Losing your mind - The greatest fear known to mankind.

SWM

May 2008
2,314
0
[quote author=ozziemate link=topic=924.msg4659#msg4659 date=1248128078]
[quote author=SWM link=topic=924.msg4654#msg4654 date=1248100394]
so would this only be relevant to disorders that involve paranoia, ie schizophrenia, paranoid psychosis.

[/quote]
No IMO it is relevant to just about all human behaviour and is a sigifcant part of the "Human condition" Dysfunction generated by paranoia such as Schizophrenia which is invariably paranoid based are just extreme examples of the issue.
[/quote]


the basic premise is flawed in that psychotic people generally do not fear loosing their mind, common medical understanding of psychosis is determined by the proposition that the patient does not have insight into their illness. what that means is the psychotic patient does not believe he is going insane he believes that he is of sound mind. he believes that the experiences he is having are not symptoms of a disorder. if he does not believe he is going mad what place does fear of madness have.

where i do see fear of insanity, is in patients with anxiety, panic, panic with agoraphobia, social anxiety and social phobia. all of the above illenss are dysfunctions of metacognitive process and are reported by patients as fear and thoughts about going mad, loosing the mind. in older populations the fears centre around fear of, and belief they have dementia. <edited


i am wondering about how you arrived at this theory because i know that you are an intelligent and thoughtful individual so you are not just pulling ideas out of thin air and creating hypotheses from them.

having said that i am not so intelligent and only slightly thought ful so i have pulled my own theory out of thin air and created another hypothesis about how you constructed your hypothesis.

my geuss is (and i welcome you to deny or confirm my suspisions) that you are or have been working with people that have been diagnosed with a severe enduring mental illness but who are now currently experiencing only the moderate acute forms of illness such as the anxiety disorders that i mention in this post.

and/or you are constructing this hypothesis based on your personal experiences of mental illness which would also be along the lines of an anxiety/ panic disorder/ health anxiety.

anyway if i am wrong i would be interested to know where this idea orignated.
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
The idea originates from deep philsophical understandings about the nature of the human condition.

Psychosis wher by the person is ignorant of their "ignorance" [ note : ignorant of their "ignorance" is a statement that has taken nearly 6 years to arrive at and yet once arrived at makes a lot of sense - to me any way]

The fundamental premise is that when a person is suffering from persecution and intimidation fears they invariably amplify their belief in themselves as in a lot of cases very few people have maintained belief in them. So to compensate for the loss of credibility they build their own self belief to a point where it becomes almost totally blind to the objective reality and instead the persons world becomes in philosophical terms almost purely subjective with a splattering of objective reality to found it. [this process can happen very quickly - especially after some major self esteem destroying event has taken place.]
Thus it could be claimed that pyschosis ironically is a reaction to an intense fear of "self delusion" which no doubt others have instilled due to disagreeement with that persons initial beliefs. Therefore it coudl be argued that it is the fear of self delusion that generates the self delusion...
To maintain a claim of "No I am not self deluded" they amplify their self belief processes so much so that they blind them selves to any alternative reality.
The old "if you believe in it strong enough it will come true" applies most definitely in this case.
Of course this is not exclusively the domain just of pyschosis but fuels most belief systems whether they be founded in reality or not. And of course most beliefs are far from being founded and yet most people seem to function reasonably well.

"Belief is only a mere stepping stone on the path towards truth but when a person belives the belief to be a truth, that is when we have a psychosis" ~ ss 2007
from notes : differentiation between belief and knowledge"
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
i am wondering about how you arrived at this theory because i know that you are an intelligent and thoughtful individual so you are not just pulling ideas out of thin air and creating hypotheses from them.

having said that i am not so intelligent and only slightly thought ful so i have pulled my own theory out of thin air and created another hypothesis about how you constructed your hypothesis.

my guess is (and i welcome you to deny or confirm my suspisions) that you are or have been working with people that have been diagnosed with a severe enduring mental illness but who are now currently experiencing only the moderate acute forms of illness such as the anxiety disorders that i mention in this post.
I am currently about to publish a methodology on how to not only prevent the advent of significant mental health issues but also to offer sound theraputic solutions that can actually not only restore a person to a healthier state but also allow for the maturation that surviving these sorts of things can generate. Experience so far has been very promising, but needs proper recognition / assessment prior to becoming accepted mainstream professionals.

and/or you are constructing this hypothesis based on your personal experiences of mental illness which would also be along the lines of an anxiety/ panic disorder/ health anxiety.
SWM, we are all ill, in some way.

This planets population is all mentally ill and disturbed in some way. Abuse is always present in every one and it is the nature of evolution that the race slowly becomes "sane".

Of course I am also Human and have experienced all the complaints that I have researched in some form or another as have every other single person on this planet. It is all a matter of extreme and intensity and that is all. The basis of any theraputic solution is primarilly focussed on how to reduce emotional intensity thus mitigating the outcomes generated.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing as you wish, but it is when that belief has control over the person rather than the person having control over the belief that is in essence the issue.

IMO Belief alone does not make a person ill it is only how much you belief in that belief that can have that potential.

When a person says:
" I believe my beliefs to be "absolutely"true" you can state almost immediately we have a problem. [ the word "absolute" is usually implied and not spoken]
 
Jun 2009
531
0
I think I get what you're saying, and if it is that (most disorders have a limited number of shared root causes, and it is much more effective to treat them than the symptoms), then I have a similar theory: the field of psychology has many 'sacred cows' that are cultural constructs which greatly complicate all aspects of treatment.

I'm talking very fundamental concepts that we assume are integral to 'being human' at all. You may have seen me rant about the concept of free will, and I believe free will is one of the many wrong base assumptions made in psychology. So is the notion of right and wrong, responsibility and the assumption that emotion is something sacrosanct and unmeasurable.

Even if I'm wrong about any one of these, consider the impact if any of these assumptions were decisively found to be wrong: if it was found that we don't have free will, capitalism and democracy would both be flawed concepts, as would every single type of government that has ever existed - even authoritarianism is based on the premise of controlling free will, and thus inherently acknowledges it.

If any of these are wrong, then we are all - almost every single member of the human species - making decisions based on fundamentally wrong assumptions every single day. Virtually every single decision made rests on these principles, from the micro to macro scale: remove any of these concepts and the whole basis for human society and existence on Earth changes dramatically. I believe the particular assumption you've latched onto in this case is the concept of a "self", "soul" or other cohesive identity - if there is a self, there's control, so there's control to be lost - if there is no self, "control" doesn't even apply, so you can't lose it.

If that sounds like what you're publishing, then good luck with it. If not, then I'll start a separate thread.
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
[quote author=voodoo scientist link=topic=924.msg4688#msg4688 date=1248442265]
I think I get what you're saying, and if it is that (most disorders have a limited number of shared root causes, and it is much more effective to treat them than the symptoms), then I have a similar theory: the field of psychology has many 'sacred cows' that are cultural constructs which greatly complicate all aspects of treatment.

I'm talking very fundamental concepts that we assume are integral to 'being human' at all. You may have seen me rant about the concept of free will, and I believe free will is one of the many wrong base assumptions made in psychology. So is the notion of right and wrong, responsibility and the assumption that emotion is something sacrosanct and unmeasurable.

Even if I'm wrong about any one of these, consider the impact if any of these assumptions were decisively found to be wrong: if it was found that we don't have free will, capitalism and democracy would both be flawed concepts, as would every single type of government that has ever existed - even authoritarianism is based on the premise of controlling free will, and thus inherently acknowledges it.

If any of these are wrong, then we are all - almost every single member of the human species - making decisions based on fundamentally wrong assumptions every single day. Virtually every single decision made rests on these principles, from the micro to macro scale: remove any of these concepts and the whole basis for human society and existence on Earth changes dramatically. I believe the particular assumption you've latched onto in this case is the concept of a "self", "soul" or other cohesive identity - if there is a self, there's control, so there's control to be lost - if there is no self, "control" doesn't even apply, so you can't lose it.

If that sounds like what you're publishing, then good luck with it. If not, then I'll start a separate thread.
[/quote]
rather inspiring post Voodoo scientist.
The trouble with such approaches is that, as you are no doubt already aware, you are taking an absolutists position. As I do and have done on many occasions.
Applying "absolutism" to a subject can do amazing things as far as personal growth and insight and simultaneously generate societal alienation and isolation as certain truths about self are revealed.
That said doesn't imply that one should not do so in fact it is only when looking at terms in absolute ways one can actually get rid of all the hubris that confuses and obscures the solutions you are looking for. So many people allowing mediocracy to rule their thoughts.
You have touched upon freewill as an absolute concept, as with identity of self and mentioned root aspects of human psychology. No doubt you have worked on issues such absolute objectivity and it's companion absolute subjectivity and so on.....these endeavours can be most enlightening and surprisingly difficult to do.

So yes when I have tested the statement The fear of loosing control or the fear of losing ones mind is at the root of all sentience I do not mean it lightly or in non-absolute terms. I am referring to it as the essence of what maintains "sanity" [order] and that when it is dysfunctional "insanity" [chaos] is the outcome.
In a therapeutic sense it is only when family and medical support staff realise that a disturbed patient or client is in a "do or Die" situation that their treatments can be most effective. To say "Oh it'll be ok here is a tablet that will mollify your anxiety" they are simply denying the reality of what is happening not only to the client but also to themselves and the society they live in.

It is a part of human nature to deny what it fears as way of maintaining their sense of status quo and their reluctance to endure the suffering needed to move forward to greener pastures.

Do you think this is a fair assessment of your approach and mine?
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
I believe the particular assumption you've latched onto in this case is the concept of a "self", "soul" or other cohesive identity - if there is a self, there's control, so there's control to be lost - if there is no self, "control" doesn't even apply, so you can't lose it.
this is incredibly profound IMHO and deserves a thread on it's own any way.....you can only lose what you have , not what you haven't and when one fears losing self control then they have already lost it...
 

SWM

May 2008
2,314
0
[quote author=ozziemate link=topic=924.msg4675#msg4675 date=1248309328]
The idea originates from deep philsophical understandings about the nature of the human condition.

Psychosis wher by the person is ignorant of their "ignorance" [ note : ignorant of their "ignorance" is a statement that has taken nearly 6 years to arrive at and yet once arrived at makes a lot of sense - to me any way][/quote]

could you explain more about the development of psychosis and or schizophrenia according to your philosophical understanding.


The fundamental premise is that when a person is suffering from persecution and intimidation fears they invariably amplify their belief in themselves as in a lot of cases very few people have maintained belief in them.
you are missing something of immense proportion to the subject. at this point the patient is already ill. persecution and intimidation fears are in response to the symptoms of psychosis. using auditory hallucinations as an example. A patient hearing voices is not hearing voices because they fear they are going mad. they hear voices and then they may fear they are going mad. speaking generally of course not all cases will be as clear cut as that. other patients may hear voices and believe they are in communion with god. fear of madness as far as i am aware is not a recognised feature of psychotic disorders. it is a recognised feature of the anxiety disorders.


Thus it could be claimed that pyschosis ironically is a reaction to an intense fear of "self delusion" which no doubt others have instilled due to disagreeement with that persons initial beliefs.
i think you are putting the cart before the horse. you are explaining how a person becomes ill as a reaction to the symptoms of their illness.



The old "if you believe in it strong enough it will come true" applies most definitely in this case.
Of course this is not exclusively the domain just of pyschosis but fuels most belief systems whether they be founded in reality or not. And of course most beliefs are far from being founded and yet most people seem to function reasonably well.

"Belief is only a mere stepping stone on the path towards truth but when a person belives the belief to be a truth, that is when we have a psychosis" ~ ss 2007
from notes : differentiation between belief and knowledge"
i do agree that dysfunctional beliefs are a huge aspect of psychotic disorders.



I am currently about to publish a methodology on how to not only prevent the advent of significant mental health issues but also to offer sound theraputic solutions that can actually not only restore a person to a healthier state but also allow for the maturation that surviving these sorts of things can generate. Experience so far has been very promising, but needs proper recognition / assessment prior to becoming accepted mainstream professionals.
i would certainly be interested in understanding more of this methodology. i do believe that the current attitude towards severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychosis do not allow for the person to grow from their experinces, people are protected from their suffering in such way that they are denied the opportunity to develop an understanding of their mind and its relation to their reality.
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
you are missing something of immense proportion to the subject. at this point the patient is already ill. persecution and intimidation fears are in response to the symptoms of psychosis. using auditory hallucinations as an example. A patient hearing voices is not hearing voices because they fear they are going mad. they hear voices and then they may fear they are going mad. speaking generally of course not all cases will be as clear cut as that. other patients may hear voices and believe they are in communion with god. fear of madness as far as i am aware is not a recognised feature of psychotic disorders. it is a recognised feature of the anxiety disorders.
And what do you believe is the patients state of mind leading up to onset of such symptoms as auditory hallucinations?
Normally a person just doesn't go from being "normal" and healthy of mind to hallucination with out some degradation. It is proposed that that initial degradation is caused by the onset of paranoia, due to either no advice, bad advice, over emphasis on sensational medical opinion and statistics and so on....leading eventually to the state where the mind is now over loaded with the stresses associated and starts to express itself vividly not only in an auditory fashion but also often in a visual fashion.
Also it is as I said in the maintenance of a healthy mind that fear plays a significant role in keeping things in check so to speak. It is when this fear based maintenance becomes extreme due to fears and stresses that paranoia sets in leading to severe situations such as those you have described.
So yes at this stage the horse "fear" is well before the cart...and as yet I have not found reason to change my opinion.
Also as a nother angle....
Most "normal " people constantly suffer minor glitches in their perceptions and think nothing of it. Hear sounds that don't have any reality to them and generally treat them as inconsequential and like wise with visual errors of perception.
I am suggesting that when a person starts to consider these routine and insignificant errors with emphasis we can start to see paranoia and fear of losing your mind set in to the point where the whole tapestry of mental order can be fragmented.

Example:
Years ago I noticed for the first time a little squiggly line had formed in my field of vision. I was concerned that I had developed a mental problem becaus ethe squiggly thing didn't appear to be associated with either eye. After about 2 weeks of brroding an dworrying I decided fortunately to go to my GP nd ask the questions I needed to ask.
The GP [ old family doctor] just smiled and said "me we are getting older aren't we?" Going on to state that the squiggly thing was comonly referred to as a floater and was benign and harmless and a part of getting older. [ I was about 22 years old at the time]
So I left the surgery greatly relieved and thankful that I had got the courage to go see him. However I do recall starting to fret about getting older as I left the surgery [ chuckle]
The poitn being that depending on my state of mind and other factors happening in my life at the time I coudl have developed a serevr fear based problem [ anxiety] leading possibly on to eventually psychosis...as my fear of degrading perception [ not just vision] increased over time [ I thought I was imagining this squiggly thing as it didn't appear to be at all real.] I might add 30 years alater I still have it and it gives me something to do when I am bored. Moving it around with my "mind" and not my eyes fills in time every now and then.
 
Jan 2009
104
0
Melbourne Australia
i would certainly be interested in understanding more of this methodology. i do believe that the current attitude towards severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychosis do not allow for the person to grow from their experinces, people are protected from their suffering in such way that they are denied the opportunity to develop an understanding of their mind and its relation to their reality.
Illnesses such as schizophrenia can IMO be an incredible opportunity to develop self restraint and matur in ways that normal people can't.
Schizophrenia if treated properly by society and the patient themselves can be an incredible opportunity to explore ones potential.
In Yoga it is often refered to as an "ungoverend awakening of the third eye chakra" and treated accordingly [a couple of art house movies have been made on the subject] It is unfortunately loaded with intense cnfusion and suffering and if not given the correct support can be devestating however if given the right support and understanding [ as they tend to do in Eastern theoretics and philosophy] the suffering can be endured and the person can even go onto a state of "sage" or a person with great wisdom borne of suffering....
Learning to control the imagination is probably the hardest thing a person can ever hope to acheive.

So there are ways of looking at this condition as either a huge burden when we think of the Western ' must have it now " mentality or a huge potential for a persons growth and not only in this life time either....[ Eastern beliefs concernng reincarnation and so on play asignificant role in societal attitudes and support.
The West hoever is onlyinteretsted as a rule in productivity and making the best of a limited life time, thus time pressure in the West for results is huge compared to the East....and so on... write a book or two and you would only be touching on the subject...
 
Jun 2009
531
0
[quote author=ozziemate link=topic=924.msg4696#msg4696 date=1248477908]So yes when I have tested the statement The fear of loosing control or the fear of losing ones mind is at the root of all sentience I do not mean it lightly or in non-absolute terms. I am referring to it as the essence of what maintains "sanity" [order] and that when it is dysfunctional "insanity" [chaos] is the outcome.[/quote]

We're not quite on the same wavelength, but I think we're at least in the same ballpark. Where we differ exactly is in this quote: you are saying that the question of control is at the root of all sentience. I am saying that it has nothing to do with sentience at all - like a global red herring.