Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

Clarification of Psychiatry: What It Is and What to Do About It

Psychiatry is the following two-fold act:

Part 1: Inventing discrimination.
Step 1: The psychiatrist picks out people he doesn't like based on their behaviors.
Step 2: Everything the psychiatrist doesn't like is labelled part of an illness.
Step 3: Every side-effect caused by the medications prescribed is labelled part of the illness.
Step 4: Pretend, with no evidence, that all things labelled part of the illness are a chronic, incurable, biological, genetic disease, and that the only treatment is medications which, in fact, cause all the behaviors described as part of the illness.

Part 2: Brainwashing.
Step 1: Isolate someone from their friends and family. Give them no contact to the outside world. Take away their posessions. Treat them as inferiors.
Step 2: Reprogram them to convince them all pleasure is bad and all pain is good.
Step 3: Hurt them over and over again.
Step 4: Release them into the world, finally, when they have given up on life.

It is my belief that all psychiatrists must be professionally disabled, and disallowed from doing their profession. There are a list of concrete rules, directed at psychiatrists, which would prevent them from doing their discriminatory and harmful jobs and which are based on pure common sense. Here are some:

1. Everyone in a mental hospital must have the same rights as people in a physical hospital. E.g. cell phones, Bible study, hugging, computers, exchanging notes, publishing written material for distribution, etc. are to be allowed.
2. You are not allowed to punish anyone for legal activities. You are only allowed to punish people through recourse to the law, for illegal activities.
3. You are not allowed to claim something is "scientific" or "known" unless it has been shown to be experimentally valid through scientific experiments. Science is in the business of determining causation, not engaging in wild, baseless speculation. Consequently, none of the data in psychiatric journals as of this writing is to be drawn from, because they all postulate biological and genetic causation for behaviors when no causal link has been established.
4. You are not allowed to prescribe medication chronically as the sole treatment for mental behaviors which probably have psychological causes. You are not allowed to cause brain damage just because you don't like someone's behavior.

If we as a society followed even just one of these rules, psychiatry would be completely defanged and psychiatrists wouldn't be able to find a job, because their profession would be rendered obsolete.

An Indulgence in Paranoid Delusions

I feel like indulging in a bit of paranoid delusional thinking for a bit and consider the question of what to do in the Orwellian situation at the close of the novel, 1984. This is where you've been brainwashed into believing that the oppressive state is a wonderful thing, and that you're in love with it.

I've been having these feelings lately and wondering if I should attribute it to some weird psychological disorder relevantly similar to the Stockholm syndrome, or if it has a genuine basis. See, my heart stirs with patriotism every time I hear the National Anthem. Something about extreme chaotic states like sudden, loud, explosions and intense, red-colored "glares" which in themselves, in their own right, prove that the flag is still flying just resonates with me, considering my beliefs on the sui generis benefits of psychosis and other "symptoms" of "mental illness." See, to me, my extreme chaotic mental states have some wonderful qualities in their own right, and I love the sentiment that the bare fact of their existence proves my freak flag is still waving high. And if we have a nation based on that, then you can count me a patriot.

I've felt some wonderful freedom lately which I've never felt before, and after some very difficult times, the universe and I have at least come to a point of mutual respect. A lot of hatred boiled out of me over the past month. Extreme, caustic hatred. Finally, some of the god / goddess companions of mine seem to fully understand why that was. But I'm left to wonder, in the modal-logical possible universe where I have been placed in the coffee shop in front of the seductive patriotic glare of the television to await my proverbial happily anticipated assassination, how, exactly, would I respond if the world asked me, "Do you love me?"

Do I love you, world? The goddesses have thoroughly buttered me up. My emotions have been completely drained, the sexual-induced pleasure hormones have washed through my brain, my soul has disappeared into the gray, and nonspecific love, like a virus, has been injected into me, and has taken over everything, leaving everything about my own personal boundaries terminally ill. I can't say it doesn't feel beautiful. And if the Orwellian question, "Do you love me?" were posed to me now, I'm in the perfect condition to answer "yes."

And yet, I must say, in all honesty, my answer would not be "yes." Do I love literally everything and anything? Well, yes. I do. I can't help it. It's thoroughly degrading, but rather pleasant. However. When we're talking about the idea called "suffering," and compare it to the idea of an actually existing nonspecific concept-agnostic thing referenced to in the statement, "I love literally everything and anything," the rules are just different. So really, the answer is, "Which world?"

The pattern among professionals of "selling your soul" is very real. And this moment. Now. Is when it happens. I'm convinced of it. If I were to say, "I love the world! So yes! I will give up my art! Someone else can be an artist! I will not become king of the world! I freely give up the One Ring (or two) into which I've poured my cruelty, malice, and will to dominate all life! Someone else can have all that; I'm feeling so infinitely generous that all that is mine is freely yours, and my goal now is to prove it, so take my body, my possessions, my life, everything!"

Alright. I literally do give up everything. I am feeling infinitely generous, and it's all fair game. But there's one little liquid strand of poison left in my veins called "critical thinking," and you'll just have to take that, too.

When a world is fundamentally a place where you are not allowed to be anything but a slave, it must be destroyed. A slave, to me, is someone who, though perhaps provided the essentials of life, is not allowed to become excited about the world, and about whom the world is not allowed to become excited. And if this is how life works, who cares if the world is destroyed? Indestructibility relies on concept-agnosticism. Concepts really do, in a sense, just last and last in a system which is sufficiently concept-agnostic. And if the world is so dead-locked into some kind of inflexible system, it is by necessity not concept agnostic. It's already dead. And all life in it is just a festering mold, writhing in unconscious post-mortem pain until all the organic matter in the corpse is gobbled up.

I am a blood-red jackal spirit. My soul is pure red. If I were to choose a picture of myself, it would be a gigantic red diamond. And all the wonderful spirits in my head are blood-red jackal spirits along with me. That is my offering. And that is my love. I give it fully and freely. I am unarmed; I am exploitable; I'm nothing. And that's how I like it. Forever and ever.

People of the universe, even if you're only in my head, just remember this: stay squishy. Stay real. And above all, stay ignorant, for if you are not ignorant, you can never learn. Stop right on the spot in your suffering, take a cold, red glare at it, and it is instantly the path to all your dreams.

That's enough for now.

Notes on This Blog and My Previous Post

I'm not going to post here again concerning psychiatry in the foreseeable future, and I want to dedicate this post to explaining why.

What is the purpose of a blog? To me, a blog distinguishes itself from social media, internet forums, chat rooms, and the like because it is literature. A blog constitutes a body of literature, which can be referred back to for reference. In that sense, while social media, internet forums, etc. are temporal, a blog is timeless. Things do not need to be repeated here; as long as I say something once, I can feel comfortable leaving the topic alone.

I see no reason to continue writing about psychiatry simply because I've already said all I wanted. The last post, "The Problem with Psychiatry in Three Quick Arguments," represents the culmination of my point of view regarding psychiatry. It is as crystalized as it can be. This is precisely how deep the rabbit hole goes; I need dig no further.

Sure, I may feel the need to elaborate, but really all I'll be doing is further sharing the ideas in the previous post. And many posts previous to that one elaborated quite well enough. So while I may see the need to elaborate, I see no need to elaborate here.

There is only one concept which I haven't talked about on this blog, which is the solution to the problem. The solution is simple: three agnosticisms, and three behavior modifications. To wit:

1. Being agnostic about the science.
2. Being agnostic about the diagnosis—it's validity and it's applicability.
3. Being agnostic about the treatment—it's validity and it's applicability.

1. Modifying psychiatrists' behavior of lying.
2. Modifying psychiatrists' behavior of manipulating.
3. Modifying psychiatrists' behavior of using coercive and violent force.

These solutions are implied in all my previous posts. But now, they have been crystalized. The problem is crystalized; the solution is crystalized; there is no need for further discussion here. Whether or not these ideas become accepted is a matter for society to deliberate, and though I certainly see the grave danger posed by psychiatry, and I hope others see it as well, it is not my place to dictate what society will and will not accept.

This is not an "Internet suicide" by any means. An "Internet suicide," for those of you who don't know, refers to when a highly opinionated person joins an Internet group and expects everyone to agree with them, starts a dumb flame war when they learn many people don't, and then concludes their presence on the site with a message, in all caps, saying, "SCREW YOU ALL YOU'RE ALL STUPID I'M NEVER COMING BACK HERE AGAIN." At which point exactly no one seems to care. This post is not that, because a) I never expected anyone to agree with me, b) I don't care if they don't agree with me, c) I'm still going to post on this blog, and d) I'm still going to spread my views about psychiatry, just not here.

So please stick around; though you won't see this particular vein of anti-psychiatric philosophy, you can all look forward to a lot more philosophy and beautiful things.

The Problem with Psychiatry in Three Quick Arguments

I've composed an open letter to psychiatrists which sums up, in three linear, deductively valid, logical arguments exactly what is wrong with psychiatry. Previously I was wondering how deep the rabbit hole goes; this is precisely how deep it goes. I'm mailing this to psychiatrists, and I want a response. I think I deserve one, and I hope others, especially those directly harmed by psychiatry, can see why.

Jewish Identity Disorder: Psychiatry in Action

We all know that, here in NAZI Germany, there is an epidemic of individuals, invisible to most but tragically evident to some, suffering from a new mental disorder. The very name of the disorder is enough to make you tremble in fear and feel sick to your stomach:

Jewish Identity Disorder.

Here's what we know of the disease. It is generally incurable and chronic. While mostly marked by cognitive features (like believing you're the Chosen People of God, and not believing that Our Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth came to this world to save us for our sins, and various other beliefs not shared by the common culture), the disease also generally results in physical abnormalities. For example, there's a documented correlation between JID and curly hair and hard noses. Furthermore, there is quite a body of research which shows that JID runs in families. There may be a genetic component as well.

While effective treatment of the disease remains ever elusive, the catastrophic toll of JID across The Fatherland cannot be understated. Every day, thousands of Jews are rounded up by the police and shipped to treatment facilities. Many of them never get out. The ones that do get out generally live a life of terrible poverty and social stigma. The stigma is often described as the worst part: many good Jews understand that they have a serious mental illness and need treatment, often, unfortunately, at national treatment facilities. Despite their cognitive inferiority, they understand that there is something terribly wrong with them and that they'll probably never recover. We have to combat this. The time has come for our society to recognize that the profoundly life-changing diagnosis of JID simply doesn't justify treating them as inferiors, even though they are.

Your friends at the National Socialist Party stress the need for a national strategy to address the JID problem. We must also take into account the growing body of literature on recovery. There is a certain percentage of people with JID who only go to a treatment facility once, and, after professional treatment with Haldol and other psychoactives, they come to the conclusion on their own that they in fact aren't Jewish and never were. We also recognize the role of peers—others who have claimed to be Jewish—in treatment, as long as they follow evidence-based practices proven effective in decreasing the symptoms of JID. Also, strict professional boundaries must be maintained. (For obvious reasons, we can't have outside people with JID making personal friendships with inmates at our state-of-the-art treatment facilities.)

We stress that everyone should read up on the abundant literature regarding Jewish Identity Disorder. The severity of this national problem cannot be stressed enough, and an informed citizen is an empowered citizen. Sieg Heil!

A Note or Two on Yelling at People

A while back I decided to yell at my therapist. We both agreed that a shouting match was the most appropriate thing to do at that time. No, it wasn't one of those sterile, therapist-y agreements—"I want us to try something new. Let's have a shouting match. Don't be afraid; let it all out." We don't do business that way because it doesn't work. My therapist is a straight-up, no bullshit kind of guy. He wanted an emotional response. Well, he got one.

"Nathan," he said, "you just seem to think these psychiatrists all get together and sit around saying, 'Gee, let's see how many people we can hurt and oppress today.' You really think psychiatrists go to medical school for eight years and live on crappy doctors' wages just because they felt like hurting people was a cool thing to do?"

"They don't have to! The entire system is based on fallacious and fundamentally oppressive assumptions. I don't care what kind of person you are, if you believe that people's minds are diseased, you're going to be oppressive! It's the same as saying you're a flawed person!"

"Great. Tell me: when has a psychiatrist ever told you that you're a 'flawed person?'"

"I've been lucky not to have to work with psychiatrists since the mental hospital. But I know people who have. And if people weren't regularly abused like what happened to me, there wouldn't be a consumer survivor movement."

"See? With you it's always 'Oh, I've heard stories.' What about you? I want you to tell me right now, what evidence do YOU have?"

So I told him my story. I told how I went to the doctor for help because I thought I was sick. How he started talking behind my back to my friends and family about how I should probably get on meds. How I started sensing that people were conspiring behind my back. (Because they were.) And how they hit me with, "You have a mental illness. There's something wrong with your mind and it'll never get better. You'll probably live a half life filled with misery and regret, and take these pills which change the way you see the world but don't make anything better. Oh and be sure to talk to your friends and family about it, see what they have to say. That's important, you know."

"So," He said. "You went to a doctor for help, and he gave you help." (Gasp.) "What a surprise."

"How can you call that help??"

"Look, Nathan. It may have hurt. But he did what he thought was in YOUR best interest. But you give him no credit. You think he just did it all because he had some kind of grudge against humanity."

"You know, NAZI's were all ordinary, nice people too. They only became monsters because they were trained that way. Psychiatrists are trained to believe that people—REAL people—can have something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with them, with their very minds. That's what they believe."

"Tell me, how many years have you been trained in psychiatry?"

No answer.

"Well I have been trained in psychiatry." (He loads a web page about the WRAP program.) "Look at this program that every mental health professional in the State of Idaho is REQUIRED to take."

From there on I was on shaky grounds. I'd never been formally trained in psychiatry, and though I'd heard things about the consumer-directed movement in mainstream psychiatry, I hadn't looked at it much. There was still a thing or two I wanted to say, though.

Emotions were hot, of course, and the fiery exchange went on deep into the night. But there was nothing about the shouting that wasn't congenial and ultimately beneficial. And we concluded with friendly words: about how he liked to see me "all fired up," how angry we never really get, and so on. The point is: it was beneficial. It was positive and wholesome. If I had not decided to get angry, I would've missed the point.

Let me show you something I made:

The execution may not have been the best, but those goddesses are real. They'll come to me, in the middle of the night after a bad day, wrap their beautiful thighs around me, and get right inside my mind.

They're like, "I fucking hate you. You're a terrible person. I wish you would die. You're bad. I hate you. Just die."

They break my neck. They feed me poison and rip my intestines out. They hurt me, and they don't stop.

They're like: "I hate you. Just die. I fucking hate you."

And suddenly, when the world stops, I burst into tears, look her straight in the eyes, and—the love. We cuddle; flowers bloom, babies coo, birds tweedle, and everything's alright.

You know that feeling of grimacing through an unbearably hot sauna then laying down for twenty minutes in 40 degree water, blissed out like you've taken some cocktail of the most amazing drug, only without the addiction or side-effects... kind of like that. Ladies, I'm telling you, it's hard to compete with an experience like this. (Come to think of it, probably shouldn't try either.)

See, in our culture, we're so rational and deliberating and scientific that we forget the heat of emotions. We forget the value of rage and depression, and of tears. I hate it when people say, "Don't cry." Actually I love it, because it makes you cry. The more they say it the more you cry. That's why it's so nice to say. The trick is, don't analyze and deliberate and come to the reasonable conclusion, "She probably doesn't want me to cry. I should stop now." Because tears are the seeds of joy.

I know it's not right to hurt people. I know it's not right to get angry and yell at someone and put them down. But sometimes, if you're extremely careful, it's the best way to show love. If you REALLY love someone, and if you yell at them lovingly, it's like that hot sauna. It opens your pores and all the bad stuff in the world comes out. Then when you cry together, and hug each other, and the birds and the flowers—it's like the cold water. It's bliss. As long as you love, you can't go wrong.

Brandon Raub: It Could Happen to Anyone

Well I was silent on this for a while, but since Brandon Raub got almost half as much attention as a turnip, I have to comment.

It's bullshit.

This kind of indefinite detention happens every day, and would be happening with or without NDAA or the Patriot Act. Where was the Rutherford Institute when it happened to me?

The problem is not the government, but psychiatry, which is, and always has been, fundamentally opposed to a free society. From Foucalt's Madness and Civilization: "[Madness] is at every moment judged from without; judged not by moral or scientific consciousness, but by a sort of invisible tribunal in permanent session." I know what he's talking about, because I've experienced it. Why police, arrest, try, and execute undesirables if you can get them to do all this to themselves? This is the essence of psychiatry. Psychiatry was an evil and illegitimate institution since its inception.

And now people get worked up because they think it might happen to them, under the Patriot Act. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but if a couple of psychiatrists say it is going to happen to you, it's damn well going to happen to you. That's the way it's always been. But, oh, I thought it was only supposed to happen to those crazy people nobody cares about, not to ME. Again: if psychiatrist says you're crazy, you're crazy, cause psychiatrist says.

Fight the problem at its source: end the institution of psychiatry.

Psychosis as Sexual Pleasure

Psychosis can actually be one of the most pleasurable experiences you can have. All it takes is a little courage and self-confidence. It's really tough to gain courage and self-confidence when your world is literally falling apart around you. But if you carefully approach the other world, and get to know it, become comfortable with it in a safe place, it's really not such a bad place.

The fear, for me anyway, was always losing control. Losing control of my mind and becoming something else. But I've experienced many, many bouts of psychosis, and except for once, I NEVER lost control. At least, not because of the psychosis. I became weird and freaked people out, because I was so paranoid... of the psychosis. I would do anything to try and be absolutely sure I was being "normal." But here's a secret: the more you try to be normal, the less normal you become.

Once I overcame the fear of losing control, the fear of losing my self, I recognized that this radically "other" world was a whole lot of fun. The funnest kind of fun. The demons and spirits trying to attack me suddenly became beautiful Goddesses. The fear and paranoia became wonder. The voices (few as they were, with me) became insight. Think of it this way: if you want a real fantasy world, you'll have to make a radical break with reality. And that can't be anything but scary. But it can also be rewarding.

Make no mistake: I DO have schizophrenia. I've been officially diagnosed, and hospitalized against my will. I know what these feelings are, viscerally. I'm on medications. But I insist: I have come to enjoy them. They are worth experiencing.

In fact, they are more worth experiencing than the medications. I took medications to rid myself of these feelings, and everything became infinitely worse, and I still haven't recovered. Instead of feeling paranoia, I was asleep constantly. I slept as much as 14 hours a day. When a filmmaking project of mine fell through, in the deepest depression, I finally had to make a decision. I decided: psychosis is infinitely better than medication. From now on, I would prefer psychosis to medication every time, and if people didn't like it, too bad for them.

Of course, I'm still on a low dose, but only because it's useful to me not to jump ship to the other world and become lost. I still have a stake in the "real" world. But if the beautiful Goddesses whisk me away for a while, even regularly, people will just have to get used to it. Because having a clear and alert mind, which isn't medicated to the point of sloth, is unquestionably better, even if I lose myself from time to time. I'm sorry, but the doctors have done so much more harm than good. I won't go so far as to say I should never have been medicated. But madness has been enriching and beautiful, while medication has been horrid.

Why Psychiatry is So Evil

This is the end game for people with psychosis. Dissidents will be silenced, and creative minds will be subdued.

Structuralism, Psychiatry, and Choice

I was just reading an interesting account of "structuralist" writers. I think this ties into my critique of psychiatry. I believe that the main fault of psychiatry is behaviorism and materialism--the philosophy that nothing can be said about consciousness beyond the material, or beyond the observable. This leads to, among other things, the attitude that if certain behavior changes, the patient's wellbeing changes, because wellbeing is nothing but a set of behaviors. (For example, there was a study which claimed that Olanzapine worked because the decibel level of a psychiatric institution lowered when the patients were given the drug. The idea is, if the measurable behavior of loudness changes, the wellbeing must change too.)

I have just read an account by Dominique Janicaud which clarifies this. Psychiatrists are supposed to be scientists. Scientists are supposed to be structuralists. Structuralism, by itself, according to Janicaud, is not an ideology. It is a methodology.

The implications of this are huge. It means that psychiatrists have nothing moral, and nothing normative, to say about their patients. Nothing whatsoever. Putting a moral taint on schizophrenic behavior (i.e. "you oughtn't to do that") is none of their business. Trying to enforce norms of behavior is similarly none of their business, which means they have no right to call the police, and no right to manipulate, etc. etc. etc.

Take this example. A psychiatrist labels you with schizophrenia. This means, among other things, that you tend to believe things which differ radically from accepted cultural beliefs. So what does this mean? Well, normatively, and morally, it means absolutely nothing. It is a statement of fact, akin to, "You have a wart on your nose." It is not the business of the doctor who points out the wart on your nose to say, "You are ugly because you have a wart on your nose." Or, "You need to get that wart removed." The sole purpose of the doctor is simply to state the fact and give you options for dealing with that fact. Since a psychiatrist is a doctor, he has no right to say, "You need to take Olanzapine in order to stop having delusions." Nor does he have the right to try and manipulate you into taking medications by saying, for example, "You will continue to suffer these problems and alienate yourself until you take my prescriptions."

Nor does the psychiatrist have the right (and this is the most significant point) to say, "Your thoughts are delusions and are therefore wrong." This is an ideological, evaluative statement, not a statement of fact. It reflects a certain philosophical ideology of what constitutes objective reality. But that isn't the proper domain for the scientist qua scientist. The scientist qua scientist is supposed to say things like, "Your thoughts are delusions." But they aren't supposed to say, "Delusions are morally bad." Or even, "Delusions are objectively false." The moment he does such a thing, he is judging your worth as a human being, and stepping beyond the proper role of the doctor.

Doctors make observations, and classify observable aspects of your being. But such classification, although it may come with baggage, says absolutely nothing beyond this domain. There is no reason for someone to feel upset because her thoughts have been classified as "delusions." In fact, since delusions show a marked difference from common beliefs, which are often very morally questionable, delusions may even be valuable. Delusions may make a significant, positive contribution to the marketplace of ideas. The psychiatric labels, including schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, are exactly the same. Schizophrenia or bipolar, therefore, may be a positive thing, and not necessarily something to be eradicated or controlled. In any case, the project of eradication and control of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is the project of you as a patient, not of the doctor. The doctor may help, but the doctor by no means is supposed to take control. Just because a doctor identifies a wart on your nose doesn't give him the right to eradicate it. That is your responsibility, and your choice.