- Either we should acknowledge that what appears to be some perfectly natural description of certain psychopathological facts ought to force us to reconsider our prior philosophical belief that the domain which has been affected by the psychopathology had a purely transcendental unity.
- Or we should stick to our philosophical guns and acknowledge that what appears to be some perfectly natural description of certain psychopathological facts is purely that - a misleading appearance - and that all we have really is a nonsense with no apt articulation.
My short objection to this forced choice is that it fails to consider adequately a third alternative:
- That what we confront in psychopathological conditions (especially psychotic conditions) are phenomena that simultaneously and naturally invite, yet also thwart, the application of certain concepts. That what we are dealing with are necessarily exceptions to a rule, phenomena the psychotic character of which is precisely of a piece with the ways in which our language starts to fall apart in the phenomena's articulation. That the background preconditions for the sensible application of our concepts are what falls apart in psychosis. That what we must however learn to tolerate is a situation in which the most apt characterisation of the phenomenon is also and nevertheless one which aptly fails to make it intelligible - since, being psychotic, it is precisely not intelligible in the way in which non-psychotic phenomena are. And that the aptness of this characterisation is not one which can be demonstrated through the application of criteria but is sui generis - is, possibly, one which draws more on intellectual sensibilities that have their most direct expression in, say, poetics.