That would be a convenient 'etiology', but it needn't be so convenient. To say that introversion and psychosis is not only opposed to, but caused by modernity would be a real dialectical materialist thesis-synthesis-antithesis argument. I don't think that though. There is a full range of diversification manifest in life as-we-know-it. I think Descartes demon is inspired by the demonic possession of what came to be known as Schizophrenia. In fact I think Descartes entire philosophy is an intended departure from Platonic irony, which is an incredibly difficult thing to discuss and 'irony' has been reduced to a linguistic phenomenon. However my contention is that irony in the broadest sense is on the schizo side of the argument. Introvert is just another schizo essence that modernity presents arguments against. For me it is a rather simple exercise. An antischizo is: rational, able, functional, doubtful/skeptical, authoritarian, possibly extrovert, social, communitarian etc. They can be all of those, some of those, and even a combination of those-and-schizo-essences such as: irrational, disabled, disfunctional, credulous, liberal, introvert, antisocial or asocial, individualistic etc. These oppositions need not be opposite, but merely opposing in essence.

Okay, I don't disagree too much. I'm just saying that where there is a conflict the motivation of both sides/all sides should be understood. Maybe a non-interested party shouldn't take sides at all. You know there is a cost to being in every fight.

I don't think anyone has any choice but to be involved in the 'fight'. Motivations are kind of hard to discern for any of the actors. In some ways I understand why someone wants to only have justified true beliefs, and that hints at motivation, but I am not really that kind of person. I don't really feel the need to have justified true beliefs, and Cartesian doubt seems extremist to me. I like having borderline delusional ideas such as this one about antischizophrenia, which if I think about it enough can really immerse me in another reality. Even though I don't think I have been able to express it thoroughly enough, I do have a complete enough idea of antischizophrenia to situate me in a schizophrenic reality where I would be antagonistic towards modern rationalists, and reactive to their antischizophrenic actions/ sanctionings.

Sorry, I came home after some heavy drinking when I wrote that. What I'm saying is; You should probably use a synonym. I don't trust your understanding of schizophrenia; you could remedy this by giving a case example and draw parallels from it. Alternatively separate the essences in to Crystallized / Uncrystallized or something like that. Then you have more space to work in and a fine metaphor.

I understand that you are talking about essences. And that these are aspects of schizophrenia but aren't schizophrenia in itself, and that mechanisms exist that categorize these essences into ultimately a disease. The anti-schizo ethos is a set of essences responsible for the stability of a given structure. As i understand it from you this structure is in itself more correlated to introversion? My problem with some of this is the classification of the opposites (i don't know much about dialectics) like the classification seems prone to human error and disagreement in it's basic elements.

I.think you mentioned awhile back you had some formal course work in philosophy. I did also some decades ago and it seemed so disjointed and inconsistent that I learned just enough to get through the course.
If they were getting it right then philosophy should reduce to something singular and not multiple opposing theories. A scientific theory. of information should be a prerequisite but is non-existent in formal philosophy. Maybe someone more current knows but the trend in academic philosophy departments seems to be away from basic philosophy towards political philosophy...but depends on the school.

It was not my intention to discourage you from philosophizing btw! I'm just having a hard time following some of your train of thought and that's on me.

I maybe made the topic a little bit too complex. In hindsight I should have just wrote about Descartes Demon which is the basis for the cogito and said that it was antischizophrenic. That would have possibly been a more productive discussion. But instead I made it a dialectic conflict and ended up talking about 1968 and Nazis. All the connections are so clear in my mind, but it would take a lot of explaining to do to get anyone else completely onboard.

But just about Descartes possibly being inspired by the demon that would come to be known as Schizophrenia to form the basis for the prevailing justified true belief zeitgeist of modernity, and the cogitio is a rather interesting topic. That it has created an antischizophrenic dialectical conflict is a little ambitious in hindsight.

Yes I studied philosophy among other subjects in university. I have my own ideas about what would make university better. That you say that reminds me of the quote by George Bernard Shaw "the reasonable man adapts to the world, the unreasonable man wants the world to adapt to him, therefore progress..." Unsurprisingly I think the unreasonable man is on the schizo side of the conflict. One reason is that schizophrenia represents 'problem' and antischizophrenia represents 'solution'

Maybe the unreasonable man is thinking outside the box to find new ideas even if by accident.

My view of psychosis or schizophrenia is it's likely more than a biologic failure but more often information processing anomalies...and missed by the professionals...who have no economic interest in a real cause. But in philosophy we should be looking for the real cause because it is relevant to questions in philosophy like how non-physicals in our minds interact with the physical world.

I'm not interested in cause. That is a modernist rational concern. The world is a certain way and I accept it. This post is not to talk about what has become the disease of schizophrenia, but the general opposition to everything that it is and represents. This includes how it is conceptualized as disease and how everything has become conceptualized in an increasingly focussed modern lense. It is about a way of thinking broadly about how schizophrenia is a polar opposite of everything that has been cultivated from Descartes on. It is about they type of person who maintains the standard of justified true belief, but it is also about everything that is opposed to and attempts to change a problematic natural world. It is a broader thesis than that even, but first encourages you to abandon the very focussed and polished lens that sees schizophrenia as just a disease and clinical diagnosis.

I think your attitude toward the anti-schizo establishment can be categorized as a paranoia. This puts you in the schizo category. It's a no-win situation for you, because you only encourage the divide which sets you apart and gives them power over you.

This is the common problem with any sort of anti-establishment movement. Characterizing yourself as anti-establishment (even if establishment is characterized as anti-...) puts yourself into a me against them situation which is guaranteed to render you as an oppressed individual, not having the power of the group.

I believe that the only true way to get what you want is to actually break down the divide which you seem to be intent on emphasizing. This allows you to disguise your anti-establishment passion, giving you entry into the establishment. Then you might be allowed to work from within to bring about the changes you desire. Positioning yourself as an individual who has willfully distanced oneself from the group, and is picked on because of this difference, will not get you much sympathy.

But just about Descartes possibly being inspired by the demon that would come to be known as Schizophrenia to form the basis for the prevailing justified true belief zeitgeist of modernity, and the cogitio is a rather interesting topic. — introvert

So Stalin for example is unreasonable, a problem, anti-capitalist, schizo and represents the age before capitalism. I see these essences in the may 68 revolt (communist) from the perspective of the pro-modernity (capitalist). And i guess like nazis are pro-modernity, so they are anti-schizo. and schizophrenia represents the enemy of modernist society in its ultimate form; someone who can't contribute to the capitalist metaphorical machine, or maybe it's more like someone who doesn't see the point at all. But the question arises: does that not go for everyone in a capitalist system who don't participate, old, sick, (real)leftist etc? Or are you saying those have a schizo essence because they are counter modernity?

The idea is in the realm of schizo as it is conceptualized here, but Im not really doing anything schizo. Im at work right now, I go home, eat dinner and go to sleep, and repeat. I'm not really advocating schizo actions. I'm likely not going to confront rationalists etc on the forum with schizophrenia for example. I look at it as a possible large scale dialectical conflict or sociological perspective. Nobody has to take any action regarding it. It exists. Using the example of an american president: he has some schizo traits but he idealizes rational. His schizo traits move by mitosis to the schizo side and fuels antischizo and his rational idealism he expresses supports the modern ideal. The conflict is not mutually exclusive, one can act and think with both sides.

Yes that thinking is pretty much in line. Communism is basically on the schizo side for various reasons I dont have time to explore right now but it is a belief that doesnt align with healthy functioning of the corpus.

I see, white blood cells. What you are describing exists if you think it does. It's basically metaphysics vs materialism (is the thought real or the mechanism creating the thought). However you choose to categorize your phenomenon it will always be an abstraction of a system composed of isolated individuals. Abstractions are prone to error. If your concept allows you to predict a coming totalitarian regime it has pragmatic use. But as far as i know theory seldom have in the grand scheme of things (except CIA theory).

As it stands the idea is just the expression of a notion. It really hasn't been challenged or developed in a rigorous way. If I had to one off a hypothesis it's that antischizophrenia accelerates or intensifies in relation to increasing normlessness or anomie in society. If one wanted to do something absurd and apply rational methodology to the antischizophrenic theory, that could be tested. In the USA there is an alt-right movement that has some schizo essences, so this theory would say that the "liberal" rational order of modern western liberalism is actually causing a dialectical conflict resulting in the manifestation of a social schizophrenia. It's a difficult topic, but something like: the politically correct, social democratic culture has created an epistemological crisis, where two conflicting sides of untruth are forming. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part is that one side is schizo is a function of what can be considered irony. There are several layers to that, but the simple formula is that the circumstance of western liberalism creates certain normative expectations, and the alt right acts with inferior epistem to overcome superior power with politically incorrect individual psychological dysfunction. (Opposite of politically correct, collective social function)