Psychosanology and schizophrenia

Psychosanology is the antithesis of psychopathology. It seeks to look at wellness of the mind and, in my hope, seeks to understand the interplay between wellness and illness.

It is particularly relevant for the construct of schizophrenia because it has been heavily researched by psychopathologists - or psychiatrists by other language - who employ pseudoscientific technqiues to justify their belief that these human types are medically ill.

This and other factors perjoratise schizophrenia and the label itself to the point where a nation - Japan - and a worldwide movement would seek to change the label rather than concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

I am against this because I am against shifting language and prefer to make concepts scientific. By scientific I mean to make these labels objective and without colours of meaning, for example though an electron has a "negative" property this is not pejoratised and the particle serves a very useful purpose which is recognised by the science of electricity.

There exist psychosanological research into schizophrenics though there is a general dearth of it. Promisciousness, creativity and altruism are all associated with the dopamine receptor in single studies. Spirituality often goes hand in hand with recovery from schizophrenia. Altruistic people like Gandhi or Jesus are of the schizophrenic type - both had auditory hallucinations.

Not a lot of people know this and this includes psychiatrists as well as patients, politicans and the public. These 4 P's often have negative assumptions because of the research focus on seeking negativity. There is less work done in researching and educating people about psychosanology and schizophrenia.

This may seem pointless except, in my opinion, this is the only way to make mental health scientific. Beyond my own desire for the truth this also provides the 4 P's with a positive view of the concept, a view which is better than changing the label. The latter might work in the short term until people realise that the new name is the same as the old one in that it refers to the same concept.

Bleuler changed the name from dementia praecox because he changed the concept of schizophrenia away from unitary psychosis which is what Kraeplin perceived. This is when a change of name is useful though still unnecessary.

The key thing is the concept. I know the prognosis for schizophrenia can be awful in developed world nations but it doesn't have to be this way. This is partially due to the mental health system, partly the sociological factors and other stuff too. What is key is there is value to schizophrenics and there is positivity to their type.

They're not just crazies. Schizophrenics have affected the course of civilisation and without them we would all still be a bunch of heartless savages who live by "survival of the fittest" Darwinian evolutionary rules.

From Moses to Muhammed and all the other crazy religious types who preached advancement there have been examples of the massive value to countless generations. It is only in modern times where these sorts of people have pseudoscience applied to their type to say they're mentally ill.

Psychiatry needs to wake up and see the value of schizophrenics. Those diagnosed with schizophrenia need to know that there are positive traits and they are suffering a classic form of suppression and subjugation of a valid and important human type: themselves.

Sent from my smartphone