things
that a 'doctor' thought was implausable or even just unlikely,
he could be locked up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpatient_commitment
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by AmauroteHistory has had a habit of locking people up who do have subjective-solipsistic bubbles.
If we're talking about normative values, then of course, sanity is relative. But on the primary question of whether beliefs could be categorised, yes, of course they can, because no belief is formed in isolation or in a subjective-solipsistic bubble. We may be island universes, but we formed those universes by looking at other islands: you only need to loo ...[text shortened]... rangely iterative left-right debates on most internet forums for a demonstration of this truism.
'The Vatican showed that Galileo was 'suspect of heresy' having held a view that went against holy scripture. His specific crime was believing that 'the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west'. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, though this was reduced to permanent house-arrest at his villa in Arcetri. Perhaps worse Galileo was forced to Abjure, in other words to confess his views and to condemn them:'
We may believe ourselves to be more understanding in todays world about the validity of extreme conjectures but when faced with a belief system that truly contradicts our worldview we still face it with fear.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf a doctor considers you to be capable of harming yourself and gets a second opinion, they can ship you off to the land of pills and pillows.
you have to be pretty out-there to be locked up without your consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpatient_commitment
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckare you suggesting that paranoid schizophrenia is another religion?
Can we categorise a persons beliefs?
or are you suggesting that gurus are just para schizos?
i think there is a difference here - religion is often framed as profound, meaningful and universally beneficial (though possibly individually sacrificial) ... and so if para schiz's are religious gurus then the mentally "unusual" gain some credibility and resources and consideration.
if, on the other hand, religious gurus are nothing more than para schiz's ... then we can lock them up, ignore them, persecute them, rehabilitate them, punish them, or ignore them as we choose.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the closest definition I can provide is it's like a continual internal monologue.
I need a loose working definition of paranoid schizophrenia.
There are a huge number of complex processes that the brain conducts subconsciously. Sometimes these processes can find their way into 'conscious mind' and they can be very unsettling.
During the course of an ordinary conversation, the brain will pick up on a huge amount of information. The other persons body language, their facial expressions, the order of words in a sentence etc. Subconsciously all of this information is processed and, hey presto, conclusions and conjectures are delivered ready to the conscious mind.
There is a wealth of information and potential conclusions. The
paranoid schizophrenic however will only be delivered the packets of
information that he/she considers relevent to him/her and more
particularly the information he/she considers a threat.
This becomes a vicious circle, as the more potential threats the
brain receives, the more the brain becomes trained in searching for them.
The subject becomes despondent, the conversent concerned and
the circle continues.
How does this relate to beliefs?
The paranoid schizophrenic by this definition believes that he/she is
the subject of persecution. They are constantly onguard for it,
a very exhausting process.
Whereas the 'sane' person knows that there are potential arbitrators
of persecution all about and puts forward a defence mechanism to
deal with them before attacks can be made.
One is subjective, the other objective.