06-23-2010, 05:16 AM
I don't think Syd dealt with schizophrenia, at least not the diagnosis of today. 
However, he did so many drugs that produce psychosis that the line between innate mental struggles or "too much LSD" nearly vanishes. Another idea that is embedded within society that kind of irks me is that geniuses are crazy, or that true artists suffer from mental illness. The line between genius and insanity is thin- I don't think that is true. Syd was a genius, just as some would say Van Gogh or John Nash who, like Syd, have a bunch of allegations of insanity thrown at them. While John Forbes Nash was diagnosed with schizophrenia, that doesn't mean he has an illness at all. 
The point i am trying to make with that is that debating genius or insanity is a futile and perpetual argument, because really they are one in the same. Geniuses just use their art or their minds to help society, while insane people scare it or hurt it. Or so society has come to say. 
Really though, genius and insanity are just terms applied to people, and in the end Syd was a person. An innovative and remarkable one, but one whose crazy diamond-ness probably wouldn't have given a hoot as to what men in white coats thought about him anyways. 
But instead of arguing things like that, it is much easier to just roll with the established schools of thought and keep wondering why Syd was the way he was. 
Syd was eccentric, one has to be to have the impact he did. And as i stated before, eccentric people won't often be understood, and therefore will be given names and labels to help ease the tension or lack of insight into his behavior. 
One gigantic huge key that would really sway the tide in our speculations is the state of health his parents had, and whether mental illness is a genetic factor within his family. If there were evidence as to why he would eventually develop something like schizophrenia, that would be a more convincing theory to me. But to simply listen to his music and observe his erratic and reclusive behavior and say there's something off with his head based on just that is silly to me. And probably inaccurate. Unfortunately, Syd somewhat sorta kinda fried his brain too, which in the end makes all of this redundant and irritating and nothing more than a petty rant. 
The end.
Did he go crazy because he was brilliant? Or was he brilliant, because he went crazy? Was he crazy?
Did he do drugs because he was creative? Or was he creative because he did drugs? Did he do drugs? (Baha just kidding.)
Was he inherently mad? Or was madness, inherently Syd?
Was he a genius, because he was always a child? Or was it because he never grew up, that he was a genius?
Who came first?
God or Roger Waters?
However, he did so many drugs that produce psychosis that the line between innate mental struggles or "too much LSD" nearly vanishes. Another idea that is embedded within society that kind of irks me is that geniuses are crazy, or that true artists suffer from mental illness. The line between genius and insanity is thin- I don't think that is true. Syd was a genius, just as some would say Van Gogh or John Nash who, like Syd, have a bunch of allegations of insanity thrown at them. While John Forbes Nash was diagnosed with schizophrenia, that doesn't mean he has an illness at all. The point i am trying to make with that is that debating genius or insanity is a futile and perpetual argument, because really they are one in the same. Geniuses just use their art or their minds to help society, while insane people scare it or hurt it. Or so society has come to say. Really though, genius and insanity are just terms applied to people, and in the end Syd was a person. An innovative and remarkable one, but one whose crazy diamond-ness probably wouldn't have given a hoot as to what men in white coats thought about him anyways. But instead of arguing things like that, it is much easier to just roll with the established schools of thought and keep wondering why Syd was the way he was. Syd was eccentric, one has to be to have the impact he did. And as i stated before, eccentric people won't often be understood, and therefore will be given names and labels to help ease the tension or lack of insight into his behavior. One gigantic huge key that would really sway the tide in our speculations is the state of health his parents had, and whether mental illness is a genetic factor within his family. If there were evidence as to why he would eventually develop something like schizophrenia, that would be a more convincing theory to me. But to simply listen to his music and observe his erratic and reclusive behavior and say there's something off with his head based on just that is silly to me. And probably inaccurate. Unfortunately, Syd somewhat sorta kinda fried his brain too, which in the end makes all of this redundant and irritating and nothing more than a petty rant. The end. Did he go crazy because he was brilliant? Or was he brilliant, because he went crazy? Was he crazy?
Did he do drugs because he was creative? Or was he creative because he did drugs? Did he do drugs? (Baha just kidding.)
Was he inherently mad? Or was madness, inherently Syd?
Was he a genius, because he was always a child? Or was it because he never grew up, that he was a genius?
Who came first?
God or Roger Waters?