Why do you make up such things?
My “things” come from the latest scholarship and several years of experience with one who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Please read E, Fuller Torrey on schizophrenia.
So 1 person has suddenly gained total insight and are able to fully contradict the entire medical science and shrinks. To convince me i’m afraid that you have to explain it a bit further rather than giving a claim that contradicts almost a century of such knowledge.
Ad hominem does not deserve answers. You have offered no counter information to my claims–just a vague “century of such knowledge”.
Actually, I think it fits “obsession”, but that is about it.
Don’t turn this into an ad hom, just answer my simple question please.
The ad hom was mutual. I’m sorry, but I cannot respond to such phrases as “century of such knowldege”. Obe did offer me a reasonable challenge. Bye.
Come now, i’m sure you are bright enough to make a few citations from that book of yours.
my psychoanalyst says that schizophrenia is a disease…and that we need to find out what causes it…we dont know…
Rather than presume your analyst is a liar, I would go with her being naive.
my analyst is an old guy…he is gay…his wife is a bitch…
Oh well, in that case… it must be right. 
…always believe the gay analyst with a bitch wife.
james----what matters most is whether he is right…what do you think…
A) Schizophrenia is a “disease” (medically induced).
B) “We”, depending on the group, knows all about it; where, why, when, how,…
But that doesn’t really mean that anyone really knows what to do about it. Until then, it might be wiser to lie about who knows what, but I doubt that.
To me, the cause is fundamentally people needlessly trying to control too many other people.
Schizophrenia is merely one of the many symptoms.
james you say schizo is merely one of many symptoms…so schizo is a symptom…what other symptoms are there…
Just about everything you see going on around you.
Void of people messing with other people, the natural homosapian has almost no problems at all other than competition from other animals and aging. Almost all mental illnesses come from other people’s influence and the most serious are the medical variety from germs, toxins, and bad foods/water/air (and sometimes radio transmissions). The psychological factors almost always work themselves out if given the physiological opportunity.
The fact of what schizophrenia may or may not be, is an offshoot of the argument whether the concept of narcissism has any bearing on it. There are borderline situations where the predominant effective dynamics can not be ascerned with certainty… A relatively successful primary/secondary differentiation would tend to indicate a resolution of complexes , such as the Oedipus complex, and in that kind of analysis, James you would be right that the psychologims will work themselves out.
The narcissism in a borderline situation will leave residual primary/secondary confusion resulting in a lack of proper objectivisation of the self, leading to a residual narcissism.
The residual self in a wider archytypical sense, will tend to carry such self/object configurations as the obsessive nature with the self in relation to its environment. The kind of obsession schopenhauer brought forward with his Vanity of Existence, and sustained later by Nietzche’s will to power. This will is not a clinically narcissistic will, since it has found a venue, at a time when the world was receptive to it. But isn’t the will to power, an attempt to overcome obstacles against the objective morality which stands in the way of subjective notions of value?
I think that is true, but I don’t see the relevance.
Narcissism isn’t quite the same as “will to power”.
Will to power is merely stubbornness, lust, ambition, and faith.
Narcissism is over focus on one’s own attributes, whether strong, weak, good, or bad, not necessarily an attempt to accomplish anything.
The relevance is the two sided explanation for the cognitive state: one the phenomelogical/clinical/typical and the other the epiphenomenological/arhytipical/cultural. It's a primary confusion of evaluation. The confusion of pre-Kraepelin concepts suffered this lack. I am not implying that Nietzche was insane in the sense of post ex facto diagnostics. Only suggesting that many of the elements were there, embedded but not clearly understood.
Nietszche was insane like magicians are insane. In the case at hand, people in general are so stupid that the truth appears to them to be some kind of foreign insane force. It’s feared, hated, suppressed, it’s the enemy.
Schizophrenia is about brain chemical imbalance, and genes. It’s a genetic disease, not something that is created from “wrong will”, or “wrong thought”. That is why the meds can make it reduce or completely reseed.