Why don't some people like some psychiatric medication? (a ramble)

This is a good question that's been poorly answered.

From my experience it's because it takes away too much. It takes away
what is a pleasurable experience as well as what is causing distress at
the time.

It is in describing the internal mind that language becomes weakest and
metaphor best. The inside of people's minds is different. Some people
have a monochrome existence. Others see colour. Others still see bright
and vivid colours. These different colours of experience might be
analogous to being high, i.e. people with monochromatic minds might use
drugs to see colour.

Antipsychotics take away that colour, that richness of internal
experience. Mood stabilisers take away the emotional range from people
who have lived with the highs, the lows and the inbetweens for most of
their life until they're diagnosed as something abnormal.
Antidepressants take away the necessary quality of sadness, enforcing a
poverty on some people they take gladly whereas others might to maintain
the emotional richness of sadness.

It's these effects that make people turn away from medication. It's the
boredom of life that they induce, a boredom as complex to convey as
happiness is, that makes them a poor choice for anyone. Those who make
the choice to accept the effects and the side effects (and the chemical
cosh quality may be an effect and a side effect) make the choice
willingly to sacrifice their richness of life for the hope of normality
and acceptance in a world that doesn't accept certain behaviours
associated with madness, the wealthiest of emotional experiences.

That last thought stems from something I've been thinking about today:
would people in religious settings be more likely to score higher on
psychopathological
measures (i.e. cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia rather than the well
being-type scales). The reason is because I was considering people who
had schizophrenia in the past and many of the saints and sage archetype.
A distant uncle is a swami and I wonder if he would get a diagnosis of
mental illness (without the suffering and poorer outcomes). An unusual
experience of consciousness may stem from the same biological cause and
the same genetic predisposition however different contents make for
different outcomes. Biomedical psychiatric thinking would mandate
antipsychotic medication to rectify the neurological problem, except
he's not suffering distress, occupational or social dysfunction.

This thought process returns to a conversation about the relabelling of
schizophrenia. It's this idea of recontentualisation. It's totally
abstract. If he supposed brain disease happens in a developing world
country the outcomes are better, at least in the 1970s. My guess is it's
the content it's treated in and the social systems that are in place.
There's another factor. Put simply: people in developed world nations
have little time for each other and each others failings.

So I was thinking about monasteries and nunneries. Well, alternative
places where the severely mentally ill might exist at least but without
the poor social outcomes. I think of John Nash and the support he got
from Princeton, but he was an exceptional individual. In modern society
that sort of privelidge is sadly not available to the masses. In
religious settings some mandesses are still raised up as a form of
exceptional experience instead of a delusion caused by a malfunctiioning
brain, and the latter is the distasteful opinion of the biomedical
model. The biomedical model of psychiatry came about early on in the
little observed change of people's conditions being judged by science
rather than religion.

Bah. Bored. Rambling. Not too coherent. Off to drink.