How the Schizophrenic Mind Works

Everything people with schizophrenia do (assuming they are logical people) is absolutely logical. It is consistent with reason, and perfectly sane. A person with schizophrenia who understands the mandates of logic and reason, is skilled in ethics, acute in understanding, perfectly level-headed, with a correct view of the world, will display symptoms of schizophrenia. She will believe people attack them in their sleep. She will stare into space and become unresponsive to stimuli. She will experience anxiety and stress. It is not that she is stubborn. It is not that she is immature. So why do she acts the way she does, if she is perfectly sane?

What would you do in a room with a rapist? You would be very wary of their every move. You would avoid them at all costs, or if you cannot avoid them, you would at least lock your door at night. You would try to reason with them: "If you rape and attack people all your life," you would say, "you won't have many friends. People will call you a rapist. You will go to jail. You will lose your job."

But what is rape? Do you even know? Have you ever been raped? Most people with schizophrenia have never been raped. But they see people nodding their heads. They see people curling their lips into a smile. They see people snapping their fingers and making a pistol of their hand. By the force of logic, this all screams "Rape! Murder! Incest! Conspiracy!"

This seems very illogical. But honestly, what is logic? With no reference point, logic disappears. Suppose you are ten years old, and you have never lost a toy before. You put your toy down on the counter, with the vague feeling that you will remember it when you need it. Next thing you know, you can't find it. Did you behave illogically? Of course not. It is not deductively valid to say that placing toys on the counter leads to losing them—it is a logical fallacy. The best you can do is have a loving parent tell you, "If you don't set aside a place for your toys, you will end up losing them." Now, you have a reference point. You think; "Putting toys in random places —> losing them." At this point it is logically valid to say, "Assuming the counter is a random place, if I put my toy there, I will lose it." This is logic.

Now a person with schizophrenia is a human being. Because she is human, she feels a sense of connection when people smile at her. It creates a special feeling in her mind. So, she knows, "This special feeling is means communication." It is now highly logical for her to say, "If I experience this special feeling, I must be experiencing communication." Similarly, she feels a different kind of connection when people yell at her. This comes with it's own special feeling. And so on for other feelings.

Now television, newspapers, books, etc. give us an image of what the mind of a rapist is like. What they convey has a sense of realism to it. Why? Because it is connected with our personal experiences. Clearly, the person with schizophrenia has the same image. She knows, "When I feel this way, I have had that experience." She knows, "This special feeling generally indicates a communication of lust." Someone nods their head at her. She feels that special feeling. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to assume that she is in danger of being raped. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to behave in a paranoid manner. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to lock her doors, to plead with the person not to rape her, or hitchhike to California. She knows this person must logically be a rapist. It is clear and obvious. Here's the argument in standard form:

1. Special feeling —> communication of that which leads to rape.
2. Special feeling.
   ----------------------
3. Rape is imminent.

Logic is the most valuable tool we have. Why should we oppose logic?

Now, consider the statement: "If the people on TV claim that rapists are commonly jailed, commonly lose their friends, commonly are socially ostracized, and I know rapists who are not jailed, do not lose their friends, are not socially ostracized, then the people on TV are lying." Perfectly reasonable, right? Of course it is. Therefore, for the person with schizophrenia, it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, "People on TV lie all the time." It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, there must be a conspiracy. It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to believe that all of society is against her.

Now, if all of society is against you, and you know that someone is going to rape you, would you defend yourself? Of course you would. A person with schizophrenia knows by the force of logic that she will be raped, that society is against her, and that it is perfectly reasonable for her to defend herself. So she sprays her best friend with mace. Is this wrong of her? Is this unethical? Of course not. It is ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDABLE. 

What does this make the mental hospital? Unjust. It is an enforcement of arbitrary authority. It creates nothing but pure confusion. No one behaves specifically to gain admittance to a mental hospital. They behave logically, reasonably, understandably, and suddenly, they are in a mental hospital. What would you do if someone stalked you, sent you threatening notes, called you on the phone ten times a day? You would call the police. What if you know the police won't come, and the person is in the same room with you, looks at you, and walks toward you, clearly communicating lust? You would spray the person with mace. What would you do if they sent you to a mental hospital? If you get angry at the mental hospital, and they tackle you to the floor and shoot tranquilizers in your ass? You would be bewildered, traumatized, confused. Reality? What reality? Reality makes no sense. There is no justice. There is no comfort.

Medications may help. But they do not cure. So to many people with schizophrenia, they do nothing but confuse. Why am I taking medications? I know that that person was trying to rape me earlier. He may not be trying to rape me now, but what of that? Me taking medications won't make him any less of a rapist. Sure, it may be bizarre that all of a sudden he doesn't have lust. But what does that have to do with me? These medications haven't done a thing. I see things in exactly the same way as before, only now I have side effects. Furthermore, I know society is screwed up, that there are massive conspiracies afoot, and that anyone may be in on it. It's not that they aren't rapists, they're just trying to make me take medications. Screw it, I'm going off my meds.

Sending a person with schizophrenia to the mental hospital will not change anything. Nor will prescribing medications to them. What is the solution? The only solution is to teach them to abandon logic. Abandon comfort. Abandon justice. Accept nothing but pure experience, no matter what the situation. Suppose they will rape you—what of that? People get raped. You just have to deal with it. Suppose you taking medications doesn't make others stop raping people—what of that? The trained psychiatric professional says, you must take your medications. Why not put him in the driver's seat for a while?

Our experiences are fallible. Our communication is arbitrary. Our ideals are empty. There is no truth in thoughts, in words, in objects. The only truth is in the mind. People with schizophrenia, just as everyone else, will do well to learn this. They will stop being paranoid. They will stop spraying people with mace. They will stop being angry. I guarantee the world will be a better place, no matter where they are—mental hospital or elsewhere.

Metaphilosophy

There are four tenets to a good philosophy. It must be interesting and sincere, coherent, consistent, and truthful.

To be interesting and sincere, the philosophy must stem from personal experience. One must have a deep insight into what one philosophizes over, and one must have the ability to put the insight into words to some degree. Of course, regarding high, philosophical concepts, words often fail. Nevertheless, one must try to make the philosophy meaningful.

A philosophy being coherent stems from it being interesting and sincere. The words have to make some measure of logical sense. The sentences must relate to experiences that we can recognize. In short, the philosophy must be grounded in reality. Really, this is simply a check on the sincerity of the philosophy. If the philosophy stems from empirical observation, it is naturally coherent, because nature itself is coherency in the flesh.

There is only one way for a philosophy to be consistent: the philosophy cannot make unwarranted postulations. This requirement is intimately tied up with the other requirements, because if the philosophy is sincere and coherent, it must be consistent. If one sees a red ball on a table, one can use the fact, "I see a red ball on a table" to improve their philosophy; this would be a sincere, coherent, and consistent statement. (An interesting side-note: I do not, at this moment, see a red ball on a table. Did I have the right to write that sentence? Is it a legitimate observation? This would make a great debate. I hold that I do have the right to make counterfactual observations, because one way to define reality is by what it is not. Anyone care to take this on? You don't necessarily have to disagree either -- you could just expound upon the idea. But, I digress.) But one cannot take the extra step and say "life is like a red ball on a table" with no evidence, because that is an unwarranted postulation.

For a philosophy to be truthful, it must be the same as telling the truth. You have to actually believe what you are saying. It cannot be a lie.

A great philosophy, I believe, is humble. It states the facts, humbly, with no extra stuff that you just made up. It gives insight because of its simplicity. It is full of meaning, yet devoid of postulations. That is my philosophy of philosophy.

The Negative Magnolia

Searching, finding, classifying, using, reading, talking, reporting, sitting, standing, walking can all be done in entropy. This entropy has a dulling effect on the mind, like carbon dioxide has on the planet. Experience can be closed — it can exist inside a building with no windows. Keeping busy keeps you in the system; it keeps you indoors, breathing old air and reading yellow pages between musty book covers. I look for these things, like a bee looks for flowers.

The open door. It is defined by spacial constraints, but it is an anti-object. I walk outside: which brings the new. The sparkling air brings externalism — I feel fresh. I don't refer to internal things anymore. I don't refer to flowers within flowers. I can go inside an object, I can go through an anti-object. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing — the door. It's a happy thing. If we had no doors, no cracks in the walls, we could have no objects. If we had no objects, we could have no doors. Really, looking through the anti-object is as beautiful as looking inside the object.

Forms of Moral and Immoral Thought

Much of the time moral thought is covered by mundane decisionmaking. Sometimes, when one thinks of moral issues, they reach an obstacle to further thought — or a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas seem to come in four forms. These four forms are as follows:

The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.

An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.

The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.

An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.

The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.

An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.

The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.

An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.

Thought that overturns moral decisionmaking generally comes in three forms. The three forms are as follows:

Moral Rationalization: Where one searches for and comes up with a moral line of reasoning specifically to justify an immoral act.

Moral Hesitation: Where one feels an urge to do a moral act, and suppresses it. Usually this is followed by Moral Rationalization.

Moral Overwhelming: Where a strong emotion such as anger or guilt overwhelms one's decisionmaking, causing one to make a bad decision.

As with any dilemma or problem, moral problems are solved with patience and methodological thought.