I am not here to write a thesis. I will make my points simple and short, and I will preface this by saying I speak mostly from experience and little from academia. I am not here to try and argue a point, or to try and argue against a point, but to illumanate what I have found to be true.
Here are some thoughts I have of the relationship between the two archetypes: the schizo and the genius.
The schizo is related to the genius in the fact that the schizo “receives” (not necessarily “imagines”) ideas that are unique and profound, but unlike the genius, he cannot communicate to society or possibly even himself these ideas. All humans are required by society to either prove or create great arguments on their side in order prove to people their genuis. The schizo is simply incapable of doing this. He cannot translate his profound experiences into either arguments or proofs.
The schizo has lost any sort of “centre” or reference point that he could potentially use as a basis for his arguments/ideas. The genius requires some sort of “platform”, so to speak, to base his ideas on. The schizo has long ago abandoned this platform, as he cannot take seriously any sort of “intelligible in itself”. He has no ground, in face of the fact that no ground can be identified absolutely.
As a result of not being able to identify (with the use of language) any sort of stable “thing-in-itself”, even within himself, the schizo is bound to to the boundless. That is, he cannot bind himself to any one ground and build a coherent/convincing idea/argument from that ground, as he is bound to the boundless. He is bound to the constant fluxation of phenomena that carries his mind from one “ground” to the next. There is no stability. The schizo is a machine that keeps breaking down. The genius can break down, but he will always have something to fall back on (whether it be his conceptual ground, or the social ground that reinforces his ideas, or what have you)
With these three points I know finish my post. You can carry on with the rest or leave it behind. That is up to you.
it is difficult to give credit to the idea the idea that a schizo’s ideas are unique and profound when he cannot communicate them
also, all of my ideas are unique and profound, but i don’t communicate a lot of them. does that make me comparable to a genius when i have trouble communicating them?
i like the idea that a schizo has no ground… but something like that begs a question in my opinion… if you give a schizo some ground to begin processing logic, can he follow? and expand? are you suggesting that a schizo is somehow ‘more’ logical than the average person, or equally as logical as a genius, but simply doesn’t have a starting point? i’m not sure this is the case
i think your ideas are worth exploring… and they probably have been… but i’m not psychologist
perhaps it would make sense to follow the progress… or regress, of someone who developed (developing?) schizophrenia later in life… where someone would presumably have some platform or basis on which to formulate arguments, and then see if/how that basis becomes ‘lost’, at least in the mind of the individual, so that we (or me, or others who agree with me) can strengthen or reject the relationship that exists in our minds between the schizo and the genius
First, I don’t like the term “schizo”. The person I know very well who has been diagnosed as having affective schizophrenia, always has a “ground” to fall back on. The logic in her world (sense of reality) is as real to her as the logic in your world is to you. She will defend it in her own terms. As for genius, sorry, but I never met one.
Anyway, John Nash was a genius who also suffered from schizophrenia.
That’s a good idea that I believe would be worth exploring.
As for the other poster who was offended by word “schizo” I will reply to your post sooner than later. Let it be known that I have been dianosed with schizo-affective disorder for a long time now. As I said in my OP, most of my thoughts come from experience rather than academia.
actually there is no difference. geniuses are not understood by society. there is nothing different in being a schizo or genius when it comes to psychology because the whole thing is based on what the average person/mass society believes to be true.
One is about behavior and an inability to be logical or rational (average onliner).
The other is about having a skill set involved in problem solving (almost the opposite).
But both are in the midst of social labeling schemes designed to control popular thought. Both are victims of warring.
You should meditate on what you can derive from the fact that the human mind is linguistically based, however, you have not been taught that it uses the two primitive categories of reason, logic and analogic. What the human mind does, in any range of intellect is use these languages and the competence of that mind is directly related to the integrity to those languages that mind can manage.
This idea goes back to the beginning of philosophy itself. Confucius, Plato, and also the foundation of Judeo-Christian Scripture.
Now the principles of language are not realize or taught, however I do post elementary work on each.
Well, I see you have not studied the two -element metaphysics. Language is a craft, and every environmental system of a living organism is craft based. Which means, linguistically based.
How in the hell can a mind evolve to manipulate reality if there was not an identity involved?
You just denied the first principle of reasoning. Good show.
So you equate “craft” with “linguistics”??
Something tells me you might have need of a little linguistics study.
And your “two-element” metaphysics seems a very dim light next to Rational Metaphysics.
I suspect that concern of “rational” has something to do with it.
Really? Which of us understands language better, the one who has laid out the principles of a new language, or the one who cannot manipulate a synonym?
Haha…
…I would say the one of us who understands the foundation of the laws of physics is the better metaphysicist.
As to who is the better linguist, I would have to say the one who knows the difference.
Intelligence design was my carrier and I tell you that what you are calling language doesn’t appear within the intelligence spectrum until a consciousness is developed. Now if you want to refer to the communication of categories (sets and subsets) and labels going on within the fundamental algorithms as “linguistics”, then you can claim your case. But that is a stretch. We don’t even refer to programming languages as “linguistics”.
{I would think a linguistics expert would know that}
