Lies are evil as fuck, but I always remember that deception is a double edged sword, and people just don't understand just how terrible they are.

Trust is of two kinds, the naive, unknowing, at the mercy of kind, and the position of strength, when you know perfectly well what people are like, and how dangerous it is, but do it anyway, and not out of wanting something, or needing something from the other, but for the purposes of facilitating the growth of what is within them which is worthy of trust. This in no way differentiates "good from bad" people, or imagines some wicked and harmful, and others harmless. The only harmless ones are simply incapable.

There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened

Isn't this a lie though? We experience ourselves as individuals, with our own individual thoughts, with freedom to think what we want in secret, fundamentally, and much more so than we experience ourselves as a part of a "group mind". The "group mind" has to be created within our individual minds, we have to convince ourselves that we are part of such a thing, and such a convincing can be rejected as self-deception by a person without good social skills. Being such a "part" requires having particular necessary social skills, and one lacking in these will reject as a lie, the idea that the relationship is more fundamental than the organism.

One can see at once from this perspective that personal identity of the form of I am this nationality or this religion, or this race or football club, is a fragmentation of the mind, and also that a lack of truth and trust, is not just harmful to our sanity, it is the very fabric of madness. To be mad is nothing more or less than to be incommunicado, to have reached the point where no communication can be trusted - to have lost contact with the world. — unenlightened

So, how do you expect that we can build a relationship of honesty from a premise which will be seen by the antisocial person as a lie to begin with? This will only drive the antisocials away, making them madder.

i do actually think that it is impossible, at least for me, to be totally alone in my mind, or to deceive everyone. Some real monsters walk the earth, someone always sees.

It seems to me, that I am always totally alone in my mind, because everyone else is outside it. I've learned to accept the gap, and make efforts to understand others. But this doesn't let the others into my mind, it just allows me to maintain relationships.

Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. — unenlightened

Isn't this a lie though? We experience ourselves as individuals, with our own individual thoughts, with freedom to think what we want in secret, fundamentally, and much more so than we experience ourselves as a part of a "group mind". — Metaphysician Undercover

Well some people hear voices, and some people think they are alone. "We experience ourselves as individuals" Is this not performative contradiction? Who is this 'we' that is being given voice to? I am asking you in good faith to at least imagine the implications of it not being a lie, one of which is that the experience of individuality is an hallucination - that what we assume to be normal is itself a madness. Then one has an explanation as to why a social creature spends so much time organising conflict.

I've learned to accept the gap, and make efforts to understand others. But this doesn't let the others into my mind, it just allows me to maintain relationships. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we have been taught it all our lives; the gap is central and essential to capitalism, to competition, to the whole of society for thousands of years. You have been taught that it cannot be questioned. But how do you maintain relationships? Do they not depend on what is beyond the gap? I'm asking a lot here, and I don't have that much of an argument, but only an experiment - to entertain the notion and see where it leads.

This is the way I would frame it. Are all of your thoughts and feelings unique and original to you (if they were they would be inexpressible)? Has no one else ever had those thoughts or feelings? Based in a beastly discernment, having been in that position, understanding the temperaments, feelings, and cultural artifacts that make up your thoughts, you don't think that it is possible for someone to have the experience and empathetic prowess to discern the contents of your mind? Private suggests that they are no where else to be seen, but if they have been seen in a different place before, could they not be recognized again?

There are various levels of experience, intelligence, discernment and self-awareness, as well as biology temperament, circumstance, education which implies that as long as the contents of your mind exist anywhere at all outside of your mind as well, sometimes occurring in different minds, in different places, and have anything to do with your physical circumstances, it is possible to correlate your thoughts to those circumstances.

Well some people hear voices, and some people think they are alone. "We experience ourselves as individuals" Is this not performative contradiction? Who is this 'we' that is being given voice to? — unenlightened

"We" here refers to a generalization. I know myself as an individual, so I, believing that others are like me, think that others know themselves as individuals. Perhaps I am wrong, and others do not. If so, then this leaves me as different from others. Doesn't that just reinforce my position that I am an individual, other from others? How do I get out of this trap?

I am asking you in good faith to at least imagine the implications of it not being a lie, one of which is that the experience of individuality is an hallucination - that what we assume to be normal is itself a madness. Then one has an explanation as to why a social creature spends so much time organising conflict. — unenlightened

Sure, I am willing to entertain this as a possibility. My individuality is an hallucination. But what can you give me to help me accept this. Others have said that this is a beneficial way of looking at reality, it would be beneficial to think of myself as part of a whole. Why should I give up on the way that things appear to me, for the sake of what others say will be beneficial?

By the way, I really don't see the relationship between seeing oneself as an individual, and the desire to organize conflict. I see organized conflict as the product of things like nationalism, in which individuals see their group, "us" as being opposed to the thoughts and expressions of another group, "them". Organized conflict is not the result of personal differences.

By the way, I really don't see the relationship between seeing oneself as an individual, and the desire to organize conflict. I see organized conflict as the product of things like nationalism, in which individuals see their group, "us" as being opposed to the thoughts and expressions of another group, "them". Organized conflict is not the result of personal differences. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, let me try an analogy. Left Hand cooperates with his brother Right Hand to bang a nail into a post to hang Stomach's tucker bag out of reach of the ants while Brain and Eyes go off duty for a few hours. Unfortunately, Right Hand accidentally hits Left Hand's thumb with the hammer. Fortunately, Left Hand and Right Hand do not suffer from the illusion of separate identity, and therefore no fight between them ensues. If you have ever hit your thumb with a hammer, this is a familiar and true story.

If my limbs fail to cooperate and coordinate to any great degree, then I have an illness - parkinson's, perhaps, or motor neurone disease. If the fingers of my left hand went to war with the fingers of my right hand, it would be a body gone mad. "We are the Left Hand, Death to the Right Hand digits." The group arises because there are individuals, and groups then conflict. And the claim is that the individual is the real. But What is the reality of it? Is my identity more real than the identity of my left hand?

Are all of your thoughts and feelings unique and original to you (if they were they would be inexpressible)? Has no one else ever had those thoughts or feelings? — Wosret

I think that every thought is unique, just like every snowflake, and every person is unique. I have never had the same thought twice, (I've experienced deja vu but this is similarity, not the same thought or feeling), so why should I think that someone else has had the same thought as me?

Private suggests that they are no where else to be seen, but if they have been seen in a different place before, could they not be recognized again? — Wosret

I see no reason to believe that the same thought has been in a different place before, How would it get there?


So now you want to make it a conflict of right versus left? You know that such strife exists. But I don't see this as right hand against the left, or one person against another, I see it as one ideology against another. So I don't think your analogy of the right hand versus the left hand works. You need to consider competing ideas instead of competing physical parts of the body. Say that a person wants to do X, and also wants to do Y, but X and Y exclude each other mutually. Now we have an analogy for competing ideologies, competing ideas. How would the person decide which is the better option, X or Y? The person would use reason.

Let's say some people claim A as the better ideology, and others claim B, just like part of me wants to do X, while the other part wants to do Y. It is not really the case that "part" of me wants to do Y, and "part" wants to do X, all of me wants to do X and all of me wants to do Y, but it is impossible to do both. So why is it that part of society wants X ideology, and part wants Y ideology? If I cannot divide myself in this way, how is it that a society can be divided in this way?

How is it that conflicting ideologies can effectively divide societies into parts, whereby they will attack each other, but conflicting ideas within my mind cannot divide me into parts? How is it that I have this very strong unity within myself, which society does not have? This unity which makes up society is deficient compared to the unity which makes up myself, because it will allow different parts with competing ideas to attack each other, but my mind will always use reason to work out such problems without resorting to the destruction of myself. If I were to fall to this level, then clearly I would be ill, but that supposed unity of society is always at this level. Why would I accept this unity of society as a higher unity than the unity of myself?

How is it that I have this very strong unity within myself, which society does not have? This unity which makes up society is deficient compared to the unity which makes up myself, because it will allow different parts with competing ideas to attack each other, but my mind will always use reason to work out such problems without resorting to the destruction of myself. If I were to fall to this level, then clearly I would be ill, but that supposed unity of society is always at this level. Why would I accept this unity of society as a higher unity than the unity of myself? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that is the question, how come the unity of self?

But when you ask "Why would I accept this unity of society as a higher unity than the unity of myself?" your reason, which you say is the governing factor, has led you astray. The 'I' that is not accepting the unity of society is like the hand that refuses to accept the unity of the body. 'Why should I work with that bloodthirsty hammer-wielding right hand?'

Given the boundary of self, self-centred behaviour is rational behaviour. But I have removed the given, and suggested it is an hallucination, as the voices some folk hear are said to be hallucinations. So far, your reason has come up with the equivalent of 'why should I doubt the voices?' and 'the voices are very strong'.

Just to point out, unity of self isn't boxed off into conceptual parts like the right and left hand, but is a measure of motor unit recruitment, and the contralateral motor cortex also plays a big role in distinguishing self from other. There is no unity of self without unity of other.

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/22/12/2894/306843/Distinguishing-Self-and-Other-in-Joint-Action

Snow flakes aren't unique and original either, that's also a myth, just like people their formation is correlated to their physical circumstances.

http://thescienceexplorer.com/nature/snowflakes-are-not-unique-we-thought

If we can't be of one mind, and think the same thing, then how can we possibly communicate?

Snow flakes aren't unique and original either, that's also a myth, just like people their formation is correlated to their physical circumstances. — Wosret

Don't give me any of that BS. The article you referred me to very clearly states that at the molecular level it is true that snowflakes are unique. Just because they can class them into a number of different types, just like someone could class human beings into a number of different types, this doesn't mean that they are not all unique. Classing things into different types for the purpose of saying that each is not unique, is the argument of a sick mind which propagates racism.

Given the boundary of self, self-centred behaviour is rational behaviour. But I have removed the given, and suggested it is an hallucination, as the voices some folk hear are said to be hallucinations. So far, your reason has come up with the equivalent of 'why should I doubt the voices?' and 'the voices are very strong'. — unenlightened

So you're telling me that I should listen to the reason of others rather than my own reasoning. I can see how that might be good in some instances, but bad in other instances. How should I distinguish between these two? And if the others keep feeding me BS like Wosret just did, then why shouldn't I tune out those other voices altogether, and trust only my internal voice, the one true voice which I know never has the motivation to deceive me?

If we can't be of one mind, and think the same thing, then how can we possibly communicate? — Wosret

Huh? Communication is by definition between individuals, communion, a sharing of ideas. If the separation between individuals was removed, making them one, there would be no such thing as communication, no need to share ideas because my ideas would be yours.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that to have numerous people thinking about the same thing, requires effort on the part of those people. Without that intentional effort, people will think about all sorts of random things. Do you really believe that people just naturally all think the same thing, being lead (or mislead) by whatever they hear, without putting any effort into deciding what they ought and ought not believe?

I see this as a big problem with social media. Someone can post to a massive public, some random, sick, and ill-conceived thought, and instead of getting shunned by the people around them, or told to shut up and act properly, as would happen if the person spoke up in a small group of people, that posting can find acceptance and following. Amongst the massive number of people who have access to it, a small percentage will like it. Out of a huge number of people, there will always be a small percentage of people who will accept something, and follow it without giving thought to that decision, just randomly deciding, that's something different, it's an idea I can get involved in.

So in a society such as ours, where there is an unbelievable amount of information coming from all different types of groups and individuals, with all sorts of motivations, it is more essential now, than ever before, to be trained in our own powers of decision making. It is necessary to use our own inner voice more than ever before in the past. So instead of denying the inner voice we need to learn how to bring it out, cultivate it, and put it to work where it is desperately needed.

So far, your reason has come up with the equivalent of 'why should I doubt the voices?' and 'the voices are very strong'. — unenlightened

The question is, which voices are the most trustworthy, the ones coming at me from outside, which I have little or no understanding of their motivations, or the ones coming from within, which I have at least some understanding of their motivations. The issue of whether or not the voices are illusions, delusions, or hallucinations is irrelevant, because the voices are there regardless, and cannot be ignored based on some random determination of "hallucination". The issue is the motivations behind the voices, because that is what gives them meaning, intent, what is meant by those voices. If the motivations can be determined, they can be judged. If the motivations cannot be determined, then it may be wise to ignore them as potentially misleading.

Well... obviously snow flakes, nor people are literally identical, like superman and Clark Kent are. For them to be precisely identical, none of their attributes can vary, and nothing that can be said of one, cannot be said of the other, including temporal and spacial location. That doesn't mean that a clone isn't pretty much the same, without being literally identical, as they share many many attributes, with less difference than sameness.

Whole picture, and discrete details are two ways of looking at things, blurring the individual parts into a whole, or zeroing in on the discrete details, which themselves can be further broken up into discrete parts, that can be called a unity, at different levels of analysis. Calling one more true or real just demonstrates a lopsided, or one sided view of things, in my view.

Responding to me that there could be no communication either if we were literally identical, and literally the exact same person is not to actually respond to anything I've said. Saying that your thoughts are unique, and only individual to you, and no one else, and me asking you then how it is that communication is possible is to respond to what you've said. You can't have both, whereas I don't propose the position you espouse in your objection, you do propose the one I suggest in mine.

So you're telling me that I should listen to the reason of others rather than my own reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not at all. I'm inviting you to question an assumption and apply your reasoning, which I assume is not different from anyone else's reasoning.

why shouldn't I tune out those other voices altogether, and trust only my internal voice, the one true voice which I know never has the motivation to deceive me? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am an external voice, talking to your internal voice, and saying that seeing external and internal as separate is a deep mistake. I cannot give you a reason to listen, unless you listen.

Well... obviously snow flakes, nor people are literally identical, like superman and Clark Kent are. For them to be precisely identical, none of their attributes can vary, and nothing that can be said of one, cannot be said of the other, including temporal and spacial location. That doesn't mean that a clone isn't pretty much the same, without being literally identical, as they share many many attributes, with less difference than sameness. — Wosret

If you use the word "same", then I expect that you mean same. If you want to say that people have similar thoughts, then say that they have similar thoughts, don't say that they have the same thoughts.

Whole picture, and discrete details are two ways of looking at things, blurring the individual parts into a whole, or zeroing in on the discrete details, which themselves can be further broken up into discrete parts, that can be called a unity, at different levels of analysis. Calling one more true or real just demonstrates a lopsided, or one sided view of things, in my view. — Wosret

The same goes for the word "unity'. If you say that people fighting amongst themselves are unified, united, as a unit, or a unity, then I have no idea of what you mean by "unity", which to me means undivided.

Responding to me that there could be no communication either if we were literally identical, and literally the exact same person is not to actually respond to anything I've said. — Wosret

You said, that unless we have the same thoughts, communication would be impossible. I said that if we had the same thoughts communication would not be necessary. One, or both of us, misunderstand what "communication", or "same thought" means.

Saying that your thoughts are unique, and only individual to you, and no one else, and me asking you then how it is that communication is possible is to respond to what you've said. — Wosret

Communication is always incomplete, it lacks perfection, that's why there is different interpretations of the same spoken words. That's how it is possible that there is communication without different individuals having the same thoughts. Communication is an imperfect thing. If communication were perfect, without doubt or misunderstanding, then communication would imply the same thoughts in different people. Communication is not perfect though.

Judging by the way you use words like "same" and "unity", and the way that I understand these words, it is very obvious that communication is far from perfect.

I am an external voice, talking to your internal voice, and saying that seeing external and internal as separate is a deep mistake. I cannot give you a reason to listen, unless you listen. — unenlightened

I'll listen, but as I said, unless I can determine your motivation in telling me this, I cannot trust you. I perceive a huge difference between internal and external. So you telling me that this is a deep mistake is apprehended by me with great suspicion, I have no idea what you are up to. And so I will ignore your plea, as an unreasonable external voice, asking me to join it in who knows what kind of adventure. That is, until you demonstrate your motivation, what kind of adventure are you taking me on? I suggest you proceed in making your point, then perhaps I can judge your motivation.

I am asking you in good faith to at least imagine the implications of it not being a lie, one of which is that the experience of individuality is an hallucination - that what we assume to be normal is itself a madness. — unenlightened

Back to this point. How do you convince the person who suffers from hallucination, that what they experience is hallucination? I think that this requires a clear understanding, and agreement between both parties, as to what exactly constitutes an hallucination.

.

I did mean "same", same doesn't mean completely absolutely identical, nothing is even self-same under the notion of completely in every imaginable way identical, no one ever means that.

When someone tells you that they have the same shirt, it doesn't mean "hey, that's my shirt!"

I also said plainly that communication is unnecessary if I've already seen the types of thoughts, and know the circumstances in which they arise, and that's why you aren't alone in your own mind. Remember how I began with that?

I'll listen, but as I said, unless I can determine your motivation in telling me this, I cannot trust you. I perceive a huge difference between internal and external. So you telling me that this is a deep mistake is apprehended by me with great suspicion, I have no idea what you are up to. And so I will ignore your plea, as an unreasonable external voice, asking me to join it in who knows what kind of adventure. That is, until you demonstrate your motivation, what kind of adventure are you taking me on? I suggest you proceed in making your point, then perhaps I can judge your motivation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not a snake oil salesman. I am saying what I think is true, and my motivation is that the truth is liberating. I do not want or need your trust, but I am asking you to engage that reasoning you go on about.

" I perceive a huge difference between internal and external." Ok, and here is an external (to you) voice, (but internal to me), saying that you are misperceiving. But here already is some evidence; we assume, we agree, that my voice is internal to me and external to you, and your voice, vice versa. What then is this huge difference? Externality is internality, seen from elsewhere. It seems a huge difference because it is a matter of perspective, but it is no difference at all; certainly not one to bear the weight of total trust on one side and total paranoia on the other that you seem to place upon it with no justification I can see.

I did mean "same", same doesn't mean completely absolutely identical, nothing is even self-same under the notion of completely in every imaginable way identical, no one ever means that.

When someone tells you that they have the same shirt, it doesn't mean "hey, that's my shirt!" — Wosret

This is a philosophy forum, and there is such a thing as the law of identity. It is fundamental to logical proceedings. If you were using "same" in a casual way, such as the way that someone might say that they have the same shirt as another, then you should have indicated this. Now that you have indicated this, I don't see that you have the grounds for any logical argument. You say that some people have similar thoughts, just like some people have similar shirts and similar cars, and they call them the same but you acknowledge that they aren't really the same thoughts. according to any principled law of identity. So I must conclude that you have no argument.

What then is this huge difference? — unenlightened

You are a different person from me, and we have different interests.

I am saying what I think is true, and my motivation is that the truth is liberating. — unenlightened

I am willing to accept this. You believe that what you say is true, and you are motivated by what you believe is the truth. And perhaps, believing this is liberating for you. But I don't see how submitting my mind to your beliefs, would be liberating for me. What is liberating for me is to believe in my own determinations of the truth, just like it is liberating for you to believe in what you have determined as the truth.

See, you have a way of turning the table on me, such that you now describe "liberating" as the exact opposite of how I understand "liberating". To be liberated means to be freed from such social conventions, so I can only see your claim that to be tied to social conventions is liberating, as an attempt at deception.

But here already is some evidence; we assume, we agree, that my voice is internal to me and external to you, and your voice, vice versa. What then is this huge difference? Externality is internality, seen from elsewhere. It seems a huge difference because it is a matter of perspective, but it is no difference at all; certainly not one to bear the weight of total trust on one side and total paranoia on the other that you seem to place upon it with no justification I can see. — unenlightened

I don't think that you quite understand the relationship between externality and internality. Imagine that a person is a point in space. Within that point is the person's internal private thoughts. Outside that point is what is external. External to the person is another person, another spatial point, with a private, internal aspect. Person A can view person B, through the external, and communicate through the external. But for person A to get to person B's internal, person A must respect the fact that this is the internal of person B. Therefore to think of person B's internal as the external of person A is false it is really the internal of person B.

All things have an internal and an external. When we describe the internal of one thing as the external of another thing, rather than respecting its true nature as the internal of that thing, we make a grave ontological mistake.

Mm. I really struggle to make any sense of this. My voice, as expressive of my thoughts and posted on this forum is not external to you? But never mind. I don't really want to pursue this further. Consider the possibility , or don't. The difficulty will be that anything that is then said on my side about sanity and madness, about the organisation of society, will not make much sense to you.

I really struggle to make any sense of this. My voice, as expressive of my thoughts and posted on this forum is not external to you? — unenlightened

Your voice is external to me, but it is external to you as well. Your thoughts are internal to you, but they are also internal to me as well, because I have respect for the difference between internal and external, and I understand your thoughts as being internal to you. You apparently have no respect for this difference.

Consider the possibility , or don't. — unenlightened

As I said, I will listen, because I'm interested to understand your motivation. Although you say that your motivation is truth, and liberation, I find it impossible to believe that at this point.

Your voice is external to me, but it is external to you as well. Your thoughts are internal to you, but they are also internal to me as well — Metaphysician Undercover

Well if my thoughts are internal to you, then, ... no I'm not going there. I have to shrug and say never mind at this point.

There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened

There's something clearly right about this.

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no such thing as an individual mind. I'd rather say... no human mind is independent of other minds. The human organism as we know it is dependent on care in its early years. The provision of care at the outset transmits culture and informs the individual mind, and we may characterize this as a sort of attunement that persists in some way even if the more fully developed human animal finds some way to separate itself from all other traces of humanity.

The remote possibility of that sort of isolation aside, ongoing interaction with other human beings and other traces of human culture continue the process of attunement. More generally, the activity of minds in the medium of culture involves attunement with the whole world as it appears to us in experience....

More generally, the activity of minds in the medium of culture involves attunement with the whole world as it appears to us in experience.... — Cabbage Farmer

I agree. Also, the relationship between individual, environment, and group forms the basis of a continuous, circular, process of communication which produces cultural development.

Well if my thoughts are internal to you, then, ... — unenlightened

Each thing has its own internal. The internal of you is not the same as the internal of me. However, I agree that there is likely a way by which we are united through the internal. So we may have grounds for agreement. But I'll maintain that being united through the internal is completely different from being united through the external (by spoken word etc.), as a priori is different from a posteriori.

So we need to dismiss reference to the external (communications etc.) when speaking about this unity. The unity you speak of is not the result of communication and such things, but prior to them, and perhaps the cause of them. We are united from within and it is our claims of external properties which divide us. Therefore an hallucination is not of the internal, an hallucination is of the external.

Just suppose, that we take a really radical, far-out psycho-ceramic view of psycho-ceramics ... entertain it for a moment ...

There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened

This is definitely taking it to an extreme. However, there's quite a bit to be gleaned from an examination of extremes, I think.

I'll mention, but only briefly elaborate upon something that I think rightfully applies to many a philosophical pursuit, this one notwithstanding. Dichotomies are popular and easy to construct, particularly with the notion of true/false being at the root of our thought/belief system. However, I've come to learn and/or find that frameworks based upon most dichotomies are found sorely lacking. So, with that in mind, I suspect that when it comes to the mind, there are three distinct categories of content with regard to the origen thereof. In terms of existential contingency:Individual; societal; both.

That said, what intrigues me regarding this thread is the effect/affect that this particular 'method' of therapy has upon those folk who otherwise had found themselves unable to cope.

This is such a radical, unfamiliar way of looking at oneself and at human nature and the whole of philosophy, that I want really to just stop there and see if it will sink in at all, if it begins to make sense of, for example, what seems to be a global Zeitgeist that sweeps us willy-nilly from Socialism to Fascism, from war to war, from atheism to fundamentalism, and so on.

Indeed. There is so much power packed within a worldview. If that worldview is shared by an overwhelming majority, then we have common goals powerfully packed by the multitude. That's key, on my view. Common goals. Common beliefs. Common ethics/morality. A community of people working together for what's in the best interest of the community. In the case you're examining it's the community writ large. I am my brothers keeper. Genuine vested interested in the group. Teamwork. What's good for you is good for me. The measure of the categorical imperative. Etc.

Interesting how that notion of teamwork, and all for one, is used by and in large in American society, shamefully in many(perhaps most) instances.

One can see at once from this perspective that personal identity of the form of I am this nationality or this religion, or this race or football club, is a fragmentation of the mind, and also that a lack of truth and trust, is not just harmful to our sanity, it is the very fabric of madness. To be mad is nothing more or less than to be incommunicado, to have reached the point where no communication can be trusted - to have lost contact with the world.

Identity is fragmentation, and dishonesty is insanity. That alone is enough to rock my world.

If we work from the notion of a collective thought/belief system, a collective mind, then yes; breaking away from the collective would amount to fragmentation. I wouldn't say that dishonesty is insanity, but I catch your drift.

As people we are born into a societal/familial/cultural/historical 'structure' not of our own choosing. As creatures who've learned to use a language not of our own creation, we've learned shared meaning not of our own (original)attribution. By virtue of learning how to use language, we - amongst other things - have learned how to talk about the world and/or ourselves. We adopt a pre-existing worldview. We learn how to act in this or that situation. We learn what to aspire towards and what to detest. We learn who is friend and who is foe. We learn who we are by learning how to situate ourselves within the world.

That is the baseline which serves to filter our experiences throughout our life in acceptable understandable terms. When life no longer makes sense by viewing it through this filter, we either come to different terms or we go mad.

Trust and truth is at the core, for during language acquisition - during this initial worldview being formed - there is no baseline from which one can doubt that which is being learned/taught.

That is true of everyone regardless of individual particulars.

If that worldview is shared by an overwhelming majority, then we have common goals powerfully packed by the multitude. That's key, on my view. Common goals. Common beliefs. Common ethics/morality. A community of people working together for what's in the best interest of the community. In the case you're examining it's the community writ large. I am my brothers keeper. Genuine vested interested in the group. Teamwork. What's good for you is good for me. The measure of the categorical imperative. Etc.

Interesting how that notion of teamwork, and all for one, is used by and in large in American society, shamefully in many(perhaps most) instances. — creativesoul

I think this is an almost but not quite response. I have a goal, and you have a goal and if we have a common goal then we have a team. It still starts from the individual as the atom from which in aggregate, society emerges. But I am suggesting that it is the individual that emerges from society, goals that emerge from relationship.

Thus there are only 'I's in 'team'. To put it another way, politics is a manifestation of the fragmentation of society, which is the fragmentation of the mind. No wonder it is the most competitive, most individualistic, most divided countries that idealise teamwork, patriotism, and so on.

As mentioned earlier, I don't think that the causal relationship and/or the existential contingency between an individual and society is as clear-cut as an all or nothing, one or the other sort pf taxonomy. I would argue that that framework is lacking explanatory power, no matter which side one claims is existentially contingent and/or dependent upon the other.

However, I do not want to argue for that position so much, at least not here and now.

How's that for a change?

X-)

That said, the portion of my earlier reply was meant to elaborate upon the zeitgeist portion of yours. The bit about how a society gets to fascism from socialism. It's been called 'hive mentality' by some. Not everyone is capable of thinking for themselves...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to attempt to ascertain, determine, and/or set out what exactly an individual adopts from the collective, particularly with regard to self-worth, self-value, self-awareness, etc. It seems to me that that would be a good method for working towards your aim, as well as perhaps helping to explain some of the reasons why that particular style of therapy is and/or would be so effective/affective.

Is that in line with what you had in mind(pardon the pun)?

I find the exchanges between Un and Meta quite curious. Un has put forth some 'food for thought' so to speak, by suggesting to look at something a bit differently than most are used to. He's proposing a new linguistic framework(conceptual scheme) which basically turns a common one on it's head. Now, this is all quite unfamiliar to many if not most, I suspect. I mean all unfamiliar frameworks share that commonality, by definition alone. Not to mention the inherent difficulty in performing such a task(temporarily setting aside one's own worldview in order to entertain an other's). Not everyone has what it takes in order to be able to do that.

Un has quite openly set out the course. The odd thing, to me at least, is the depth of Meta's resistance. It's as if entertaining the notion that an individual could be a product of the collective rather than the other way around has struck very deep dis-chord. I personally find no reason at all in this thread to question Un's goodwill. There is most certainly no evidence of ill-will. I mean, he found a study which flipped the very idea of an individual's personal issue(s) on it's head. The therapists framed the issue as a societal one, and not a personal one, and that - for whatever reason - seems to be an operative element of the success of the therapy. Thus...

Un's reasoning for entertaining the notion on a deeper philosophical level is obvious enough to those who presuppose the sincerity of his speech. That is the default 'position', by the way.




On the one hand, Meta holds on to his own notion regarding what counts as his being an individual, with unique thought and belief and mental ongoings all the while citing one ancient thought/belief or another as justification for his unshakable certainty regarding his own position on the relationship between individual and society. On the other hand, Meta claims that these thoughts, beliefs, and statements thereof are not the same thoughts, beliefs, and meanings(?) as anyone else. In fact, s/he made the very strong assertion during an exchange with Wosret that s/he could not have the same thought as anyone else, or even have the same thought him/herself.

Heraclitus is a part of the collective mind, if by that we mean thought/belief andor statements thereof that transcend individual human life. I put it to the reader that Meta has shown few, if any, original thought/belief. Parroting another's ancient argument or extrapolating upon it without overt mention doesn't count as a private mental ongoing, unless that which has been made public for centuries counts as being private...

Meaningless nonsense.

Collectively, we've found that such strictly applied narrow definitions are utterly untenable. Using the word "same" in that strict way would require either a complete absence of the attribution of meaning(which renders the very terms that constitute the argument utterly meaningless), or neglecting to take proper account of how words become meaningful. Neither is acceptable.

Where's the individual at in this historical regurgitation of long-since spoiled thought/belief?

That said, the portion of my earlier reply was meant to elaborate upon the zeitgeist portion of yours. The bit about how a society gets to fascism from socialism. It's been called 'hive mentality' by some. Not everyone is capable of thinking for themselves... — creativesoul

Forgive me, but I want to jump quite hard on that 'not everyone'. There can be no elitism to this, no path to originality or individuality, no hierarchy of understanding. There is the herd, and there are stray sheep, perhaps, but the strays are not more autonomous merely disconnected. For example, the leaders like Trump that embody the rage and frustration of 'the herd' embody also the rage and frustration of 'we independent minded socialists'; it's just an inversion of the projection. The war on terror and the terrorising of warmongers are the same thing.

What I want to avoid, and for us all to avoid, is any suggestion in this discussion that 'I' or 'we' speak (for) the collective mind. Imagine one neurone claiming to have 'the answer'.

I want to attempt to ascertain, determine, and/or set out what exactly an individual adopts from the collective, particularly with regard to self-worth, self-value, self-awareness, etc. It seems to me that that would be a good method for working towards your aim, as well as perhaps helping to explain some of the reasons why that particular style of therapy is and/or would be so effective/affective.

When members of a 'primitive' tribe visit the West, one of the things they find hardest to understand is how we can, in so much abundance wealth and power, abide that our brothers are homeless and hungry on our streets. To them it looks like an untended wound. To the disconnected individual it is not even apparent that this untended wound is the price of self regard.