Reply to comment

From where I'm sitting now, it appears to me that categorization is the name of the game.  If we can't categorize mental conditions on the healthy to unhealthy spectrum in some way, what can we do?  

It's my understanding that we are currently considering a "view from the inside" as an alternative means of categorization.  Perhaps, this view might be more useful in helping the patient's storyteller make sense of the world. 

 What is weighing on my mind right now is the degree of subjectivity and objectivity that different classification systems represent and the practical usefulness that follows from that.  For example, the major problem in my mind with trying to classify mental illness in terms of behavior and emotion is how subjective things are.  Who can say when this behavior is or isn't being demonstrated?  and who is experiencing what emotion?  Where is the cutoff?  

I see this new perspective (from the inside) as being plagued with the same problems.  Just because two individuals describe something in a similar way, are we able to meaningfully compare the two?  

 It seems like a physiological perspective may provide a more clear-cut, objective approach to categorization.  We can look at structures, organization, chemical levels etc. and say these things are or are not present.  

I am certainly not trying to suggest that there is no use for considering things from the inside, or other things such as cultural influences.  I believe that these factors will expand understanding.  My question now is:  What provides us with a more useful categorical model?  While each perspective may offer different understandings, which should be top priority?