[D-G] Mystic, psychosis, , "Normopaths" (from Guattaris de la borde)

[Wouter Kusters]

Hello everybody,

> This article tries to seperate psychosis from mystical experience.

To separate AND to connect them

> Now, im "Kundalini Yoga" by Satyanda this is clear cut, referring to the
> work of Motoyama:
> If you can think clear and concentrated, it is not psychotic.
>
> Let us remark, that "clear" does not mean according to the mainstream of
> actual public opnion.
> This "people say" goes much deeper, also as a measure,
> as one may think superficial.
> "Concentrated" may be a little bit more "formal" and perhaps
> not so much controversal in concrete cases.
> But, as is will argue, even here "people say" is more
> effective present, then tolerable.

Clear and concentrated in the loose sense of the words, as predicates not
pertaining to psychosis. let me tell you this: psychosis is (can be) the
most clear lucid state thinkable - at least as I experienced. Concentration
is another thing. Usually we say that someone is able to concentrate when he
can remain during a certain amount of time withion conventionally defined
boundaries of some domain of discourse. In psychosis conventio0ns
dissolve...which means that the usual "agendas" of what belongs and what
does not belong to a 'proper' stretch of discourse are overridden.

> Real coherence and concentration as mesure is also indicated by a
> remark of
> Jaspers, who declares genuine
> pathological thinking as confused.

Yes, indeed, but it is exactly this Jaspers who at the one hand opened up
the phenomenologiocal approach for all kinds of psychopathology, but...at
the same time closed the door for so-called incomprehensible psychotic
discourse. Key figures in German phenomenological psychiatry who did leave
open the door for assessments interpretations of psychosis were Binswanger,
Konrad, Von Gebsattel, etc. Most prominent and more readable is of course
the still classic work of Louis Sass ion Madness and Modernism (Of course
for those who read Dutch...the classic work in our little language is my own
"Pure madness" (2005).


> This is the case for a Lacanian psychonalytic understanding too.
> Especially Guattari and Deleuze  have their professional
> background in these things from Lacan.
> Left Lacanist was an etiquette in this direction.

Lacan is quite overrated when iot comes to understanding what a psychosis
phenomenologically means. Of course, you may say, we are not interested in
phenomenology, but what is the alternative considering psychosis? I mean we
are not discussing senseless dead academic texts, but real practices in
psychiatry. In other words...should we send another bunch of 'cultural
theorists with books of deleuze and lacan in their hands, knowing beforehand
what they will meet, of should we send some open-minded phenomenologists
over there? I can tell you from a patient's perspective: Give me the
open-minded ones.

Anyway...who cares?

wk