Hey. I think I get what you mean by 'internalised' and 'externalised' experience now.

Experience is interesting... The current classification manuals (DSM and ICD) aren't phenomenal classifications so much as behavioural classifications. Sometimes people distinguish between 'signs' and 'symptoms' where signs are phenomenal or experiential features and symptoms are objectively observable behavioural features. The DSM and ICD focus (for the most part) on symptoms (in order to promote inter-rater reliability - or agreement between clinician's) though the line gets a little blurry with respect to 'verbal behaviours' being objectively assessable and where the verbal behaviours can be reports of phenomenal experience.

I'm not too sure on this... But I think that the DSM and ICD aren't really focused on the experiential aspects so much as the behavioural aspects. As such, the term 'mania' is operationalised and assessed according to what you might think of as 'extroverted' behaviours rather than assessed by the presence of verbal reports of pleasant, or spiritual experiences.

It is an interesting idea that the phenomenology of such experiences might be the same, it is just the way that the person responds to the experience that is different.

Richard Bentall argues that there isn't a categorical difference between mood disorders (e.g., bi-polar) and psychotic disorders (e.g., schizophrenia). While the distinction is a very old one (it might originate in Kraeplin, though it might be even older than that, I'm not sure) it certainly is problematic. One way that the problem has been dealt with is to introduce a midway category of 'schizoaffective' in which to place people who seem to have BOTH psychotic and affective symptoms.

I think... That the distinction between affective disorders and psychotic disorders isn't clear cut. Bentall argues that instead of thinking that there are two (or three) distinct categories we are best to consider a dimension like this:

psychotic symptoms (thought disorders).............affective symptoms (mood disorder)

and a person falls somewhere along the continuum according to which symptom predominates. someone with 'schizoaffective' would fall squarely in the middle. this move requires that there be a hard and fast distinction between thought and mood, however, in order to assess how much each aspect is present...

my personal take... is that what have traditionally been regarded as 'thought' or 'psychotic' disorders are best conceptualised as 'affective' or 'emotional' or even 'experiential' disorders. the notion is in line with Maher's notion where he thinks that delusions are 'normal' or 'rational' or 'understandable' responses to certain kinds of anomalous experiences. the idea is that if any of us had those experiences (of sufficient intensity and duration) then we too would develop delusional beliefs. this one-factor line (where the nature of the experience determines the presence or absense of delusions) may be contrasted with the more standard two-factor line (where a cognitive or rational deficit is required IN ADDITION to an anomalous experience). while this is controversial... I think that the relevant kind of anomalous experience is best thought of as AFFECTIVE (or emotional) rather than PERCEPTUAL (e.g., visual). It is standardly taken to be visual, though...

if it is a matter of degree... then one might expect that... introversion and extroversion would similarly be differences in degree? one thing that is interesting to note is that... it might be that the medication (sedation) is (at least partly) responsible for the social withdrawal response to the anomalous experience.

just some rambellings... hope you don't mind my joining in...