Re: The drunken club
I'm surprised, apart from Grayman, Puffy and I are the sanest people around! Jenny claims to have her feet on the ground, but that's only because she's so lost in her own fantasy world that she mistakes it for the real thing. Her 'distinctions' are distinctions, not of fantasy and reality, like she believes, but are, in actuality, distinctions of a set of differing personalities, all with dissimilar perceptual interpretations (what I will refer to as schizo aisthesis) that only occasionally manage to merge in a meta-state allowing her to recognize their dissimilarity and to arbitrarily favor one (what she terms 'reality') over the other (what she terms 'fantasy'). Poor thing.
TheHabitatDoctor: I watched the lecture yesterday and I quite enjoyed it. Unfortunately, he spent far more time on OCD relating it with ritual practices than he did schizotypal disorder, though it's a highly fascinating topic in it's own right. His point with schizotypy being that 'speaking in tongues' is desirable if done at the right time, which means that anything short of full blown schizophrenia, where we assume a lesser degree, or an absence, of control, can be evolutionary advantageous in limited amounts. It would have been interesting to hear him say something more on that particular point, on why, assuming it's the case, we value, or need a shaman; a 'thin boundary', schizotypal, 'loose thinking', 'I-have-contact-with-the-beyond' kind of person.
Jenny: What I liked with the thin/thick model was similar to what I liked about mbti when I first encountered it. Traits identified with thin boundary put into a general theory aspects of what I have thought to be traits in my own person. In particular, a weaker sense of identity so that one easily get the sense of loosing one self in others, and an'
openness to experience'. I have no clear moral system yet, so I usually have no second thoughts about engaging in activities that may otherwise be frowned upon by society, in it being considered 'dangerous', 'weird', 'mad' or whatnot. Most I knew growing up are very limited in what they, due to a solid and narrow point of view, can allow themselves to do or observe without condemning (not that it's necessarily a bad thing). This openness to experience coupled with a weak sense of identity might cause problems for me down the road because a weak sense of identity makes me prone to seek myself in others, or in various models (ie. the 'boundaries of the mind'), and an openness to experience might cause me to seek it in places one shouldn't really go without first having a firm sense of what you are.
I might have been thinking along these lines when I suddenly found myself in some backyard in the middle of the night drinking what was presumably a mixture of red wine and human blood in the company of at least two confirmed psychiatric cases while listening to someones highly fragmented, and next to impossible to follow though well articulated thoughts on everything from the nature of reality/pan, to perversion-narcisism, to neo-hegelianism, to Zizek's sublime object and ideology, while some other where trying to show how, in fact, we were all living in the matrix.
I don't expect you to watch it, just making it available if you want to. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI
