Munetz, M.R., M.R. Munetz, and C.L. Cornes, Distinguishing Akathisia and Tardive Dyskinesia

It's interesting to learn that the experts were having problem distinguishing Akathisia and Tardive Dyskinesia although the article was published 30 years ago.

It's an article providing interesting ways to see whether I have both though.

Munetz, M.R., M.R. Munetz, and C.L. Cornes, Distinguishing Akathisia and Tardive Dyskinesia. Journal of clinical psychopharmacology, 1983. 3(6): p. 343-350.

Distinguishing the two
1. Subjective distress
2. voluntary nature of the movement:
3. Onset of disorder
4. Location and signs of symptom
5. the presence of other extrapyamidial symptoms
6. Pharmacological response

After I start to take Abilify, it's getting me the same side effect as Risperdal ... Akathisia .... What does it mean? I have to my lower limps constantly to get rid of bodily discomfort so as to get these mumble jumbles typed out.

What about Tardive Dyskinesia? Remember my esophageal spasm? My doctor than suspected that it was a manifestation of Tardive Dyskinethia and it eventually went away after the dosage went down. At the same time, I suspect it's more TD like if I am to us "voluntary nature" as a criteria to classify the following bodily movement: the body curved up like a shrimp with knees rolling up to my chest on its own 1-2 hours after I took high dosage of Seroquel before bed time and woke me up (not to mention the sense of rigidity I have to endure).

My shrinking head

A new study found that other than ordinary aging, my antipsychotic medication might have contributed to the faster rate for my brain to shrink ... with me possibly having fewer brain cells and connections than normal.

They say that the shrunken brain has not been found to "have effect on people" such as cognitive capacity, although I wonder whether it's dependent on how cognitive capacity is defined.

Antipsychotic drugs linked to slight decrease in brain volume

Original article: Longitudinal Changes in Total Brain Volume in Schizophrenia: Relation to Symptom Severity, Cognition and Antipsychotic Medication

(This is cross-posted in Ratology Reloaded.)

Princess' or princess's

After using the spelling of princess' for years, I was just told recently that princess's is the correct possessive form.

Apparently, I am not the only one feeling confused about having an S behind the apostrophe.

http://osdir.com/ml/education.english.engfor/2006-03/msg00031.html
But there are two major systems for how you would write it out:> > 1. The princess's golden hair.> 2. The princess' golden hair.> > In the United States, newspapers tend to use system 2, and academic and> book publishers tend to use system 1.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_correct_spelling_of_the_possessive_form_of_princess
There are two accepted forms for possessive singular nouns ending in s: Add an apostrophe (') after the existing s at the end of the word: princess' Add an apostrophe s ('s) after the existing s at the end of the word: princess's Examples: The princess' nanny took her to the museum. The princess's nanny took her to the museum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv57.shtml
When I was in school and taught about apostrophes, one thing I remember was that nouns ending in a double 's' simply took the apostrophe without adding another 's'. Examples: the princess' crown and the boss' secretary. In the USA you would see princess's and boss's as standard practice. Has it come to this in the UK?

Gotta say though that the majority of information I found online rooted for Princess's as opposed to Princess'.

Citation for leben, lieben, arbeiten? Freud, S. (1929). Civilization and its discontent perhaps?

In search of where leben, lieben, arbeiten come from, I came across this article or book. Think, shamefully, that it might be the first time I sat down to read Freud seriously. (Oops... sorry, Mr. Freud.)

Didn't think I would go to Freud's domain to find references for da 9-copy book ... not in my wildest imagination

Following are some of the quotes that I find interesting.

Freud, S. (1929). Civilization and its discontent (J. Riviere, Trans.). Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK: Chrysoma Associates Limited.

"Originally the ego includes everything, later it detaches itself from the external world. " (p. 3)

"We will not follow the changes the city went through any further, but will ask ourselves what traces of these early stages in its history a visitor to Rome may stil find today, if he goes equipped with the most complete historical and topographical knowledge." (p. 4)

What exact is Roma?  Reminds me of this set of pictures taken by the Princeton University Art Meseum.


 Is it a wall mosaic or floor mosaic in Roman time decorated with a trace of water pike running through?

The following could be considered as an excellent citation for the "other" category in my psychotic model. When the body really suffers, even the few can't do no nothing. Great excuse for me since them few can't even do no nothing when the body becomes a source of suffering.

"Another method of guarding against pain is by using the libido-displacement that our mental equipment allows of ... The task is then one of transferring the instinctual aims into such direction that they cannot be frustrated by the outer world ... Its success is greatest when a man knows how to heighten sufficiently his capacity for obtaining pleasure from mental and intellectual work.  Fate has little power against him then..... artist's joy in creation ... or the scientist's in solving problems or discovering truth.... The weak point of this method, however, is that is is not generally applicable; it is only available to the few. It presupposes special gifts and dispositions which are not very commonly found in a sufficient degree. And even to these few it does not secure complete protection against suffering; it gives no invulnerable armour against the arrows of fate, and it usually fails when a man's own body becomes a source of suffering to him."(p. 9)

Work could be considered a path to happiness although "world is not valued very highly by men." (p. 10)

"The goal towards which the pleasure-principle impels us -- of becoming happy --is not attainable; yet we may not-nay, cannot--give up the effort to come nearer to realization of it by some means or other." (p.11)

Without a prototype... absolutely creative!

"... the first acts of civilization were the use of tools, the gaining of power over fire, and the construction of dwellings.  Among these the acquisition of power over fire stands out as a quite exceptional achievement, without a prototype ..." (p. 14)

Can you imagine to be the first human form to successfully gained power over that first ball of fire? 8-O



Leben--arbeiten und lieben? This quote might do it...

"The life of human being in common therefore had a twofold foundation, i.e., the compulsion to work, created by external necessity, and the power of love ...." (p. 19)

A quote from Goethe's Mephistopheles on p. 28:

All entities that be Deserve their end-nonentity.

So all that you name sin, destruction -

Wickedness, briefly - proves to be

The native element for me

"The development of the individual is ordered according to the program laid down by the pleasure-principle, namely, the attainment of happiness ..." (p. 37)

"Individual development seems to us a product of the interplay of two trends, the striving for happiness, generally called egoistic, and the impulse towards merging with others in the community, which we calll altruistic." (p. 37)

Hegel (1998). Preface (A. V. Miller, Trans.) Phenomenology of Spirit

Following are some quotes that resonate with me in the Preface of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Please note that these are only quotes that resonate with me during the reading process and doesn't represent the author's concluding thesis.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1998). Preface (A. V. Miller, Trans.) Phenomenology of Spirit (pp. 1-45): Motilal Banarsidass.

"To judge a thing that has substance and solid worth is quite easy, to comprehend it is much harder, and to blend judgement and comprehension in a definitive description is the hardest thing of all." (p. 3)

"The power of Spirit is only as great as its expression, its depth only as deep as it dares to spread out and lose itself in its exposition." (p. 6)
So established the notion of limited my words.

"When we wish to see an oak with its massive trunk and spreading branches and foliage, we are not content to be shown an acorn instead." (p. 7)
Guess there is an legit reason why I went all the way into the psychiatric ward on Valentine's Day, 2008.

"As for content ... [they] appropriate a lot of already familiar and well-ordered material; by focusing on rare and exotic instance they gave the impression that they have hold of everything else which scientific knowledge had already embraced in its scope, and that they are also in command of such material as is as yet unordered.   It thus appears that everything has been subjected to the absolute Idea, which therefore seems to be cognized in everything and to have matured into an expanded science." (P. 8)

"The Idea, which is of course true enough on its own account, remains in effect always in its primitive condition, if its development involves nothing more than this sort of repetition of the same formula .... [This] is no more than the fulfillment of what is needed, i.e. a self-originating, self differentiating wealth of shapes, than any arbitrary insights into the content. Rather it is a monochromatic formalism which only arrives at the differentiation of its material since this has been already provided and is by now familiar." (P. 8-9)
This this why it's the high time for my book to stop since I am simply reading things the same way.

"[This] formalism maintains that such monotorny and abstract universality are the Absolute, and we are assured that dissatisfaction with it indicates the inability to master the absolute standpoint and to keep hold of it." (p. 9)
For me, it's simply, given the nature of redundant notions, what's the point of seeing more of my own viewpoint. Over-saturated already.

"Dealing with something from the perspective of the Absolute consists merely in declaring that, although one has been speaking of it just now as something definite, yet in the Absolute, the A=A, there is nothing of the kind, for there all is one. To pit this single insight, that in the Absolute everything is the same, against the full body of articulated cognition, which at least seeks and demands such fulfillment, to palm off its Absolute as the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black--this is cognition naively reduced to vacuity." (P. 9)
With all due respect, Mr. Hegel, this is why I am reading this preface of yours in this book, where you stated "the night in which, as the saying goes, all cows are black."
Absolutely or not... over-saturated still. Make no mistake--it's a good thing I have over-saturated what I can afford though it's the reality that I have over-saturated what I can afford.

"[a] so-called basic proposition or principle of philosophy, if true, is also false, just because it is only a principle. It is, therefore, easy to refute it. The refutation consists in pointing out its defect; and it is defective because it is only the universal or principle, is only the beginning. If the refutation is thorough, it is derived and developed from the principle itself .... The refutation would, therefore, properly consist in the further development of the principle, and in thus remedying the defectiveness...." (p. 13)
Thanks, Mr. Hegel. Albeit with the defective nature of the model in my 11-copy book and although nothing universal since applicable to me's, myselves, and I's, my crazy talk does seem to serve some purpose.

"Consciousness knows and comprehends only what falls within its experience; for what is contained in this is nothing but spiritual substance and this, too, as object of the self." (p. 21)
More argument to support my argument that the tactics and model is for me's, myselves, and I's only.

"Truth is its own self-movement, whereas the method just described is the mode of cognition that remains external to its material." (p. 28)
Good point to justify why after all these years, I still don't know Jack about psychosis--since the truth, as per my understanding so far, is but hanging out there. A good excuse, blame it on the (scientific) method Mr. Hegel had described? 8-O

"It is for this reason unnecessary to clothe the content in an external [logical] formalism; the content is in its very nature the transition into such formalism, but a formalism which ceases to be external, since the form is the innate development of the concrete content itself." (p. 34-35)
This is why I have such difficulties editing my own writing in the Ratology domain. To be honest, I think all texts should simply be unedited... like if anyone wants to read DWM, he or she should simply go to the original source-unabridged and unedited.