I have said before that there is no universal way or signified to capturing or expressing in words the experience of psychosis. I might have been wrong about this claim. All of this depends on your definition of capture, and experience, to really inquire into the validity of my statement. Therefore, to determine the validity of my original statement, I am going to suggest a new theory 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 is 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 own interpretation of their system of signs, in language, oral expression, and all brain functions with in 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 do an analysis of the 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” also makes visible the multiplicity inherent in the word and all words, especially when analyzed four both meaning and usage, no doubt signaling the instability of a common signifier or even effect is both neutered and more rightly highly suspect. What I mean is that as the number of common 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 totally implausible.
When I first began to experience psychosis symptoms, as I talked about in the article: The Mystique of Psychosis, is that psychosis symptoms can serve as the-body’s response to a life adjustment and in doing so, has also created a maladaptive coping mechanism. This is not to say the organic brain disease is a coping mechanism. Instead, the manner in which the body compensates and handles the change in brain function is in essence both a method of coping and adaptive to something altogether bad for the body. The change in brain function is what I am suggesting is bad. The bodies response, which both is a means of coping with the brain disorder, creating its own reality by changing or challenging a person’s interpretation of their own system of signification 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 own interpretation and connection to the world. This makes sense. 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. This is to say that before things get really out of hand, therapists can measure the rate of change 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 are to 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 are going through changes, with the active disease process also assumed to move toward a higher degree of chaos and instability, measuring distress tolerance to such changes will also be necessary to the research to add full meaning to understanding how everyone’s unique experience shares commonalities.