Therapy for schizoid understanding

The relationship between logic and sanity
If it were necessary to establish the link between a determined logic and a certain rational behavior, it would only be possible if we admit that all behavior, all understanding is governed by a determinable logic.
In this sense, logic would not mean the very determination of parameters that do define rational discourse, but a scheme of functioning that does on the one hand determine the apprehension of reality, and on the other, behavior as such.
Necessarily there must be a relationship between the first and the latter which can be established through a general model inserting prototypes of understanding and behavior, allowing to determine how far or near one model or the other stands from what could be called an ‘ideal’ rationality, and thus, how much behavior can be affected by the incapacity of dealing with information coming from the outer world or from the psychic realm, as the schemes or forms used in order to organize the information are not adequate enough to allow proper registration, organization and understanding.
As such we can say, that behavior is nothing but the result of a certain number of information ‘falling’ on deeper forms and determining the reaction or lack of reaction. Of course this is a simple way of considering things, as the forms in question must necessarily be differentiated in those who are intelligible and those who are potentially intelligible (most of instinctive reactions), and those who are intelligible, can be separated in two other categories: the intended one, and the pretended one, as well as other small categories which are of no interest at this precise moment.
The bridge, that allows to determine which ‘compounds of word or thought’ are susceptible of leading to some kind of insanity or being the representation of one type of insanity, is language. Language alone, and considering only logical parameters, would very soon show that 99,9 % of human kind is insane, as rational logic is very rarely used, and when it is used, in synthetic way, so that it is of need to follow procedures of reconstruction in order to establish the link between the said and a rational process. As given example: “It’s raining, thus I go for a walk,” seems irrational, because we omit to insert a law or belief (subjective law) inside of our statements: “It’s raining, and as I have been said that walking while it is raining does some good to health, I go for a walk now.” Of course many people would say that such a belief is irrational, and thus the consequence, but it is possible to observe rationality deriving from the fact that there is submission to some kind of authority, though lacking from the fact that the subject does not further verify, and this submission, if ordered under a certain number of criteria, whose rationality is variable, too, can be said mark of rationality.
This means that the rationality can not be only the consequence of rational discourse, but of what we said reasonable before, and as logic and rationality are rules of order (psychic or intuitive and of understanding) determined by principles, such is the reasonable.
It is observable, on the other hand, that up to 90 % of reactions are the result of extremely complex logics whose link to reason or order is very difficult to establish, though possible. The ‘normal’ is taken as general parameter, as it is practically impossible to rationalize side behavior with enough accuracy so as to differentiate the ‘insane’ from the ‘sane in exception’.
In order thus to make an attempt to categorize understanding, or to determine general parameters of what can be said most generally reasonable, it is of need to define first the finality of such an attempt, and in order to do so, we will have to establish the relationship between a determined model of the human being and a possible positive consequence of such an attempt.
What is a model?Many people confuse a model with reality which can be at the origin of great confusions. In fact, we generally understand that reality is a compound of impressions and the words linked to these impressions as directly deriving from senses. The human mind does though perceive whole lots of phenomena which are somehow linked to senses, but whose intelligibility can not be put into direct relationship with senses. Whenever we use of an abstract theoretical frame based on the very structures of understanding or sensitivity (geometry, logical categories, derives images) in order to organize ‘diffused’ phenomena, we can talk about a model. The representation of matter through electrons, neutrons, etc. is a model which is linked to reality through the fact that it allows to explain a whole number of phenomena indirectly, without it being though possible to ‘see’ directly what is affirmed in the model.
In a certain way it can even be said that ‘systems’ as ‘compounds of laws’ governing certain phenomena, are nothing but intellectual ‘models’ and nothing further. This becomes obvious in physics with the almost incompatible approach of classical physics (Newton) and modern physics (Einstein) on the same phenomena: the fact of altering principles in organization, as the use of space as absolute parameter (Newton) or the use of light as absolute parameter (Einstein) does naturally change the view or perspective and thus the organization of information with sometimes contradictory results. In order to explain these contradictions physicians do limit the field of application of classical physics to ‘earthy’ phenomena, and do recognize validity of modern physics for ‘universal’ phenomena.
This means that neither systems nor models do say ‘truths’: they order a certain number of concepts in a very determined way that allows to deal with a certain number of phenomena clearly and easily. This is why the determination of finality is essential if we want to warrant general rationality by asserting a certain number of statements. Limiting the field of observation to ‘earthy’ phenomena, in the attempt of rationalization of forces (mainly), we can say that
Newton’s physics is, up to a certain extent, adequate.
That a metaphysician would have objections because Newton does allow himself to make of space an ‘absolute’ (impossible, objects metaphysics, because related to natural phenomena, space can not be an absolute), will no bother
Newton very much. His theory does certainly not allow to explain the origins of the universe, but it allows to invent electricity 300 years later.
As such, the rationality of most theories is derived from their efficacy, although the moral finger of a wise metaphysician would certainly remind of the fact, that the frame of theory showing hints of fundamental irrationality, the consequence of the same will certainly have bad side effects it will be necessary dealing with.
The referential model of the human beingNaturally, our model of the human can not be but exactly that: a representation allowing to deal with a certain number of phenomena and eventually correct certain mistakes allowing to ‘heal’ someone who may have been defined as ill.
Being a model it takes its validity from the fact that it does allow to deal with the phenomena in question, or find a proper explanation for side behaviors or ‘not normal’ appearances. It will never say: things are like that. It will say: with this representation you can deal effectively with this and that or find an explanation for different complex phenomena.
If this model takes the human from the point of view of what he says or believes, maintaining that even the deepest layers of the unconscious or even instinct can be somehow put in words and thus be intelligible, it is because of all, language and word are the most interactive and thus most effective tools in the determination of the human and thus in the possibility of action on basic misunderstandings or mistakes in structure.
A behavior can be said, and in a certain way, even the cause of the behavior and the finality, which does order behavior already in an easy rational frame. Impressions as left on the psychic system can be said, too, grouped in words and ordered in general frames which will always be subjective, and though of importance: if someone does not ‘like’ a patient, because there is incompatibility in language, may he force himself to make abstraction of his rejection? We may say that perhaps efficacy in interrelationship and thus in therapy depend on the ‘general sympathy’ towards the patient, as indifference may put barriers of understanding that may even avoid recovering.
In evidence, we may never have a comprehensive and analytical overview of all structures of the human being, neither of all the possibilities deriving of logics. It is thus of importance to introduce a notion of ‘gap’ in a specific approach: “If I maintain myself in a mood that can be called rational and reasonable, the interaction with the other will show moments where the listener does simply not understand. If though the subject does keep his mood, this mood will determine his reaction, independently of what he actually understands. The reaction will restore the interaction on a more intelligible level, so that the gap is filled.” If a listener does keep himself in this disposition, in consciousness that it is impossible to understand everything, he builds ‘bracketed information’ in some part of his memory. While stopping the conversation, and some time later, he may try to understand what escaped him at that moment and try to determine its logic or meaning. If he does so, he will have built up the bridge of comprehension to the other subject.
Fundamental aspects of the model of the human as allowing to deal with subjects having been generally typified as schizoid
The human being does believe a certain number of things.(Horizontal) Two categories: the rational depending on understanding deal fundamentally with two aspects of his life: knowledge as compound and organization of existence through the understanding of the organization as given in a determined societyThe psychic depending on symbolic structures ordering events in schemes or prototypes embedded in histories that allow dealing with the affective aspects of existence and the intuitive perception of reality, as well as the general frame of interpretation of reality as a whole and its evaluation.
(Vertical) These categories are embedded in traditions that are usually not explicated depending on national, racial, historical, sociopolitical etc. criteria.
It can be thus said that reasonably, the understanding may have developed a structuring of concepts that does allow dealing with psychic phenomena. Is this not the case, it can be said that the tension between psychic forces and structures of understanding will be at the origin of anxiety, stress or fright, even of eventual psychotic crisis (incapacity of understanding to deal correctly with repressed masses of psychic forces.)
The same can be said in cases that the structure of understanding does not allow absorbing events as being the natural result of human life or possibilities of psychic disposition.
We may than say, without yet getting into differentiations as those given by conveyed information through tones and intonation or other subliminal ways (movement), that the human being is some kind of machine absorbing information from the outer world, ordering it into forms as given, reacting to those inside of given laws as believed in (social interaction) and dealing with another complex of information generated by inner psychic logics that are either the result of the absorption of information from the outer world or of the understanding/soul interrelationship (feelings).
It is possible to think thus, that there are what we will call lines of communication between one thinking this and another thinking the same, as belief is not only the holding of frozen word, but a psychic interaction between a subject, and thus of a psychic mass, and a given word or belief. The fact that the psychic mass interacts with word does allow conceiving that there may be some kind of connection between subjects ordered through the same belief. (This theory, which needs of deeper concretization if the world of psychopath is to be understood, does not yet need of further specification in the case of schizoid language.)
(Theory of the intercommunication of soul in ordered psychic masses.)
It can be said that the schizoid is most largely the subject whose psychic reality and symbolic ordering has invaded the understanding, or alters moments where consciousness is fixed on understanding with moments where it is fixed on psychic reality. Consciousness is though generally ordered through the parameters of understanding in order to be able to deal with reality. The overflowing of the psychic logic does have as effect that the impressions of senses are ordered in some kind of ‘mythological’ film where the people appearing do symbolize a general psychic type inside of an inner process determining events, causing even in the effort of restructuring impressions a superposition of fantasy with outer reality (vision). The incapability of dealing with reality is cause of anxiety and this of psychotic crises or other proofs of fright (paleness, sweat, abstraction, etc.)
Intelligent schizophrenia is a rare phenomenon where the subject having the same symptoms than the precedent masters appearance well enough so as not to show the slightest symptoms of anxiety. Mechanisms that do allow doing this are determinable.The schizoid does mainly react to repressed psychic masses that are not absorbed by a rational system, either personal, either social. As he is incapable of structuring his behavior through understanding he reacts to general psychic currents as not dealt with by common reason. They become thus in a certain way ‘images of the general unconscious’ and were very often considered as ‘saints’.
As their somewhat erratic behavior does cause generally disturbances, it is of need to structure their reality inside of a given frame avoiding the necessity of very destructive neuroleptics.
There are three different types of approach to schizophrenia:
1. in little affected subjects: reinforcement of rational structures and maintenance of a certain number of range of ‘tones’, warrant of the rational lines
2. in very affected subjects: construction of a socially ordered frame of expression of their ‘inspirations’
3. frontal confrontation provoking psychotic crisis in cases of intelligent schizophrenia in order to allow the determination of the depth of illness and further 1 or 2

There are cases of voluntary schizophrenia (moral involvement) that can not be healed.
For the causes of schizophrenia, we will have to consider later.