rubrics for mental slips and obcessions

[Ellen Madono]

Hi,

I am having trouble finding the rubric for the following tendency to over-draw metaphors. The patient is good at using metaphors for creative thinking and sometimes it is useful, but she is also afraid that she will make crazy connections using a remedy. She is not a drug addict, so this is not a drug induced experience. An example is copied below from the patient's own description. Is "unwanted thoughts" good enough? I have a feeling that I am not going deep enough into her thought processes during the interview. This patient generally has supurb learning faculties. In general, logical thought is not a problem. If anything, much like a sulphur she can become obcessed with "normal" logical conclusions. Like many of us, she is having trouble seeing the entire context of problems.

Obcession with sexual identity confusion results in depression because she can not "fix" the world so that her perspective will be appreciated. Her mind and emotions are female, but her body is male. This is not normal homosexuality in that most homosexuals maintain their sexual identity in harmony with the physcial body features. For the normal homosexual, as far as I know, the issue is the gender of the person who turns them on. Is homosexuality still the correct rubric? For this person, physical sexual intercourse with a male is a time to "go dead". Normally, it sounds as if she is not totally consenting to it. At least that's what she talks about. This is far outside my experience, so I am unsure of myself.

I asked her to desribe her term "Slippage" and this was her reply.

It is the ability to relate seemingly disparate things.

It is involved in metaphors and similies: "love is like a rose,
beautiful and sweet it makes you bleed."

.... (snip)

Too much slippage is like a kind of craziness of unwanted thoughts: "if,
if thoroughbreds are brown like the president's shit probably is, then
the toilet should be white like the whites of a horse's eye. That is why
white people get blind when they talk about politics."

Too little slippage is not a problem I have: it is computer-like,
literal, logical thinking. A to B to C.

I would appreciate any experienced help with this either in terms of deepening the interview or rubrics.

Thanks,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dale Moss]

Hi, Ellen --

This is an interesting case. Rosemary's right about the sexual identity
issue. Perhaps it might help to look upon it as a duality, similar to the
angel/devil and other dualities found in a number of homeopathic remedies.

Her tendency to slip easily from one (mixed) metaphor to another reminds me
of loquacity with a proclivity for quick changes of subject. It does look
like an overly agile mind that is losing control and can't fasten on one
idea. (I wasn't aware people went blind from talking politics! )

Peace,
Cinnabar