Reminds me of a thought I troubled Facebook with a couple of months ago...
The System works somewhat and fails a bunch of people in a lot of important ways. Politics is about the degree to which we believe in that system, and largely the types of (self)-delusion we require to sustain that belief. That's why the estsblishment's lies are so poor, they don't need to convince anyone who isn't eager to delude themselves in the first place. ~~~
I wouldn't classify self-delusion as psychosis, rather it is a characteristic feature of the normal operation of the human mind.
Jez - Interesting take, but I would lean toward self-delusion being psychosis. It's very definition is an impaired relationship with reality.......and positions that are contrary to actual evidence. Though as AOW points out, there are certainly degrees.
Many have no problem being knowingly lied to, by people that they support and endorse, as long as it comports with the narrative that they want to be true.
It would seem [unscientifically of course] that this phenomenon has expanded rapidly across society over the last decade.
The difference between psychosis and self-delusion is a sliding scale, not a hard lime of demarcation. The reason it has became so obvious, if not prevalent, is the Internet and hard line politicalization of the media. Conformational bias rears its ugly head and the perverts, radicals and psychos find it much easier to find and communicate with each other. Spoken and unspoken conspiracies abound!
To be a loyal fan of either political party requires a lot of self-delusion, or some skillful justification.
Being a loyal Democrat or Republican requires you to defend the indefensible, and I just can't do that anymore. Same for Libertarian, Green, or any other minor nuisance party.
I readily admit I vote for the lesser of two evils.
@Warren: I also qustion whether self-delusion is really any more prevalent in the Internet age. What types & degree of self-delusion were commonplace in ancient and medieval times?
@Silverfiddle: I think even non-partisans are susceptible. Unless we give in completely to cynicism, it's hard to live without some faith in the systems we live in.
The internet is a symbolic, digital, medium stripped of semiotic content. As such, there are no "tells" to "give the lie away".
Andre Tarkovski: “We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it."
As the megalab truth experiment from the mid-90s demontrates, semiotic content can be an unwelcome distraction from the task of detecting lies. See also the apocryphal claim that the radio audience preferred Nixon to Kennedy in their presidential debates.
Lacan called it "Symbolic castration"... as when Kronos castrated Ouranos and through his manhood into the sea creating Aphrodite (desire). And the "chasm/abyss" that we subsequently fall into between the "real" and this symbolic representation accounts for 99.9% of the world's great follies.
For we are "cyborgs". Our memory resides in "computers" outside of us such that we must constantly search our phones for the information our brain no longer calls to mind.
,,,and polls taken after the Kennedy Nixon debates revealed that television viewers believed that Kennedy had won the debate, while radio listeners all believed that Nixon had won... the television viewers having received more semiotic content than the radio listeners, who could not read the body language of the debaters.
Delusion occurs when humans fervently cling to beliefs even despite the logical absurdity of those beliefs and the lack of any evidence that they are true. Lying to others is deplorable, of course, but lying to oneself is even worse. Where do humans learn such behaviors? The total weight of the evidence for Santa Claus was our lying parents —the same parents who punished us for lying. What harm is done when parents lie? For one thing, they teach their children that some lies are acceptable. It must follow, then, that if lying to others is acceptable, then so too must be lying to ourselves.
What happens to society when self-esteem is delusional? I agree with Warren that there is a sliding scale where self-deception moves from “normal” to bizarre; I’m just not sure where normal ends and bizarre begins. Delusions are symptomatic of several mental disorders, but here we are discussing the possibility that mental disorders are “normal.” What do we know, and how do we know it? What do we believe, and why do we believe it? Some beliefs are based on faith (hope), but what evidence is there for any faith-based belief? Based on that question alone, I’d have to suggest that 99% of everyone on earth is delusional and about the same percentage believe that they fit into the 1% category.
When you REALLY want something to be true... Dreams as "wish fulfillments"... the confabulation that occurs in the split-brain, deprived from the information that typically crosses the corpus callosum.
Freud described "group" behaviour in a mob as a kind of hypnosis... where the group surrenders their moral authority to "the leader" and become almost sonambulent.
The gist of Freud's argument in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego is that the behavior of people in groups is explained by the same psychological processes occurring in each individual member of the group (1921: 116). According to Freud's explanation, the group is structured by identification processes of individuals identical in their relation to the leader and to the other participants – each individual creates a vertical libidinal tie in relation to the leader by means of replacing his ego ideal with the image of the leader, and each individual creates horizontal libidinal ties in relation to all the others by means of identification of his ego with the other participants in the group, who are in an identical position in relation to the leader (1921: 116). According to Freud's explanation, the group is composed of individuals identical in their relation to the leader and to the other participants; that is, group phenomena are explained here by means of the mechanisms that create libidinal ties, the same mechanisms used to explain the mental life of an individual.
libidinal... related to "desire" for the "objet petite 'a'... Apollo w/Daphne... the moment he catches her, she transforms into something else.
@ Jez, "I also question whether self-delusion is really any more prevalent in the Internet age." It's not that self-delusion is really any more prevalent, it's a question of intensity and group dynamics. Suppose a person holds a delusional view that contradicts the viewpoint of their peer group or society as a whole. If their view point is rejected by their peers/society because it is too far outside the "consensus" viewpoint or societal norms, they are less likely to act on it or simply feel persecuted or discriminated against. I'm going to use the example of pedophilia because it's a good example. Suppose that a pedophile feels isolated so they go on the Internet searching, suddenly they find pictures, story's, and all kinds of other pedophiles willing to share their experiences and delusions. They trend to rationalize their delusions and trade their secrets and methods to accomplish their goals. They even form activist groups like "NAMBLA". They find powerful and rich people with the same obsessions, and sometimes, politicians that share their obsession or are willing to propose legislation favorable to their obsession or are simply willing to take their money in the form of campaign contributions for a favorable stance. -IMO, most politicians are bottom feeders!-
My point being, they become much more likely to act on their self delusions because their delusions are being reinforced and supplemented by a large group of people.
To me, it's not a question of whether, that -as a percentage of the population- there are larger numbers of people suffering from self delusion but a question of the intensification and exacerbation of self delusion among greater numbers of people who are self delusional.
A lot of them are harmless, like the flat earthers. Others can be extremely dangerous to society as a whole.
@ Jez, Define "Modern Era". I suspect that "Devine Right", carried a different literal meaning than effective meaning as a king had he power of life and death over all in their domain. I suspect the term had very little meaning other than a rubber stamp of approval from the Pope after the rule of Henry VIII and the Pope/Catholic Church found itself unable or unwilling to enforce its edicts.
The modern era officially began around mid-18th C. I rather got the impression that prior to the enlightenment, belief in divine right went beyond the administrative convenience you suggest. Fairly sure Charles II (executed late-17th C) believed it.
@ Jez, It's really impossible to know what the innermost thoughts of anyone, especially from a historical perspective. Think of who surrounded the royality, they might, very well have believed in Devine Right. Several of them were the products of sever interbreeding and the effects ranged through mental illness, physical deformity and hemophilia. It behoved those that surrounded them to reinforce the concept of Devine Right. It was in the self interest of those that held power in the name of Devine Right.
George VI wouldn't have stuttered, had he believed in it. He couldn't even believe in his own being a "king" :)
Shakespeare, "Richard II"
No matter where; of comfort no man speak: Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs; Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth, Let's choose executors and talk of wills: And yet not so, for what can we bequeath Save our deposed bodies to the ground? Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's, And nothing can we call our own but death And that small model of the barren earth Which serves as paste and cover to our bones. For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground And tell sad stories of the death of kings; How some have been deposed; some slain in war, Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed; Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd; All murder'd: for within the hollow crown That rounds the mortal temples of a king Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits, Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp, Allowing him a breath, a little scene, To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks, Infusing him with self and vain conceit, As if this flesh which walls about our life, Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus Comes at the last and with a little pin Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king! Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood With solemn reverence: throw away respect, Tradition, form and ceremonious duty, For you have but mistook me all this while: I live with bread like you, feel want, Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus, How can you say to me, I am a king?
"I know that global warming is really happening, but"... I prefer to embrace my ideological fetish and ignore it because it's pretty chilly outside for June today... ;)
Isn't it delusional - wanting to make law to take over the voting process; and with the stroke of the pen to make D.C. a State? Or, is it Demon thought? Is it a process of surrendering ones self to narcissism and to act on their self delusions because their delusions are being reinforced and supplemented by ideological urges forced on the public. Seemingly creating a large number of followers by just propagandizing on media platforms and social platforms the norm carries the winning numbers, when in fact the numbers of delusional are not the norm and the percentage of followers are not that great after all.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Reminds me of a thought I troubled Facebook with a couple of months ago...
ReplyDeleteThe System works somewhat and fails a bunch of people in a lot of important ways. Politics is about the degree to which we believe in that system, and largely the types of (self)-delusion we require to sustain that belief. That's why the estsblishment's lies are so poor, they don't need to convince anyone who isn't eager to delude themselves in the first place.
~~~
I wouldn't classify self-delusion as psychosis, rather it is a characteristic feature of the normal operation of the human mind.
Jez,
DeleteI wouldn't classify self-delusion as psychosis, rather it is a characteristic feature of the normal operation of the human mind.
IMO, the designation of self-delusion as psychosis is a matter of degree. I also note that mass self-delusion is dangerous.
Lots of things that healthy humans do en masse are dangerous.
DeleteJez - Interesting take, but I would lean toward self-delusion being psychosis. It's very definition is an impaired relationship with reality.......and positions that are contrary to actual evidence. Though as AOW points out, there are certainly degrees.
DeleteMany have no problem being knowingly lied to, by people that they support and endorse, as long as it comports with the narrative that they want to be true.
It would seem [unscientifically of course] that this phenomenon has expanded rapidly across society over the last decade.
The difference between psychosis and self-delusion is a sliding scale, not a hard lime of demarcation.
DeleteThe reason it has became so obvious, if not prevalent, is the Internet and hard line politicalization of the media.
Conformational bias rears its ugly head and the perverts, radicals and psychos find it much easier to find and communicate with each other.
Spoken and unspoken conspiracies abound!
To be a loyal fan of either political party requires a lot of self-delusion, or some skillful justification.
DeleteBeing a loyal Democrat or Republican requires you to defend the indefensible, and I just can't do that anymore. Same for Libertarian, Green, or any other minor nuisance party.
I readily admit I vote for the lesser of two evils.
@Warren: I also qustion whether self-delusion is really any more prevalent in the Internet age. What types & degree of self-delusion were commonplace in ancient and medieval times?
Delete@Silverfiddle: I think even non-partisans are susceptible. Unless we give in completely to cynicism, it's hard to live without some faith in the systems we live in.
The internet is a symbolic, digital, medium stripped of semiotic content. As such, there are no "tells" to "give the lie away".
DeleteAndre Tarkovski: “We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it."
As the megalab truth experiment from the mid-90s demontrates, semiotic content can be an unwelcome distraction from the task of detecting lies.
DeleteSee also the apocryphal claim that the radio audience preferred Nixon to Kennedy in their presidential debates.
Lacan called it "Symbolic castration"... as when Kronos castrated Ouranos and through his manhood into the sea creating Aphrodite (desire). And the "chasm/abyss" that we subsequently fall into between the "real" and this symbolic representation accounts for 99.9% of the world's great follies.
DeleteThe problem is that it becomes "truer than true" through the paralogy of "authority".
Delete"Reality" becomes "materialized ideology".
DeleteFor we are "cyborgs". Our memory resides in "computers" outside of us such that we must constantly search our phones for the information our brain no longer calls to mind.
DeleteWe have become "post-human".
Delete,,,and polls taken after the Kennedy Nixon debates revealed that television viewers believed that Kennedy had won the debate, while radio listeners all believed that Nixon had won... the television viewers having received more semiotic content than the radio listeners, who could not read the body language of the debaters.
Deletebtw - Feel free to "fact-check" me (appeal to authority).
Delete...and so re-enter "The WOKE Zone". ;p
DeleteDelusion occurs when humans fervently cling to beliefs even despite the logical absurdity of those beliefs and the lack of any evidence that they are true. Lying to others is deplorable, of course, but lying to oneself is even worse. Where do humans learn such behaviors? The total weight of the evidence for Santa Claus was our lying parents —the same parents who punished us for lying. What harm is done when parents lie? For one thing, they teach their children that some lies are acceptable. It must follow, then, that if lying to others is acceptable, then so too must be lying to ourselves.
DeleteWhat happens to society when self-esteem is delusional? I agree with Warren that there is a sliding scale where self-deception moves from “normal” to bizarre; I’m just not sure where normal ends and bizarre begins. Delusions are symptomatic of several mental disorders, but here we are discussing the possibility that mental disorders are “normal.” What do we know, and how do we know it? What do we believe, and why do we believe it? Some beliefs are based on faith (hope), but what evidence is there for any faith-based belief? Based on that question alone, I’d have to suggest that 99% of everyone on earth is delusional and about the same percentage believe that they fit into the 1% category.
When you REALLY want something to be true... Dreams as "wish fulfillments"... the confabulation that occurs in the split-brain, deprived from the information that typically crosses the corpus callosum.
Delete...or deprived of "long-term" memories.
DeleteFreud described "group" behaviour in a mob as a kind of hypnosis... where the group surrenders their moral authority to "the leader" and become almost sonambulent.
DeleteThe gist of Freud's argument in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego is that the behavior of people in groups is explained by the same psychological processes occurring in each individual member of the group (1921: 116). According to Freud's explanation, the group is structured by identification processes of individuals identical in their relation to the leader and to the other participants – each individual creates a vertical libidinal tie in relation to the leader by means of replacing his ego ideal with the image of the leader, and each individual creates horizontal libidinal ties in relation to all the others by means of identification of his ego with the other participants in the group, who are in an identical position in relation to the leader (1921: 116). According to Freud's explanation, the group is composed of individuals identical in their relation to the leader and to the other participants; that is, group phenomena are explained here by means of the mechanisms that create libidinal ties, the same mechanisms used to explain the mental life of an individual.
Deletelibidinal... related to "desire" for the "objet petite 'a'... Apollo w/Daphne... the moment he catches her, she transforms into something else.
@ Jez,
Delete"I also question whether self-delusion is really any more prevalent in the Internet age."
It's not that self-delusion is really any more prevalent, it's a question of intensity and group dynamics.
Suppose a person holds a delusional view that contradicts the viewpoint of their peer group or society as a whole. If their view point is rejected by their peers/society because it is too far outside the "consensus" viewpoint or societal norms, they are less likely to act on it or simply feel persecuted or discriminated against.
I'm going to use the example of pedophilia because it's a good example.
Suppose that a pedophile feels isolated so they go on the Internet searching, suddenly they find pictures, story's, and all kinds of other pedophiles willing to share their experiences and delusions. They trend to rationalize their delusions and trade their secrets and methods to accomplish their goals. They even form activist groups like "NAMBLA". They find powerful and rich people with the same obsessions, and sometimes, politicians that share their obsession or are willing to propose legislation favorable to their obsession or are simply willing to take their money in the form of campaign contributions for a favorable stance. -IMO, most politicians are bottom feeders!-
My point being, they become much more likely to act on their self delusions because their delusions are being reinforced and supplemented by a large group of people.
To me, it's not a question of whether, that -as a percentage of the population- there are larger numbers of people suffering from self delusion but a question of the intensification and exacerbation of self delusion among greater numbers of people who are self delusional.
A lot of them are harmless, like the flat earthers. Others can be extremely dangerous to society as a whole.
Before the modern era, what percentage would you say believed in the divine right of kings?
DeletePost-modernism - The death of old meta-narratives (divine right), and the birth of new ones (I'm being oppressed because I'm x).
DeleteBoth seem awfully anti-authoritarian.... but I'm sure the mythical minority utopias will be "Meta".
Delete@ Jez,
DeleteDefine "Modern Era".
I suspect that "Devine Right", carried a different literal meaning than effective meaning as a king had he power of life and death over all in their domain. I suspect the term had very little meaning other than a rubber stamp of approval from the Pope after the rule of Henry VIII and the Pope/Catholic Church found itself unable or unwilling to enforce its edicts.
The modern era officially began around mid-18th C.
DeleteI rather got the impression that prior to the enlightenment, belief in divine right went beyond the administrative convenience you suggest. Fairly sure Charles II (executed late-17th C) believed it.
@ Jez,
DeleteIt's really impossible to know what the innermost thoughts of anyone, especially from a historical perspective.
Think of who surrounded the royality, they might, very well have believed in Devine Right. Several of them were the products of sever interbreeding and the effects ranged through mental illness, physical deformity and hemophilia. It behoved those that surrounded them to reinforce the concept of Devine Right. It was in the self interest of those that held power in the name of Devine Right.
George VI wouldn't have stuttered, had he believed in it. He couldn't even believe in his own being a "king" :)
DeleteShakespeare, "Richard II"
No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence: throw away respect,
Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,
For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
...after all, their former president had told them that their slave ancestors had almost single handedly built America...
DeleteI'm certainly not suggesting that the proles are free from self-delusion.
Delete:)
ReplyDelete"I know that global warming is really happening, but"... I prefer to embrace my ideological fetish and ignore it because it's pretty chilly outside for June today... ;)
DeleteThe "rabbit hole"?
ReplyDeleteAn awesome start for a discussion.
But where does it go? At least Hunter Biden hasn't lost his head, unlike 'Alice', in the mass-psychosis of SoJus.
Delete“Ousia phanera is property whose transfer was seen by others, and ousia aphanēs is property whose transfer was not seen."
DeletePerhaps this explains the origin of mass psychosis...
...the cloak of Gyges (power hiding its' hand).
DeleteIt's ALL in the transference.
DeleteIsn't it delusional - wanting to make law to take over the voting process; and with the stroke of the pen to make
ReplyDeleteD.C. a State?
Or, is it Demon thought?
Is it a process of surrendering ones self to narcissism
and to act on their self delusions because their delusions are being reinforced and supplemented by ideological urges
forced on the public. Seemingly creating a large number of followers by just propagandizing on media platforms and social platforms the norm carries the winning numbers,
when in fact the numbers of delusional are not the norm and the percentage of followers are not that great after all.