Posts by Kenneth Campbell

neonsailor26 said:Do your past mistakes ever come back to haunt you?
Do you find yourself looking back with regret over them?
I’ve certainly made my fair share—some minor slip-ups, and others that were quite significant...
And yes, I do regret them, but it feels as though they’re still lingering right there beside me—almost like some kind of curse, heaven forbid 😢 .
How about you all? How do you deal with those old shadows?

Mistakes happen. Conflicts, events that are hard to swallow, poor choices... the entire weight of one's personal history can eventually become unbearable, or certain segments of it from years ago can feel impossible to face. Even choosing a partner—and I hate using that term—sometimes involves thinking "this is what I want," only to realize later it wasn't even close to what was actually needed... and so on.

That is simply life. Past, present, and future are all interconnected parts of the whole. If someone finds themselves constantly reflecting on their past, whether it's specific moments or their entire history, it’s a sign that the individual needs to start doing some serious internal work to shift their perspective.
Why do we experience bouts of regret or find the past intolerable at certain times?
1. During periods of low mood or mild depression, unpleasant aspects of the past tend to surface (pessimism).
2. During crises or prolonged periods of instability, intolerable thoughts begin to emerge (regression).
3. Ambivalence and hypersensitivity can cause shifting impressions of the past, oscillating between pleasure and discomfort (neurotic traits).
4. An underdeveloped personality—caused by flawed attitudes or an excessive striving for a "conscious" persona that conflicts with one's true self—can lead to the forced imposition of intolerable past elements (regressive impulses).

Those who manage to master themselves won't struggle with their mistakes, even the ones that defy logical acceptance.
Usually, life-guilt (the suppression of one's true nature) produces this sense of discomfort. Even if the guilt is misplaced, the false role—the "mask"—is narcissistically defended and overcompensated for through a sense of existence, when in reality, it's all just a false ego.

To move forward, one must look back at those past conflicts, identify the true motives behind those old desires and ambitions, examine them deeply, and dismantle them. By stripping them of their power, you prevent those false desires from dictating your daily actions. This is the work of careful, applied introspection.
😁

The absolute worst-case scenario is when you lose both the drive and the interest. That’s when things get heavy. But if you still have some spark left, the trick is to channel that energy into whatever actually brings you fulfillment.
Choice is a deeply personal thing. Sometimes you just outgrow what used to make you happy, and new interests or paths naturally take over. However, this needs to be handled with some level of maturity; there are those who are never satisfied, leading to erratic behavior that just doesn't fly in polite society—the irritability, the rudeness, the lack of persistence, the constant dissatisfaction with themselves and everyone else, chasing the impossible... it’s all been documented in countless classic American novels.
Once someone truly finds their purpose, boredom and emptiness tend to fade away.
Everything is subjective. It depends on your age, gender, capabilities, financial standing, and so on...
But life isn't just black and white; there are plenty of other colors out there. You just have to find them.

Arthur Bennett3 said:I honestly think Jung gets tossed into the "mystical/unscientific" bin way too often. It’s unfair. Plus, I’m convinced you can’t actually wrap your head around Jung until you hit that life stage where you've checked off all the major survival boxes turned outward and finally start the heavy lifting of individuation. It’s a totally unique path for everyone—some people never even reach that stage—but let’s say the 40s are that sweet spot where we’re finally mature and patient enough to look inward and actually recognize what Jung was talking about.
The New York City psychologist Žarko Trebješanin wrote this killer book about all the common misconceptions and stereotypes surrounding Jung and his interpretations.

Also, a whole bunch of experts have gone "one step further," making his teachings accessible to regular people outside the clinical bubble. For years now, for example, here in the USA, there have been groups led by psychotherapists (I think Gayle Delaney is fantastic) as well as experiential groups where people use their dreams to get better insight into their psychological and social lives—even their physical health.

Around our neck of the woods, Ivan Nastović has been working in this field for ages. He’s written several brilliant books and trained a whole cohort of therapists. On top of that, besides training at Jung's institute, he studied under Szondi himself. By integrating Szondi’s work on the familial unconscious, he basically "pushed" this integrative dream approach: interpreting on three levels—the individual, the familial, and the collective unconscious (Freud, Szondi, and Jung).

In New York City, at the National Institute of Mental Health, they even offer education in Jungian analysis.

All in all, this field is incredibly fascinating to me, and I haven't just studied it theoretically—I've joined one of those (experiential) groups myself. The Benefit I got from it was massive.

The biggest hurdle is accepting some of Jung's postulates regarding "archetype" theses!
It is easy to memorize his formulas, tie those understandings to life experience, and pursue self-individuation, but it is incredibly difficult to reconcile the contradictions in certain works—to bridge the gap between the Jung of 1900–1912 and the Jung of 1940–1961. They seem like two entirely different entities, even though he attempts to reconcile and unify them just like everything else he tries to harmonize...

driftingraven122 said:I honestly can’t say I’m surprised when people dealing with schizophrenia develop a bizarre persona—it's almost a defense mechanism. Though, from their perspective, it’s actually everyone else who seems warped. To me, most people just perform emotions, harbor strange intentions, and live with this constant mental noise—obsessing over trivialities and endless chatter. How are you supposed to connect with someone like that without creating some sort of equally bizarre, artificial self just to bridge the gap?

Maintaining social ties is... difficult, after everything involving psychosis and those transcendental experiences. Don't get me wrong, I have friends, but they are people who have seen things—either because they've been through it themselves or they're hovering right on the edge of psychosis—so they understand how fluid reality really is. With them, we can discuss higher beings or unmanifested realities; what am I supposed to talk about with "normal" people? Sex, money, or gossip about neighbors? None of that interests me.

My psychiatrist keeps insisting that the whole point of my recovery is "resocialization." But frankly, I have zero interest in being social. I much prefer the solitude of my own mind—a mind sharpened by psychosis and the experience of unmanifested reality.

I’m not much for socializing either; solo activities suit me better. But...
necessity eventually forces you to be social.

How do you expect to earn a living if you don't have any connections?

Rebecca Reyes70 said:There’s the known, there’s the unknown, and then there’s this doorway standing right between the two worlds. Once you step through that threshold, everything that used to feel straightforward suddenly turns into a tangled mess, and your entire perspective on existence shifts beneath your feet. For me, my ticket into the unknown was schizophrenia, and after spending so much energy trying to run away from it, I finally realized that running is pointless; you just have to embrace it. I remember reading an article once claiming that schizophrenia primarily impairs our ability to reason by distorting our perception of reality. But that really brings us to the deeper questions, doesn't it? What even is reality? And how do we define "normal"? Who decided where the boundaries of normalcy lie, and what are they even measuring? If you happen to be part of the majority, you're considered normal. Ever since I can remember, my view of the world has been a bit skewed; I’ve always felt like a misfit because my thoughts and interests don't align with the rest of the crowd. When I was finally hit with a schizophrenia diagnosis, I spiraled into a deep depression. I ended up being hospitalized four times in an attempt to "get cured," mostly because I just wanted to fit in with everyone else. That was until I realized there isn't actually anything about me that needs fixing. They tried to "treat" me by essentially poisoning me with various pills that were supposedly meant to make me normal. I was passed around between all sorts of doctors, from obscure practitioners to the top-tier psychiatric elites at places like the Mayo Clinic. I never truly understood the logic behind the treatment process, because in reality, they aren't trying to cure you—they're trying to force their own perspectives onto you, molding you to see the world exactly like the masses do. And the funny thing is, they don't even realize that they aren't normal either. Nobody is. Not a single "normal" person is capable of true independent thought; nobody possesses a genuine personality, because every person is just a byproduct of their environment. We are all fed these pre-packaged ideas of who we ought to be. People don't decide who they are; their surroundings decide for them. From the time we are toddlers, we absorb the exact same patterns of thought as our parents, and those views stick with us for life. Most people don't even bother thinking for themselves because everyone else is doing it for them. It’s always been this way, though as time passes, values shift and human personalities evolve along with them. Times are pretty bleak nowadays, honestly. People are being manipulated by television and mindless pop music that screams that money and other bizarre superficialities are the ultimate virtues. And then they try to fix me, just because I have a "distorted" view of reality. But the reality I see is incredibly depressing, which is likely the main reason for the high suicide rates among those diagnosed with schizophrenia. We see the world for what it actually is, and we see people for who they truly are. "Normal" people are nothing more than puppets; everyone carries these imposed values that are ultimately hollow. Take diamonds, for instance—they are practically worthless, yet they're assigned value by some person who thinks a shiny rock is equivalent to love. If I had to choose between being "sick" or being "normal," I’d pick sick every single time. I can't wrap my head around the idea that my perception is the problem; to me, it's the rest of the world that looks bizarre. People go to extreme lengths just to belong to a majority that tells them if they don't mimic their idiot idols or wear certain designer brands, they are somehow less valuable. And apparently, because of that, I'm the one with the warped worldview??! I read these incredibly shallow articles about schizophrenia and how it affects people, and I find myself wondering who writes such nonsense. No psychiatrist in the world, no matter how brilliant, can truly explain what it feels like to live with schizophrenia. I’m writing this because there is this persistent, desperate attempt to "help" us simply because we aren't like you. In my opinion, we might actually be the ones who are normal. Because if you really sit down and think about it, you are the ones with the impaired perception; you are the ones with the bizarre outlook on life. We've reached a point where a "normal" person effectively lacks free will and doesn't think independently. If you think I'm wrong, just take a moment to look at everything that defines you as a human being, and you'll see that it isn't actually *you*. Those aren't your thoughts, your desires, or your convictions. You aren't what you think you are; none of it was ever your choice or an act of free will. If you reflect deeply enough, you'll realize you never even had your own unique perspective on the world; the people and things surrounding you manufactured the person you are today. You aren't normal just because you're part of the majority; you're just part of a group that is anything but normal.

I find this post quite compelling; it offers some genuinely interesting perspectives.

When one views the world through a purely subjective lens and describes their own experiences, others often struggle—if not entirely fail—to truly grasp them. Full comprehension is difficult. Some people might get it, depending on their talent, patience, and capacity for empathy.
If someone believes they are perfectly fine while the rest of the world is flawed, and builds their entire worldview and attitude upon that premise, they certainly have the right to feel that way. However, there is such a thing as objective observation. A person might claim to have achieved a higher level of consciousness or transcendence, believing they see the errors of society more clearly than anyone else, while simultaneously behaving erratically in every other aspect of life. They might grant themselves too much liberty—using crude language, being unnecessarily provocative, or acting out in polite social settings... laughing inappropriately, making faces, or being overbearing. They remain blind to these behaviors, convinced they are doing nothing wrong, while from an outside perspective, it is glaringly obvious that something is amiss and needs correction.
One must strive for equilibrium, balancing their internal world and perceptions with how they interact with others. It is necessary to view one's actions rationally and maintain social harmony. Regardless of whether society is "normal," one must function flexibly within a community. People generally won't tolerate erratic whims or harsh insults—something I have personally experienced from individuals dealing with psychosis who were under medication.
A person should have their own inner world and convictions, and those convictions deserve respect, but respect must be mutual. If one cannot respect others, adaptation becomes impossible, and adaptation is vital. Community is what allows for survival and genuine fulfillment; any attempt at total isolation carries heavy consequences unless one has a massive amount of money sitting in a Chase account. While developing the spirit and consciousness is important, developing social skills and maintaining harmonious relationships is equally essential. No one is perfect, not even in our current era, but how does one change the trends of society? That is the question. There is no simple answer...

copperhound99 said:So I’m doing a little deep dive online and stumbled onto this wild theory.

Some psychoanalyst was talking about "ideas of reference"—basically when someone feels like everything they hear or see is somehow tied back to them personally, like there's this hidden meaning meant just for them...😁

But honestly, it makes me wonder—is there anyone out there who *doesn't* connect what they read or see on the news back to their own life? If I'm not comparing information to my own experiences or the people around me, what am I even supposed to do with it?😁

Like, I'll be watching the weather report, see that rain is coming, and naturally, I start thinking about how it’s gonna mess up my plans or what I'll end up doing if I can't get out...

Is that actually what they mean, or am I totally misreading this? Are we all just a little bit schizoid at heart?😁

You can't just take a single diagnosis, memorize the rules and symptoms, and assume you've solved it. Every person is different. Within any given diagnostic classification, everyone exhibits unique structural and dynamic variations...

While schizotypal personality disorder might share common elements among those diagnosed, the individual differences are essentially endless.

Kimberly Cook5 said:And you know what the absolute worst part is? The way people treat those of us living with schizophrenia like we’re some sort of lower class. When I went to my high school reunion, everyone was asking how I was doing—but it was always that superficial, "oh, how's your health?" kind of check-in; honestly, a few people even went out of their way to avoid me entirely. And all those people who promised we’d grab coffee sometime? They either never called back—even after I gave them my number—or they reached out once and then just vanished into thin air. It’s infuriating, because before all this, I actually fit in perfectly fine with everyone.
Then there’s the dating scene... God, it’s pathetic. The second I tell a guy I’m interested in that I have a mental illness—boom—I basically cease to exist to him. If he even bothers to reply to a text, it’s nothing more than a polite formality.
On top of that, I’m finishing up one degree—I just have my master's thesis left to go at 🙂—and now I’m starting my second year of undergrad at a different university 🙂. Not to brag, of course, but I actually earned the Dean's award and received four different scholarships because of my grades. But to these people? None of that matters. My achievements don't count because of my diagnosis.
But look, not everyone is like that. The people at my university who actually understand what I’m dealing with treat me normally and hang out with me—I’ve even tutored a few of them. I have one best friend and two other close girlfriends, even if we don't see each other constantly.

P.S. Since I got sick, I’ve really only been out to a party or a club three times total. I simply don't have anyone to go with, and while there are nights where I genuinely want to go out, it's hard... I wish I could start fresh with people who actually know my situation, so they wouldn't freak out if I happen to have a panic attack. But it's not like I'm always in the mood to go out anyway—not that anyone ever invites me regardless...

Wilhelm Reich once remarked that the most devastating thing humanity carries forward—whether on a small scale or a massive one—is "emotional plague"...
This type of character biopathy can be fleeting, but there's a risk it becomes chronic once it gets woven into the social fabric...
Emotional fever is essentially a state of stagnation—a blockage of one's natural drive toward joy and vitality. When that life force is stifled, it inevitably curdles into the worst possible character flaws...
Resentment toward anyone else's success, bitterness toward those who actually enjoy life, a constant urge to slander and actively devalue others... an inability to feel joy, pure snobbery, and a chronic tendency to look down on everyone else. It’s a lack of work ethic paired with a total incapacity for pleasure, all spiraling into sadistic tendencies that take on truly feral proportions. This emotional plague manifests in everything from warfare to individual acts of brutality—think the Inquisition or the darkest ideologies of the Nazi regime. It shows up in the way people destroy lives by spreading lies and then working tirelessly to make sure those falsehoods stick...
Consuming food only fuels one's own stagnation and the inability to actually enjoy life...

Wilhelm Reich argues that a person struggling with schizophrenia is actually more authentic and relatable than someone consumed by emotional instability. He suggests that even if a schizophrenic individual acts bizarrely, they remain fundamentally natural. In contrast, he views "emotional turbulence"—what most people call a "normal human character"—as the ultimate distortion of personality, which typically manifests through social dysfunction...

Take a woman who is consumed by her own bitterness—someone crushed by an "emotional sphere" of self-loathing because she lacks both aesthetic appeal and any semblance of vitality. She can’t find joy in anything else. She hates herself, and more importantly, she refuses to allow anyone else to be happy... If she catches sight of a beautiful young woman, or even someone physically flawed, she reacts with frantic, hysterical accusations. That girl is a witch; that man is a demon. Slander and direct insults spread easily through the masses, triggering a collective contagion where everyone rushes to take "protective" measures. Once a local preacher gets involved, he’ll quickly validate the hysteria. He’ll claim the girl is a witch because she bewitched him, and since he, as a man of God, cannot permit himself to feel attraction, it must be her dark magic at work. And so, the Inquisition begins...
So many innocent people suffered because they couldn't control their emotional volatility, and back then, there just wasn't any way to manage it...

feralseal182 said:I know someone diagnosed with F21 who consistently refused medication because they simply wouldn't acknowledge their condition. This individual lived entirely within a fantasy, claiming to have massive wealth in the bank and making constant, nonsensical references to the mafia. If you haven't personally encountered someone struggling with this specific illness, it is difficult to truly grasp the reality of it.

The worst part is exactly that: many people with schizophrenia, or other forms of psychopathology, reject the reality of their condition through incredibly sophisticated rationalization. It's a lack of insight into their mental state and a refusal to accept the diagnosis. Then again, there are those who do possess self-awareness and accept their disorder...

The fact remains that there are moments, or fragments of time, where a person with schizophrenia exhibits entirely normal behavior and cognition. Professionals often overlook this, labeling them strictly by the diagnosis and viewing them through a single lens—which is just stigmatization. There are exceptions among certain psychiatrists and psychologists, but usually, they "don't have the time" to fully grasp the schizophrenic experience...

It is also a fact that there are various forms of schizophrenia. Beyond the descriptive definitions, there is an enormous range of individual variations in behavior and social adaptation within a single diagnosis...
It can be genuinely difficult to determine whether someone's bizarre behavior, heavy irony, cynicism, or provocative rudeness toward others or doctors is an expression of schizophrenic personality deterioration, or if it's simply their primary character structure existing outside the scope of the disorder itself...
In professional circles, we often speak of "residues." While successful pharmacotherapy and social rehabilitation are the ultimate goals of treatment, something from the original disorder almost always remains (the residues). This might manifest as poor social integration, lingering traces of mania, or certain bizarre mannerisms in either the expressive-motor or the ideational-affective domains...
As I mentioned, there are so many individual variations that a one-size-fits-all explanation is impossible. Still, we have achieved quite a bit more today than we did a century ago...😁

For certain people, seasonal depression is an inevitable byproduct of autumn—those gray, overcast days when the sun disappears. Usually, when there’s greenery and sunlight, people feel better; they embrace the renewal of spring.

But in your case, the situation seems to be flipped!

There are several factors worth considering here.

1. Some individuals experience social crises or identity shifts that manifest as lethargy, apathy, or even full-blown depression. This requires addressing the underlying issue from that specific angle.

2. Sudden shifts in temperature trigger physiological changes within the body known as adaptation syndrome (stress). During this period of turbulence, the system undergoes a sort of "recalibration," which can significantly impact psychological stability—especially in predisposed individuals. This often results in fatigue, lack of motivation, or a loss of drive, particularly if these physical shifts coincide with actual life stressors or personal setbacks.

3. Many people simply become accustomed to a specific season, and when the weather shifts, they perceive the change as a burden or a frustration, leading to general dissatisfaction.

4. And then there are countless other factors that could be contributing to how you're feeling...

cosmicmason9 said:I recently finished reading Jung's "Man and his symbol," and I’m curious what you all think about the work and his general approach to dream interpretation. Is this stuff just pure speculation and guesswork, or is there actual substance behind it? Personally, I enjoyed the book quite a bit—that blend of psychology and mythology is fascinating—but I wonder how much scientific weight it actually carries. Also, as a prospective therapist, I want to know if his theories still hold up today or if they've been tossed aside. Are they still being used in psychoanalysis?

Throughout his entire body of work, Jung insists he is a scientist. He makes constant efforts to demonstrate a scientific approach to thought, backing his claims with endless empirical examples...
Jung isn't the type to jump to easy conclusions like those folks in the New Age movement or various circles of esotericists and mystics. The "mystic" label is frequently slapped onto Jung by other psychoanalytic schools, and especially by academic psychology as a whole...
Jung once noted that he dealt strictly in phenomenology and empiricism. He sought to scientifically validate every psychological fact he uncovered, focusing solely on observable facts and psychological phenomena. To him, the psyche being an ocean of possibilities and contradictions was simply a law of nature... People constantly strive to force everything into neat, logical boxes—much like the behaviorists attempt to do—but the psyche is far more complex than that...
To truly engage with Jung requires an immense amount of talent and a natural intuition—a genuine gift—just to grasp what he’s actually talking about. For those lacking that specific knack or the ability to sit with a paradox, Jung will always seem like an enigma, and his statements will likely just irritate them... The depths Jung explored are things an average psychologist can only dream of reaching. They remain inaccessible and incomprehensible to them, not because Jung's system lacks logic, but because such observers tend to be shallow and spiritually impoverished. They lack the necessary disposition; they simply cling to academic templates and "rehearsed" formulas, waving them around as if they've mastered the entire world. Jung himself was more modest, noting: "Everything I have written and explained thus far is merely a small portion of the water one can scoop up in a hat from the vast repertoire, the ocean of secrets and possibilities within nature..."
Behaviorists seem to think they've got everything figured out and explained. What naive arrogance...

To actually discuss dreams through the lens of Jungian theory, you have to commit to mastering his entire theoretical framework first. Only then can you even begin to touch upon the actual essence of a dream and its true function...
The compensatory function of dreams is paramount. It serves as a clear indicator of one's current psychological state and highlights the potential for correcting imbalances within the conscious attitude through psychic self-regulation...
Reactive traumatic dreams are essentially just unexpressed affect resurfacing, triggered by some past trauma...
Freud’s concept of wish-fulfillment dreams holds significant weight within Jung's framework, much like the prospective dream arrangements discussed by Adler...
Sometimes, those strange "prophetic dreams" that seem tied to future events play a central role here. It's where the parapsychological elements Jung frequently discussed really come into play...
Dreams that signal an underlying organic physical ailment or a burgeoning psychological disorder can be invaluable. They often provide significant diagnostic weight and serve as critical indicators for predicting a final outcome...

Dreams at an "objective level" pertain to events from the external world and daily life; everything appearing in a dream is simply a symbolic disguise for those aspects...
Dreams at the "subjective level" are symbolic, archetypal experiences—what many call "great dreams." They represent specific aspects of the dreamer's own soul or fundamental psychic functions. Because they are deeply symbolic, these dreams hold the most weight in the process of individuation, which remains the primary objective of Jungian psychology...

Anyone capable of processing everything I’ve laid out and actually applying Jungian dream theory is someone worth talking to. If this all sounds like a chaotic mess to you, you'll probably just wave it off and call it nonsense...

The American Jungian James A. Hall wrote a solid book, "Jungian Dream Interpretation," which serves as a sort of manual. He does a fine job detailing dreams through the lens of clinical psychiatry and the individuation process itself.
The book attempts to validate Jung's teachings as relevant to modern psychology and psychiatry, emphasizing how vital it is to track your dreams throughout your entire life.

Falling in love happens spontaneously and autonomously; consciousness can barely influence it, if at all. However, conscious will can still exert an influence in specific ways.
If we examine the phenomenon of "libido" (psychic energy)—a concept many psychologists either dismiss or confine strictly to Freudian frameworks—we can use libido theory to explain the dynamic processes within psychological events and the causal elements that drive them. It is evident that biochemical factors play a significant role in the background, occasionally acting as the primary drivers...
We assign importance to certain objects (libidinal preoccupation), giving them specific value to the subject. Our internal hierarchy of priorities is essentially a byproduct of this libidinal investment or the value we attach to certain things, whether they be ideas, people, or otherwise. This often occurs unconsciously and autonomously. Whether I currently prefer vanilla ice cream over orange juice depends entirely on which holds higher current value (libido). Similarly, the choice of activities, friends, or romantic partners is a matter of libidinal preoccupation, playing out internally as psychological constructs...
It is possible for a feeling of love toward a potential object—male or female—to float freely before a specific target is even identified. Occasionally, quite suddenly, this accumulated romantic libido projects onto a specific object, triggering the state of falling in love. In this state, a massive investment of value (libido) overrides reason or consciousness; the old adage "love is madness" holds true. The object gains a deterministic value that overwhelms the entire conscious state. There are countless examples of individuals performing actions in a state of infatuation that they would never consider while "sober." Falling in love is akin to a state of hypnosis; it brings a pleasant emotional tone, a sense of comfort, tranquility, general happiness, or even a mystical feeling of omnipotence and oneness with the universe. Of course, it is highly individual. For this state to occur, one must project an idealized image onto the object. This image is formed by individual childhood experiences regarding how objects are perceived, combined with an instinctive predisposition known as the primal image. The latter is an innate disposition to react this way when triggered by external stimuli, backed by heavy emotional weight. This is why we speak of projecting a highly charged primal image onto an object, granting it immense value through pure instinct...
If a specific object lacks inherent value, its significance can be increased under certain circumstances through conscious "rituals," whether collective or individual. Some psychologists call this habituation, though not every similar process fits that definition...

Over time, an object may abruptly lose its value without any external provocation. This sometimes happens if the actual object fails to live up to the projected image. We assume the projected image clings to the concrete object, attributing qualities to it that it rarely possesses in reality. The subject lives in an illusion, but when the gap between the image and the reality becomes too wide, disappointment sets in, leading to a sudden withdrawal from or replacement of the object. This phenomenon is common among fragmented personalities (neurosis), where incredible projections occur across all aspects of life. A fractured personality balance and the loss of the conscious libido required for healthy, developed individuals plays a major role here...
For certain personality types, sexuality or love plays only a secondary role. It appears that the primary drive for possession, power, and validation is what dictates behavior, while love is merely utilized as a tool to achieve those ends. In some, this happens unconsciously; in others, it is exploited consciously. For such individuals, infatuation lasts only until the impression of possessing the object is achieved. Once attained, they gradually fall out of love, discarding the object to seek a new victim. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in certain hysterical characters and is referred to as "vampirism."

Naturally, if love is genuine, that initial infatuation won't last forever. It fades over time, but what remains is the true core: the capacity to love, to be selfless, to empathize, and to maintain a sense of moral responsibility toward one's partner. That is the fundamental prerequisite for a stable marriage or any meaningful relationship; it’s the only real guarantee for longevity. Anything else is just self-interest or manipulation, which falls squarely into the realm of pathological behavior.
If an individual can successfully integrate their own personality—reconciling their inner contradictions and conflicts while maintaining a balanced perspective on love—then a harmonious, lasting relationship becomes a realistic expectation.
But let's be honest, and I think we all know this... sometimes the partner is the one creating the friction and complications. They become the source of the chaos, objectively projecting issues that inevitably lead to misunderstandings and conflict within the relationship.

There are process psychoses—true psychosis—as well as reactive or temporary psychotic episodes. Similarly, personality disorders can be classified as persistent, syndromic, or neurotic developments...

The entirety of a person's personality is a composite of material foundations (physiological makeup and function), developmental milestones during growth, cultural environment, and social standing...
In terms of homeostasis, maintaining normal organism function is vital. Physiological homeostasis is a basic requirement for life itself. Psychological homeostasis, however, implies a balanced relationship between an individual and their social environment, where biological, psychological, and social needs are met in harmony. An excess or a quantitative deficiency in these stimuli leads to a disruption of homeostasis. The result is regression—a sliding back down from one's current level of functioning. Depending on how deep that regression goes, you get the full psychological picture of an individual's state. Regression is driven by fixation points (traumatic events), ego strength and its structure, and the intensity and outcome of current stressors. When these factors intersect with a physiological predisposition—which can be a deciding factor in the final outcome—you see the clear clinical manifestation of psychosis...

In process states, personality repair is difficult, and residues of the underlying disorder always remain. In acute or reactive states, however, full recovery through repair is possible. Quantitatively, distinguishing between these two different disorders can sometimes be difficult, but they are fundamentally distinct...

The way psychedelic substances induce changes in personality and perception is highly subjective. Whether a psychedelic acts as a trigger or a precipitating factor for a process state is difficult to predict; it might happen, or it might not. It depends on many variables...
If such a shift occurs, it results in a permanent personality change trapped within a psychotic process. Repair becomes difficult if there are underlying predispositions pointing toward unfavorable outcomes...
Reality is the floor beneath our feet. Anyone who loses those planks is going to fall and find themselves in a precarious position...
The tendency to indulge in fantasies or myths is a human trait, but as one psychologist noted, "people live in fantasies; it is hard to accept reality, but it is even harder not to."

goldenscout47 said:I think I’m finally starting to wrap my head around this. DMT and similar compounds are actually produced within the body. Even people who have significantly expanded their consciousness end up creating more complex compounds that allow them to perceive much deeper layers of existence. When you mix those visions with actual awareness, you get a picture of reality and depth that is limited only by how much consciousness you can handle.

Shamans and similar groups were able to use mushrooms, DMT, or mescaline to reach states where their vision could zoom all the way down to the molecular level—they could literally see molecules. The thing is, most people just use psychedelics as a wild party or a way to act crazy. But you really need to stay calm and sink into a trance state to get anywhere meaningful.

However, the visions you get while high aren't coming from your conscious mind, which can actually make things worse. Sometimes a person just isn't ready because it triggers a massive flood of repressed emotions. For someone willing to dive deep, it works, but for the 99% of people who aren't looking inward, it's just a fun ride. For those who aren't afraid to look the devil in the eye—which means looking at themselves—it can be absolute hell. When you experience visions on drugs, you often walk away with nothing but fragmented memories without any true realization. You don't actually *live* what you learned. It’s one thing to read about relativity, but it’s an entirely different thing to live it. You have to experience it to truly embody it. If you're just observing through the intellect, the consciousness doesn't truly experience it, and it fails to incorporate it into your being as living, present knowledge.

And another thing. For certain people—myself included—LSD and stuff like that hits way harder than it does for others. It probably comes down to specific neurotransmitters. Some people will honestly never understand the kind of journeys this stuff can take you on.

My conclusion is that every experience is beneficial if it's guided by a professional. And I don't mean some medical hack, but someone who actually knows the path. In the long run, drugs might cause minor physical harm, but the psychological toll can be huge. When you weigh it all up, there's really no need to mess around with these substances when everything can be achieved through natural means.

Because just because you see something, doesn't mean you're actually looking at it.😕

It is worth noting that those "medical idiots," as you call them, are absolutely necessary here. Why?
Some individuals have a predisposition for psychotic reactions or "slips" into psychosis, which are often permanent.
Psychedelics allow for a shift from one level of existence to another.
People with a solid ego structure, high adaptability to reality, strong ego boundaries, and a relatively well-established personality can likely handle psychedelic consumption well and return relatively intact—*restitutio ad integrum*.
Those with fragile ego structures and a genetic predisposition toward psychosis may, though not always, trigger a psychotic process from which there is no return without neuroleptics.

Certain unstable personalities, who are otherwise dreamy or prone to fantasy, easily accept hallucinogenic phenomena as objective reality. They subsequently build their worldviews and attitudes around these visions, which inevitably damages their ability to function in society...

During a hallucinatory syndrome caused by psychedelics, it is entirely possible to endanger one's life through irrational actions or impulses.
Chronic use leads to personality disintegration and a decline in social functioning due to the erosion of the self and an obsession with these sensations and ruminations—all of which amounts to nothing.

Everyone experiences and expresses hallucinations in their own unique way. The content is dictated by one's personal history and current emotional state. Finding identical experiences among different people is rare.

Shamans won't help when a "bad trip" or loss of control hits. They can wave their hands all they want, but the solution is the administration of neuroleptics and proper care in an appropriate setting under adequate supervision...

Sarah Wood8 said:I’ve never been a fan of taking pills. I was prescribed some stuff for my own situation—diagnosed with anxiety—but nothing really worked for me. Anxiolytics would just knock me out or dull things down slightly, so I'd use them occasionally, but antidepressants or even antipsychotics did absolutely nothing for my derealization and depersonalization, even after long-term use. Eventually, I decided I wasn't going to be a guinea pig for Big Pharma, so I quit everything cold turkey. After a long time, things started clearing up on their own.
Because of that, I don't believe there's a magic pill for everything, because I know firsthand there wasn't one for my condition. Even on international forums where people from all over the world gather to talk about these exact problems, I haven't heard anyone say a medication completely wiped out their symptoms.
Even though it felt terrifying at first to feel like I was totally on my own, that's actually what made me stronger—taking control of my own fate. This happened after I dealt with several psychiatrists who weren't just useless, but incredibly arrogant. Not to mention the absolute idiot who practically spitefully refused to help when I was in such a bad state that I had to call a crisis center.

Some people need their prescriptions while others don't. It varies...

Harold Anderson3 said:Based on everything I'm learning, my own situation seems to fall under the "process" category, though I hold onto the hope that I might eventually be able to taper off my medication entirely. I have no idea when that might happen—maybe in five years, maybe ten... and even if it never happens, I won't let it get me down.

Exactly.
And let me add this...
There is really no issue with taking medication for years, or even for a lifetime.
Some people ask, "How can I take psychiatric medication my whole life? I just can't." But it’s no different than someone taking pills for high blood pressure or something similar; there isn't a distinction in my view. Look at how many people, including doctors, have to or choose to take daily medication for various reasons. Take aspirin, for instance—almost everyone takes it, even healthy people, just as a preventative measure. It becomes a routine, a habit, so it isn't an issue. Similarly, someone managing a mental health condition who takes their prescribed pills or injections is doing themselves a massive favor...
When I saw a professional bodybuilder consuming the sheer volume of supplements and substances they take daily just to enhance training and muscle mass, what you're talking about seems trivial by comparison. And he doesn't find it difficult; he accepts it as a lifelong commitment.
Personally, I see no problem with long-term psychiatric medication for those who have been properly prescribed it. If used correctly, the benefits far outweigh any perceived drawbacks...

1. When asking why there is a "fear of madness," one could argue it is something primal, almost archetypal. Humans have an instinctive urge to distance themselves from those perceived as "insane" or mentally unstable. This isn't just a preventative measure against potential unpredictability or safety risks; it often stems from a certain fragility or lack of awareness in others—a fear that "madness" might be contagious...
The primitive mind, much like certain neurotic temperaments, avoids those with disorders because they trigger unbearable anxiety. This was especially prevalent centuries ago when mental illness was misidentified as demonic possession. In the grand scheme of history, that was perhaps the greatest evil inflicted upon humanity. Countless inquisitions and executions of innocent people were carried out due to the profound distortions held by religious and state authorities—authorities that were often more broken than any schizophrenic individual on this planet.
There is no shame in living with schizophrenia or similar conditions. The true evil lies in being a person warped by deep-seated emotional complexes, spreading slander, envy, and malice toward those who are naturally balanced or positive. That is precisely what we witnessed during the eras of the Inquisition and the World Wars.
Personally, I find no repulsion in someone struggling with schizophrenia or severe psychiatric issues. What I find truly loathsome is an individual consumed by their own emotional insecurities to the point of obsession. When such people occupy high-ranking positions within government institutions, they become machines designed to destroy human dignity. Of course, they exist within the general population as well, and they are far from rare.
2. The fear of madness, or losing self-control, is common among anxious or phobic personalities. It rarely occurs because they are actually going insane; rather, it is a byproduct of a distorted perception caused by a neurotic temperament. It can also manifest in underdeveloped personalities or through altered states of consciousness brought on by depressive affects or substance use. Furthermore, these terrors can be a standard part of adolescent development or a specific life crisis. Essentially, a weakened ego creates the pretext for anxiety or the dread of losing one's mind. Typically, the perception of "madness" implies a total loss of agency and self-control, creating an intolerable sense of discomfort born entirely from fear.

Sarah Wood8 said:I can definitely relate to what you're saying. About a year and a half ago, I was hit by a wave of derealization so intense it felt like I’d been dropped straight into hell. It wasn't just a weird feeling; I was fully aware that everything was wrong and that my brain was malfunctioning, which honestly made the terror even worse. I remember spiraling into these sudden, violent physical tremors from pure panic. I ended up in the ER at the local hospital several times because I couldn't breathe or think, and even though things have improved significantly since then, I still carry the remnants of it today. The way the world looked was completely distorted—it's almost impossible to put into words. It felt like I was living someone else's life, or maybe a thousand different lives all at once, with time itself becoming a tangled mess in my head. I'd lose the ability to recognize my own bedroom, my street, or even the city I grew up in. It's a living nightmare, like being trapped in a fever dream where your past self feels totally erased. The one thing that kept me grounded was the fact that I remained lucid enough to know this wasn't schizophrenia. I didn't spiral into those paranoid delusions about losing my mind that so many people fall into during these episodes. I actually diagnosed myself and took that specific concern to various psychiatrists across the state, and none of them ever told me I was wrong. In the end, no medication did much for me; it just eventually started to subside on its own. Of course, it’s easy to play philosopher now that I’m feeling better, but back then, it was pure survival. It also helped knowing there’s no history of mental illness in my family, which gave me some peace of mind.

I was reading somewhere that scientists supposedly found this specific gene linked to schizophrenia. Apparently, it’s some kind of ancient virus that integrated itself into human DNA way back in prehistory, back when we were barely even human—probably just some transitional primate or something like that.
I’ve been sitting here wondering about this: is schizophrenia actually rooted in an organic, genetic foundation—something we often mistakenly label as purely "psychological"—when in reality, it's hardwired into our DNA and passed down through specific genetic lineages?

What are the actual odds of someone developing this without any genetic predisposition? I’m pretty convinced that schizophrenia is fundamentally rooted in genetics—it feels like something so tangible and organic at its core. What are the chances of someone just waking up to it out of thin air if there isn't a family history involved? Even if they develop similar symptoms, can we even call that schizophrenia, or is it just some other psychological burden masquerading as the real thing?

I realize I’m throwing out a lot of questions here, and maybe my understanding of schizophrenia isn't exactly textbook perfect, but I’m honestly convinced it’s almost entirely genetic. I keep hearing these stories about people being diagnosed without any history of it in their family tree, but to me, that just sounds impossible. If this condition actually degrades the brain—specifically the gray matter, as the science suggests—it feels like there has to be some underlying organic trigger that doctors haven't quite pinned down yet. It doesn't make sense to me that something this physically destructive would just spontaneously emerge from nothing, or simply stem from other neurotic issues like anxiety, paranoia, or derealization. There has to be a biological root cause at play.

The idea that this just happens spontaneously without any genetic component sounds completely absurd to me—it’s like someone claiming they broke their leg while just lying there in bed.

Hey everyone... 😉

Laypeople tend to lump everything under the umbrella of "schizo," and they often self-diagnose various syndromes based on something they read or something someone whispered in their ear. It's similar to when someone reads medical literature on oncology and then starts noticing "symptoms" of carcinoma everywhere.
One simply needs to relax and enjoy life without overthinking or manufacturing misery by exaggerating certain phenomena or sensations. Neurotic anxiety is often the root cause. 🙂 Just unwind and accept life—and yourself—as you are, while still striving to address weaknesses and pursue personal growth and virtue. That is the solution...

Regarding the onset and pathogenesis of schizophrenia, it is a highly complex matter. It involves multifactorial triggers where several distinct elements converge to cause the disorder; however, it is clear that while genetic factors play a decisive role, they are not strictly mandatory.
It is necessary to distinguish between "process" schizophrenia (true schizophrenia) and "schizophreniform psychosis" (reactive). These two terms represent different phenomena, yet they can look nearly identical in many respects, creating the illusion of a single syndrome. In the case of schizophreniform psychosis or reactive schizophrenia, there may be no genetic predisposition at all; no one in the family needs to have a psychiatric disorder (?) (though certain indicators may suggest a higher risk for psychosis).
It must be emphasized that schizophrenia does not manifest the same way in everyone. There are infinite individual variations in the clinical picture. Even with a diagnosis like paranoid schizophrenia, it isn't true that every patient behaves identically. You see differences in the delusional system, its intensity, the level of fixation, affective status, intellectual capacity, consciousness, personality strength, education, physical appearance, attitude toward the illness (whether they deny it or accept it), insight into their actual personality, social performance, and work capacity, among many others. The diversity within a single diagnosis is striking, let alone across the entire spectrum of mental disorders. Still, certain patterns remain standard rules, as many symptom clusters present similarly across most cases.

It should be noted that any schizophrenia that appears suddenly, presenting with a turbulent onset involving disturbances in consciousness or dominated by delusions, carries a much more favorable prognosis than "process" schizophrenia, where symptoms and personality degradation develop gradually over years. The "slow-onset" type of schizophrenia has a very poor outcome and is difficult to treat—especially if it begins during adolescence and is characterized by negative symptoms: autism, inertia, social introversion, apathy, lack of interest, loss of will, loss of drive, emotional blunting, etc. Conversely, if positive symptoms predominate—delusions, hallucinations, mannerisms, social activity, etc.—and the disorder manifests later in life, the prognosis and treatment options are generally better.
Though, even here, everything is relative, and many variables must be considered.

The genetic factor is not necessarily required for the onset of schizophrenia, but it is important to note that it frequently converges with other environmental factors.

Anyone who prides themselves on being a master of logic—relying solely on their intellect—can essentially be categorized as having a paranoid personality.

Whether people want to admit it or not, intellect and reasoning are always products of one's emotional state. That is simply how it works.

It is vital to distinguish between a true paranoid character and mere objective caution.

Chess players, detectives, bomb disposal experts, mathematicians, and so on... they all fall under this umbrella.

Keith Jones76 said:People with IBM often have a tendency toward isolation even before any symptoms kick in, and that pattern just carries right through the illness itself. Because of that, I think it makes sense to view the social withdrawal as part of the condition rather than a separate issue. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to say personality alone drives the onset or progression of the disorder. We're talking about a complex, multi-faceted condition here—it's way too deep and serious to be caused simply by someone sitting alone and spiraling over their own thoughts. You can't just "drive yourself crazy" like that. If someone actually believes they are successfully losing their grip on reality, we're likely looking at something else entirely—something milder, more along the lines of neurotic disorders.

A significant number of people with schizophrenia actually exhibit high levels of extraversion. They are constantly engaging in social activities and communication, even if those interactions come across as awkward or bizarre...

Lawrence Rodriguez27 said:Does isolation contribute to schizophrenia? In my view, it certainly does. When an individual is isolated, they tend to dwell on thoughts and patterns that they wouldn't normally encounter in social settings. This solitude can lead to skewed perceptions and erroneous conclusions, which may ultimately result in severe consequences...☕

Isolation can stem from several different motivations...

Crisis management versus a state of permanent crisis. There needs to be a way to aggregate current issues, resolve them, and eventually return to the status quo... If we just settle into crisis mode, it becomes chronic...
Going rogue...

Schizoid personality structure—genuine schizoid personality, though some prefer calling it schizoid psychopathy. It’s characterized by an individual who, from early childhood, has consistently gravitated toward solitary pursuits, accompanied by a distinct pattern of affective disturbance...

3. Secondary schizoid personality structure. This occurs when an individual becomes vulnerable to specific emotional content—essentially a complex—due to various internal and external stressors. Because they lack the capacity to assimilate or process these complexes, they begin to accumulate them. Eventually, the buildup makes them almost impossible to deal with...
External triggers tend to act as catalysts for internal complexes. To avoid an imminent psychological breakdown caused by these activated tensions, an individual will often retreat into isolation as a defense mechanism. This results in a withdrawn, antisocial personality. Because their ego lacks the necessary structural integrity to navigate social settings, they frequently attempt to compensate for this deficit through metaphysical pursuits or an intense devotion to animals...

3. The paranoid personality structure...
Is it driven by internal or external factors? A person might choose solitude voluntarily, often fueled by a sense of vulnerability. That feeling becomes a primary driver for withdrawal, where one finds a certain security in isolation—safeguarding themselves through constant vigilance and the anticipation of potential threats...
Hypertrophied ego—or megalomania, if we’re being blunt—leads certain narcissistic personalities to believe they are fundamentally superior to everyone else. They convince themselves that others simply aren't worth their time because they're supposedly inferior in every conceivable way. In their minds, there’s just no point in even bothering to engage...

4. Neurotic personality disorders (anxiety, histrionic, phobic, depressive, etc.)

5. Depressive syndrome (no need for an explanation here)...

Does loneliness trigger schizophrenia? It depends on several variables... too many to list here. For a psychotic break to actually occur, certain elements have to align: a genetic predisposition, a schizoid temperament within one's own psychological makeup, and a "schizoid" environment. You know, that specific type of stress where you're constantly getting the wrong emotional responses from those closest to you... it just creates a perfect storm...
It’s possible from the very start, though certainly not a requirement...