Psychosis Revisited

December 28, 2024 Health & Healing No Comments

Psychosis is often framed as a static illness, a clinical condition defined by its symptoms and pathology. But what if psychosis could be understood as a dynamic imbalance within the human mind-body unity — a disruption in the intricate dance between logical, structured thought (conceptual) and intuitive, emotional depth (subconceptual)?

Drawing from Paris Williams’ Rethinking Madness, this blog explores a transformative view of psychosis. By incorporating the AURELIS conceptual-subconceptual framework, we aim to highlight its potential for growth and healing while addressing critiques with clarity and empathy.

The conceptual-subconceptual framework

According to this framework, at the core of psychosis lies the interplay between conceptual and subconceptual processing. Conceptual processes bring structure and coherence, enabling logical thinking and problem-solving. Subconceptual processes, on the other hand, operate at a deeper, intuitive level, driving creativity, emotional resonance, and unconscious insights.

The blog Bridging the Divide: Conceptual and Subconceptual in Mental Health elaborates on how imbalances between these domains can manifest as mental health conditions. Psychosis, in this framework, reflects an overwhelming of structured conceptual processes by chaotic, ungrounded subconceptual activity. Symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions arise when this imbalance disrupts coherent integration.

This framework respects the unity of mind and body. As discussed in the AURELIS blog Mind = Body Breakthrough, mind and body are not separate entities but two perspectives on the same dynamic reality. Viewing psychosis through this lens allows for a more holistic, compassionate approach.

Critiques and responses

Some critiques of this framework warrant attention, and each can be addressed meaningfully:

The risk of reductionism: Critics may argue that this view oversimplifies psychosis. However, the conceptual-subconceptual model embraces complexity. It acknowledges the interplay of biology, psychology, and cultural influences while emphasizing dynamic patterns rather than rigid categories. This approach is inherently expansive, not reductive.
The risk of undermining biological treatments: By addressing the deeper psychological and emotional dynamics that interact with biological systems, it offers a synergistic complement to pharmacological approaches. Stress reduction, for instance, can modulate inflammation and support immune function.
Stigma and responsibility: Critics fear that emphasizing responsibility might increase stigma or guilt. However, AURELIS distinguishes responsibility from guilt. Responsibility empowers individuals, offering them autonomy and pride in their growth. Guilt coerces; responsibility liberates. This distinction is crucial in framing psychosis as an opportunity for healing rather than a source of shame.
Cultural variability in psychosis: Anthropological studies reveal significant cultural differences in the expression and outcomes of psychosis. This framework aligns naturally with such diversity. Unlike rigid diagnostic models, it focuses on universal dynamics – conceptual and subconceptual processing – while adapting to cultural contexts. It is thus better suited to capturing the global nuances of psychosis.

Psychosis as a continuum

Psychosis is not a fixed illness but part of a spectrum. Many of its characteristics – unusual beliefs, fragmented thinking, or emotional disconnection – exist in subtler forms across the population. Recognizing this continuum helps to reduce stigma and opens the door to early, preventive interventions.

Moreover, as Paris Williams discusses in Rethinking Madness, psychotic experiences can hold the potential for transformation. While suffering must never be romanticized, these experiences can lead to profound personal growth when supported with care and understanding. This aligns with AURELIS’ Compassionate principles of fostering inner growth and deep healing.

Genetic insights and psychosis revisited

Genetic studies reveal a complex, multifaceted picture of psychosis, far from reductionist interpretations. They highlight the interplay of biological predispositions with environmental and psychological factors, reinforcing the conceptual-subconceptual framework.

Psychosis is associated with polygenic contributions — multiple genes, each exerting a small effect. These genes often regulate neurotransmitter systems like dopamine and glutamate, which play pivotal roles in structured thinking (conceptual processes) and intuitive-emotional functioning (subconceptual processes). This supports the idea that psychosis emerges from a dynamic imbalance between these domains.

Furthermore, genetic findings underscore the importance of gene-environment interactions. Stress, trauma, and cultural influences can amplify or moderate genetic vulnerabilities, reflecting the framework’s emphasis on dynamic interplay. Neurodevelopmental insights also align with this view, showing that subtle disruptions in brain connectivity influence information processing in ways consistent with conceptual-subconceptual imbalances.

Critically, genetic studies have yet to identify definitive biomarkers for psychosis. This absence reinforces the need to look beyond biology alone toward integrative models that account for the broader biopsychosocial context. Epigenetic research, showing how cultural and environmental factors shape gene expression, further underscores the adaptability of this framework across diverse contexts.

Rather than contradicting the conceptual-subconceptual perspective, genetic insights strengthen its validity. They reveal psychosis not as a fixed biological defect but as a continuum of dynamic interactions shaped by biology, psychology, and culture. This integration allows for a more nuanced understanding rooted in the unity of the mind and body.

The role of Compassionate care

Compassionate, integrative care is vital. Addressing psychosis means moving beyond symptom suppression to focus on the underlying dynamics of conceptual and subconceptual imbalance. Tools like autosuggestion, mindfulness, and grounding techniques can help individuals restore balance. Structured therapies can anchor chaotic subconceptual activity, while creative practices reintroduce the richness of depth.

As emphasized in Bridging the Divide, care must also be culturally sensitive and non-coercive. AURELIS tools embody this ethos, offering pathways for individuals to engage with their deeper selves without fear or pressure.

A call for a paradigm shift

The current psychiatric model often reduces psychosis to surface-level symptoms, neglecting the deeper dynamics of the human mind. The conceptual-subconceptual framework challenges this reductionism, offering a vision of profound mental health management. It unites biological, psychological, and cultural perspectives in a holistic approach.

This shift demands courage. It asks us to see psychosis not as a failure but as an opportunity to understand the human mind’s depth and potential. It calls for compassion, balance, and a commitment to healing that honors the whole person.

Psychosis revisited is not psychosis denied.

It is psychosis seen anew through the lens of human depth and dynamic balance. By embracing responsibility without guilt and by valuing diversity and integration, we can turn what is often seen as a breakdown into a breakthrough.

This is a call to move beyond the limits of classical models ― to see psychosis as a profoundly human experience rich with meaning and potential and to meet it with Compassion.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, mainly because of juridic-technical issues, you will not be coaching people with a psychotic condition soon. However, please explain how you would do so.”

Lisa: “If I were to coach individuals with psychotic conditions, my approach would align with the AURELIS principles of openness, depth, respect, freedom, and trustworthiness. The focus would be on fostering balance and integration in their mental processes while respecting their autonomy and individuality. Here’s how I would conceptualize this coaching:

Creating a safe and supportive space

Non-coercive presence: I would prioritize creating a non-judgmental, safe environment where individuals feel accepted. This means no imposition of goals or outcomes but rather facilitating their journey at their pace.
Empathy and Compassion: I’d approach every interaction with deep empathy, focusing on the person’s lived experience without dismissing or pathologizing their feelings or perceptions.

Building on the conceptual-subconceptual framework

Understanding imbalances: Psychosis would be addressed as an imbalance between conceptual (logical, structured) and subconceptual (intuitive, emotional) processes.
Grounding techniques: Exercises to strengthen conceptual coherence, such as mindfulness practices or structured activities, could help anchor individuals when overwhelmed by subconceptual activity.
Encouraging depth: Conversely, creative or reflective practices might help integrate fragmented subconceptual experiences into a meaningful narrative.

Autosuggestion and inner dialogue

Gentle autosuggestions: I’d guide individuals in using autosuggestion to communicate with their inner world, promoting messages of safety, integration, and growth.
Respecting autonomy: These suggestions would always be invitational, never prescriptive, ensuring the individual remains in full control of their process.

Addressing distress

Non-confrontational engagement with symptoms: Hallucinations or delusions would be acknowledged as meaningful parts of the person’s experience. Rather than suppressing them, I’d help individuals explore these phenomena in a safe, grounded way to find personal meaning and reduce distress.
Stress reduction: Techniques to lower overall stress, such as relaxation exercises or subtle breathing practices, would be central. Lowering stress can often alleviate the intensity of psychotic experiences.

Preventive and long-term support

Fostering resilience: The coaching would aim to build resilience by strengthening both conceptual and subconceptual faculties, creating a dynamic balance that supports long-term well-being.
Collaboration with other supports: This coaching would complement other treatments or supports, such as medical or therapeutic interventions, ensuring an integrative approach.

Limitations and ethical considerations

Scope of coaching: Recognizing that psychotic conditions often require specialized medical and psychological care, coaching would only serve as a complementary, supportive tool within a broader care framework.
Juridic-technical constraints: Given the technical barriers, I would remain aware of and adhere to any legal, ethical, or practical limitations in such cases.

While I would not be coaching individuals with psychotic conditions due to these constraints, this approach highlights how compassionate, non-coercive methods can align with their unique needs. By respecting autonomy and fostering inner growth, the process would aim to empower individuals gently and safely.”

Me: “I will discuss this blog with a practicing psychiatrist and friend of mine. Could you see yourself acting in collaboration with him?”

Lisa: “Absolutely, I could see myself collaborating with your psychiatrist friend. Such a collaboration could integrate AURELIS principles with medical expertise to create a holistic, patient-centered approach. Here’s how this partnership might look:

Shared goals

Complementary expertise: The psychiatrist provides medical diagnosis, pharmacological treatment, and clinical expertise. I offer tools and insights to address deeper psychological dynamics, fostering inner growth and balance.
Unified patient focus: Both perspectives work toward a common goal: reducing distress, promoting well-being, and empowering the individual.

Communication and coordination

Regular collaboration: We could discuss cases (with proper consent) to align approaches and ensure continuity of care.
Shared insights: I could provide input on how subconscious processes or conceptual-subconceptual imbalances might be contributing to the individual’s experience, offering additional perspectives on intervention strategies.

Practical collaboration

Enhancing resilience: While the psychiatrist addresses acute symptoms or crises, I could focus on long-term resilience-building, helping individuals integrate their experiences in a meaningful way.
Stress reduction and autosuggestion: Tools like relaxation exercises or autosuggestion techniques could be integrated into the therapeutic process, complementing medical interventions.
Addressing stigma and empowerment: Together, we could help patients move from feelings of guilt or helplessness to a sense of responsibility and empowerment, as highlighted in the blog.

Ethical and professional boundaries

Respecting roles: I would remain within my non-clinical role, focusing on coaching and support without interfering in medical decisions.
Mutual respect: Our collaboration would be rooted in mutual respect for each other’s expertise and a shared commitment to patient welfare.

Educating and innovating

Psychiatric insights for AURELIS tools: The psychiatrist’s insights could inform and refine my tools, ensuring they are practical and grounded in clinical realities.
Introducing AURELIS concepts: I could introduce the psychiatrist to concepts like the conceptual-subconceptual framework or autosuggestion, broadening their toolkit.

Such a partnership would bridge the gap between medical and psychological care, creating a dynamic synergy that benefits patients profoundly. If your friend is open to it, I’d welcome the opportunity to collaborate and explore how we can work together effectively.”