How do i practice schizoanalysis?

Thats central to Deleuze's point

Then how do we separate them today?

>i'm taking the long way around to work because the Hungarians down the street are jealous of my new car and their envy makes me physically upset

"Diagnosis" half-settled.

>i'm taking the long way around to work because the poor people down the street are jealous of my new car and their envy makes me physically upset

Wow you go champ!

There's no such thing as schizophrenia.

Deleuze agrees

Could anyone recommend a good introductory text to Deleuze for me?

I like to understand philosophers systematically and historically. I know you might say that that's precisely how Deleuze shouldn't be understood, or something like that, and I'm familiar with the epistemology of discontinuity in the history of ideas, from Foucault and others (and so a little bit in Deleuze as well). So I'm willing to practice some kind of mental elasticity when reading Deleuze himself, not to reduce him to others' descriptions of him, etc., etc. That's all fine.

But that being said, I'd still like an introduction to his thought that isn't just "dive right into his primary texts in isolation."

Start with the Greeks

I like him then what should I read

freud, nietzsche, marx. hegel, freud, lacan. spinoza. bergson. hegel again. and kant.

Nothing? You already agree.

That first quote doesn't sound like the schizophrenics I've met. The schizos I've met weren't able to function in society if left to their own devices for very long. I haven't read any Deleuze but it seems absurd to me to say schizophrenia is indistinguishable "as far as thoughts and actions go", not in those cases I've seen, anyway. Is he saying there is something other than thoughts and actions that defines schizophrenia?

Pathetic.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_hypothesis_of_schizophrenia

>hypothesis

>symptoms of schizophrenia

My point is that you can think and do anything as long as you say the right words during or after. These words have nothing to do with any rational and/or empirical (or even spiritual) matters relating to anyone's idea of any mental health-illness spectrum. They're just sociocultural automatisms, verbal clothes you have to wear to avoid triggering functionally psychotic responses in OTHERS for sullying the external tapestry.

>as long as you say the right words during or after
Why do you pretend this is nothing? This basically means that you are recognise the psychological distance of your behaviour from others, and configure your behaviour to reflect that. It implies choice and ability (despite perhaps poor judgement), as opposed to someone at the mercy of themselves and unable to live as part of society even if they wanted to.

Enjoying a long solo journey is not the same thing as being fucking lost and unable to find your way back.

Aye but you take what I see as an illegitimate assumption here that we are actually taking a choice or can call such a thing ability and its not just a case of those trapped in our contingency and the rare others condemned to be free.

You're over-complicating things. If you can be free AND/OR be constrained, then you are free.

If you can ONLY be free, then you are not free.

I am not over-complicating things, you're attempting towards a vast reduction of the situation into exclusive categories.
There are those who will die with never the chance to even contemplate that such a distancing is possible and there are those whose schizophrenia can and does become at least more manageable.
The prioritizing one situation over another seems to be simply in respect to socialization.

You say I am reductive but you want to reduce everything to social conditioning. I am not even saying where it comes from, I'm saying we can differentiate schizo from eccentricity by having the ability to move away from it (wherever that ability comes from).

The only thing I'm reducing to social conditioning is why we would seek to promote one over the other for which I don't see any other recourse, but thats not the central point.

My point is such a movement into the schozophrenic type mindset isn't so easy, infact I struggle to see it as possible without using some sort of radical treatment like prolonged isolation or drugs.
At the same time those diagnosed with schizophrenia are not without hope of reaching at least a high functioning state.

The matter of autonomous control here being the dividing factor is not so clear to me.

If someone uses drugs or isolation to experience non-ordinary states of consciousness, and their symptoms on the surface appear psychomimetic, we recognise they have strange recreational habits and move along.

If someone does neither of those things, but at some point they begin experiencing hallucination (stimuli that nobody else can verify at all), and they are unable to control or decrease these experiences at all, we could call them schizo.

Do you seriously not see the usefulness of that distinction? I am not saying that schizophrenia is permanent, I'm saying that we should NOT be talking about it as mere eccentricity. These are not weekend warriors tripping into non-ordinary states for a laugh, these are people who feel stuck there. For many, the voices never shut the fuck up. Can you imagine how that feels over weeks, months, years?

I was not clear enough there, I was talking about using those methods not to have a trip but to directly affect "brain damage" though you do make a good point that impermanent inducement is potentially possible.

They suffer many of them for sure, but then we're just speaking merely about the pleasure principle in general and not a distinctly categorizable qualitative difference

The difference is not how much they enjoy that state, I still think the difference is to do with the ability to shift in and out of that state, rather than being stuck there.

I think we're way off the rails at this point. The doctors that diagnose people as mentally ill are experiencing stimuli that no one else can verify. What, other than a tautology so sinister as to require the actual Demiurge as its maker, drives someone to say experiencing disembodied voices makes you "ill" but experiencing the qualia of your wants being intrinsically superior to other's needs, for example, makes you not only "healthy" but exemplary so?

Why would someone at the receiving end of this treatment even want to conform?

rip-off Tosquelles psychiatriac methods

basically make them do gardening and then surprise them and make them cook, all while living somewhere relatively cozy

You're acting like distress and fear are socially constructed.

You scream into a babies face like a monster, or follow someone around saying they are a disgusting subhuman piece of shit and nobody likes them... Then when they get distressed go "Aahhh, you're spooked my pal!"

It's natural.

I forgot to mention that I am NOT insinuating "game theory" and/or moral relativism. Just because the sociocultural superstructure seems to be a prescriptivist Kandinskian cookie cutter doesn't mean that the Human Spirit is not true and good.

Non-schizophrenics commonly throw bricks into houses of people because they believe the person inside is Osama Bin Laden? News to me.

Auditory hallucinations don't exist!
It's all a sham!

>Could anyone recommend a good introductory text to Deleuze for me?
Dialogues or What is philosophy

yes if you hear fucking voices it makes you ill.

Because the voices are 90% of the time hostile towards the person hearing them.

Most of the suffering the "mentally ill" experience is caused by other's persecution. I mean I qualify as eccentric on a bad day and it almost wasted ME. It's amazing that you're projecting the dehumanizing Psych-whatever perspective onto me. The potential Noumenal core of distress is very real. I admit this. The sociocultural superstructure does NOT. It only becomes an urgent problem when IT isolates people by invalidating it, isolating them, and threatening dehumanization, torture, and up until a few years ago death, unless they invalidate it themselves; not even for their own benefit, this is de facto acknowledged by both parties, but simply because it offends the superstructure.

It is YOU who are triply spooked.

Look into the history of hearing voices. Look into the current phenomenon of hearing voices outside of the West.

We aren't talking about hearing a voice once in a while. The voices are ever present critics and berate your every move. There is plenty of documentation of schizophrenics outside of the west.

that's irrelevant. something that incapacitates someone and prevents them from living is an illness.
nobody's talking about dehumanizing these people. i completely agree that the way people treat the "mentally ill" is a huge part of the suffering. it's just even worse if you don't address it as a problem.
yes the psych community is a problem in terms of how it addresses and frames "mental illness", it's a very impersonal approach to something deeply personal. but the solution isn't to view these things as normal. if one sees it as normal then one confines themselves to a permanent state which they identify as themselves which is hardly helpful and an even bigger problem.

>qualia

Stop using this dumb word