[D-G] On Schizophrenia

[Super Dragon]

Hi Teresa
The question of belonging to a social network is an interesting one. My 'symtoms' in the raw have never belonged to one of those.  The nearest  was my one and only hospital admission in 1990 in which I became convinced the psychiatrists were sorcerors making minions out of the clients and holding my son hostage against my good behaviour. I really only had my child hood reading to interpret the way power worked in this social setting so this was the best explanatory fit at the time. All the episodes since would have resulted in a section if anyone had known about them. I have retrospectively 'confessed' to my GP so I guess I am now in the system but as he knows I have come out of multiple episodes without hurting myself or anyone else and take no medication the rest of the time, the social network (including my employer) leave me to get on with it as and when I need to. Possibly not what D and G had in mind but it works for me. 

 There are multiple proloferating perspectives on ER which is it why this deceptively simple series of statements complexifies. Not all of my psychotic epsiodes were in relation to this thought but the ones that were remain unspeakable, both though the limits of my vocabulary and through how on earth does one write about symbolic death? More recently I tried extremely hard to articulate some of this inarticulateness retrospectively in Voicing Psychotic Experiences a collection of narratives written by people who experience psychosis and used a kind of Burroughs cut out of things I had written in a range of genres re-assembled through an agrammatical graphic distribution-all the bits were grammatical but the linkages and relinkages were like irrational cuts. Sadly, I got into a fight with the publishers aboout house style and in the interests of getting all the other narratives published had to change mine. I did this under protest and refused to sign my name to it even though I am the first author/editor of the collection. 
 
I am sure if I brought my symptoms in the raw into dialogue with the clinicians I work with I would not have a job long. However, the residual force of these is helpful when it comes to arguing with them!

Cheers Ruth

Sloughing one's skin.-The snake that cannot slough its skin perishes. Likewise spirits which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirits (Nietzsche: Daybreak:V:573)   


--- teresa.mayne at gmail.com wrote:

From: Teresa Mayne <teresa.mayne at gmail.com>
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] On Schizophrenia
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:11:03 -0500

:) I know you never said it was easy...The way I see it is that to live in
society as a 'functioning' member takes a certain degree of irrationality,
at least in Western society.  I am well aware of the connections between
'symptoms' of schizophrenia and shamanism, Hindu mysticism, etc.  and even
being able to channel persectory affects in a particular manner, but to be
able to do this one must have a certain degree of faith in the social
network that 'decides' that the avenue that you are taking or the symptoms
that you are exhibiting *belong *to that network - are valuable for that
network and valuable only for that particular part of that network. In my
particular experience (and maybe my experience was extreme) that level of
irrational control did not exhibit itself.  I could not argue with logic
because she could always come up with a better argument to justify her
system.  When using irrational beliefs like love and adding assumed
information like, 'I was at school, I left for school therefore I've must
have been there all day' didn't work.  Logically there are so many problems
with that statement and she saw them all.  Anyways I'm rambling...obviously
my experience is different than yours and I will repeat there are many
schizophrenics who do manage to work within the social system and you're
right that isn't portrayed enough.  Although at the same time I definitely
don't think that the schizophrenics that manage to adapt to their society is
what Deleuze is getting at by using that imagery, but I of course could be
wrong and I see the Eternal Return as extremely rational.  Anyways, probably
just a difference of perspective.  Take care.