I have said before that there is no universal way or signified to capturing or expressing in words the experience of psychosis. I still may be wrong about this claim. All of this depends on your definition of ‘capture’ and ‘experience ‘to evaluate my theory’s validity. Therefore, to determine the validity of my original comment, I will suggest a new concept surrounding the study of psychosis and its application in practice.
The theory I am dispensing is as follows: 1) That the accumulation of psychotic symptoms and the worsening of psychosis symptoms are rooted in the changing of signs within a person’s system of signification and 2) I am suggesting that while the identification of psychosis symptoms doesn’t mark or capture a single signified, or sign, the worsening of corresponding, primary, residual or inactive symptoms can be portrayed as a wholesale changing of a person’s experience, in reality, 3) This occurs through a fundamental restructuring of a person’s interpretation of their system of signs, in language, oral expression, and all brain functions within interact with the world through use and passage through his or her interpretive eye.
The term universal by definition means “common effect”(Noun) or “applicable to all cases” (Adjective) if we are to analyze both the structure of sentencing in a linguistic break down universal of both meaning and its usage.
The point of departure for securing a definition for the term “universal” suggests the word’s diversity. When analyzed for both meaning and usage, all names, no doubt signaling the instability of a common signifier or even effect, are both neutered and more rightly highly suspect. I mean that as the number of familiar signifiers increases in any given system of signification, the likelihood, or odds of a common effect being experienced by people in crisis and going through the throws of first-episode psychosis, becomes more and more unlikely. Given the projection of worsening psychosis symptoms and the uniqueness of each experience, the chances of any person seeing, hearing, feeling, or smelling something the same way as another person is implausible.
Psychosis symptoms can serve as the body’s response to a life adjustment and, in doing so, have also created a maladaptive coping mechanism. This is not to say the organic brain disease is a coping mechanism. Instead, how the body compensates and handles the change in brain function is, in essence, both a method of coping and adaptive to something altogether wrong for the body.
The response, which is both a means of coping with brain disorder, creating its reality by changing or challenging a person’s interpretation of their signification system, is healthy to a point. Sometimes, the mind needs to deal with the dysfunction of its regulation by systematically changing its signs.
I fully believe during initial psychotic symptoms, the early moments of a person’s break, is generally experienced as more systematic in terms of the composition of the changing sign itself. I am suggesting that before psychosis symptoms worsen, they will shift from more systematic sign changes to more disruptive, arbitrary, and altogether difficult to follow changes within a person’s system of signification and interpretation of the world. As brain tissue becomes more damaged, neurons and their pathways will become more misaligned and signals to and from the brain more chaotic and dysfunctional. Therapists can measure the rate of change before things get really out of hand and introduce measures into the worsening of psychosis symptoms by charting and mapping out the rate of change within the person’s system of signification.
The clinical significance of these claims has potential. If we assume my claims regarding the experience of psychosis can be measured, mapped out, and analyzed for degradation between linkages of signifiers, the usefulness of this scheme becomes clear. Further analysis will have to research the correlation between sign linkage and the experience of the individual suffering from psychosis. Given all signs go\through changes, the active disease process moves toward a higher degree of chaos and instability. Measuring distress tolerance to such changes will also be necessary for the research to add full meaning to understanding how everyone’s unique experience shares commonalities.