Schizophrenia Forum - introspection to schizophrenia

Dear Mr. Lewis A. Opler, MD, PhD,

I have been looking for someone to have a discourse about my findings in the field of abnormal psychology. I have been diagnosed schizophrenic in 1997. I am an atypical schizophrenic. I say this because through my efforts to cognize my own disaffect-amt to society. 1 (interpersonal) I have found that the voices are actually "low amplitude", "high volume", sub-threshold inter-sensory "displays". (typically) In order, of my cogniscence, "[by virtue of reflexive positive reditribution et."low amplitude"]> "high amplitude"[<as per schizophrenic] , "high volume", at and above threshold thyamatic experience. The causality is a non-linear cognization with a neupeptidic concomitance. (1*in otherwords, I rationalized my own state of mind)I apologize that didn't make sense. My rationalization dosesn't conclude properly aformentioned delivery. I should put 1* in 1
My efforts were at first given to the idea of an anxyiolitic(seretonergic)-stimulant molecule. I realized that this was not 'mobile' do to the withdrawl and unpredictable natures of stimulants. 2 Then I was drawn to a anxyiolitic (same)-ginsenoside . Esentially, if you are not familiar, and anxiolytic steroid. (to clarify [point 2] should have stated anxyiolitic and a ginsenoside in the same compound) I became at this point, apropriately perplexed. I wanted the chemical to be active at all indeterminable levels, as per the individual natures of those affected. So I re-examined all the potentiating chemicals in my repertoire, seretonin [5HT-1a], dopaminergic, and noradrenergic. The fact was that I didn't want a substance that had an inhibiting nature. So, I re-examined a thought paridigm I had come up with to represent the schizophrenic thought process. (given socio-pysch-al "[tend]-isms", more familiar to yourself as psycho-social interaction as per trends in society) It is:

I predicate this by saying that neutral-behavior autoreflexive ideation is not typically possibe. (allowing the mind to heal itself in a voluntary way without drugs) So we start with the gnostic position.

1. intial knowledge defines position in flux
2. flux defines position to decision

I submit that this is the key area where schizophrenics would show a negative personal affect. In the sense that people with generally positive affect would make choices. The former would be lent to decisions.

1decision 1a : ... specf : the act of settling or terminating (as a contest or controversy) by giving judgment [1]

1choice 1: ... typically : the voluntary and purposive or deliberate action of picking, singalling out, or selecting from two or more that which is favored or superior : the decision reached by such action <the ~ made by the voters> <Lincoln's ~ of Grant as general> [1]

The key point of interest, neuropharmacologically, would be the over-[nor?]adrenergistics with an axis effect to the dopaminerigic pathways.
The key epidemiology involved here is how people are introduced to schizophrenia. I took LSD and subsequently was put in a world of "internal chaos". I don't know how the former experiences it. I didn't fundamentally consider myself schizophrenic until I had a "moment". I thought the person on the TV was speaking directly to me. I experienced a 'fundamental fear'. I think the former enters into schizophrenia in this way.
The subsequent conclusion is to be gained in the question; where is the disassociation between neurochemical pathways in schizophrenia and the bodies natural anxiolytics?

3. decision evokes a perceptual change
4. perceptual change forms a stance

I submit that the stance is the dopaminergic action. Therfore if dopaminergic action is stance and schizophrenia is decision-ary, then decisions would lead to trepidation or over-[nor?]adrenergistics. This would add to perceptual change. Therein lies the disassociation 'loop' [disunity] in question.

5. stance is knowledge

I submit that if gultaminergic projections affecting memory ...... * I was just about to "get in deep" with the lateral tegmental, trying to link the noradrenergic lines with the glutamanergic projections, as per [with] the cortex, and I realized macroscopically, with the exception of the greatest of collegiate brain scientists, it is nearly impossible to cognize "on one plate" if you will, the mind versus the subject of interest. I going back to a Scientific American article.
I am still reading.... however I have come to a former realization.... rather that I was thinking from the philisophical standpoint that why would God, as a progressive compassionate intelligence [fundamentally from most aspects providing initial comfort {parents}, saftey {gernerally a community or instincts}, and the internal faculties to derive pleasure] ........ well alright... to appease all the opinions on the subject of existence..... free will! .....then one has to entertain at least briefly that schizophrenia is not a illness. I think it would be more appropriate to have a little introspection on the subject. I say this because most contemporary [lay, and I say because, it defines propensity of culture] articles tend to disseminate in a utilitarian fashion. The writings hardly define the human condition, as if the scientists had a betteer conceptual quality of living than schizophrenics and if it wern't for one than the other would not survive at all, which is absurd in a universe of all possibilites. If we can't be dreamers alone then how can existence satiable?
Going on with my diatribe, if you will Smile

.... it's only been about 5 minutes or so. I think it's a fundamental culture thing. That's why I am a proponent of the steroid aspect of treatment.

I need to read on a get some more info , state of mind..

Sincerely,

Darius Leshko Slaski

[1] (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)