I didn't pay attention to which forum you posted in, but if this is the standardless section, I get to post whatever I want too. BAM!

That, in itself in my mind, offers quite possibly the best protection from mental illness as well as all the other things life can throw at ya — Agustino

Yea.. taken in the right way, I think you may be right. There's a wrong way to take it, though. That's all I was saying.

But Hanover, you are the master of wit. You certainly have to post something more original, more worthy of your name in the standardless section. I mean is that all you've got "BAM!"? All you've got to offer when the gloves go off?

There's a wrong way to take it, though. That's all I was saying. — Mongrel

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a wrong way to take it. Are you referring to ego-maniacs? And if so, what does that mean exactly? Very often our world chastises people with big egos - "Ah you have such a big ego, it's all about yourself!" - as if having a big ego were a moral failure in itself. The truth is we don't really control the way our ego is. By the time we start having a sufficient degree of self-determination our ego has already crystallised, and it is what it is. But instead of teaching these folks how to use their big egos properly, we punish them because they are big. Many of these people do suffer because of it - some of them quite often developing all sorts of neuroses. So if by "wrong way" you mean a way to punish them simply because their egos are big, then I would be against this. The whole idea of chastising those with big egos emerged because they make us - the ones doing the chastising - feel threatened. I can prove it in fact by example if you want. There's a certain way of writing I can use which will annoy and provoke my interlocutor. If you stop and ask yourself why you are annoyed - then I'm not sure what you'll discover. Why would you, for example, react negatively, or feel negatively if I were to say something like "I'm superior to you"? Clearly if you have a solid vision of yourself, and feel comfortable about yourself - then you'll be like "This fella Agustino has really gone a bit cuckoo hasn't he? He has lost even the little bit of intelligence he had left! >:O" - but many people would react like "Ahh, Agustino, this shameless bastard!" Why? Because they'd feel threatened - they, not me, in that case, would be insecure, and my bluff/boast would merely illustrate it.

So I'm not sure what ego-maniac is. Is ego-maniac the kind of person who enjoys prospering at the expense of others, or just is happy when others suffer? That to me is just being a mean and nasty person, nothing to do with ego. You could be like that regardless of whether your ego is big or small, and what you need is to learn the joy of compassion.

Is ego-maniac someone who is controlled by his ego? That person to me is just a good show. Maim and bait them - they always bite. It's fun to play with them. They always hurt themselves, they can't control their behaviour. They have no strategy. The smallest insult and they go in a rage. Their problem is that they are self-destructive - their ego simply is destroying itself. What they need to do is simply learn to control their ego, not to make it smaller or bigger.

Talking about ego - I once played poker with a psychologist (amongst others). Me and him dominated, but I ultimately won the game. And so I mocked him a little (he was a friend of a friend - and I had just met him)- "So tell me, you know so much about the human mind, and can't even beat me? I outsmart you?" - and he responded - "That's what I want you to think ;) " - so I asked "What do you mean that's what you want me to think? I won the money!" and he said - "Well, you're not thinking long-term" - me, "What long term? The game is over!" - him, "You outsmarted me and used all your tricks. I learned them, you are now like an open book who thinks he knows everything I can do. I haven't used any of my tricks, but when I'll get you to play me somewhere in Monaco on much more serious money, then you'll understand who the real winner today has been!" >:O I respect that man. I bowed to him right there and then, in front of everyone, and thanked him for educating me.

I don't use "ego-maniac" in an official sense. It's the name I pinned to a certain kind of person I've met in my travels. They're arrogant, yes, but that's not the problem. It's that they can't learn from their mistakes. Like.. there's an interaction between the world and the ego that's supposed to be taking place, but it isn't. People like that are beyond help. They'll just eventually die from their stupidity.

On a milder note, any individual can put off accepting the pain of failure. In fact, most shrink from the weight of condemnation. That's why people are so quick to rationalize. A well-known side-effect of this is sleeplessness.

Crazy:

It's that they can't learn from their mistakes. — Mongrel

That sounds to me like being stupid though :P and stupidity and arrogance together are quite a deadly combination. But I'm not sure it's just that - some people just can't do certain things (well they can do them theoretically, but in practice they never do).

But I don't understand why anyone would be like that. I'm very competitive by nature, I have to win. So in my mind, not learning from mistakes - that's being stupid because it stops me from winning. It's all very pragmatic for me in this regard.

It's a kind of stupidity, yes.

The definitions allow the classification of all possible conditions of the mind as either being mental illness or being mental strength — Agustino

It's that they can't learn from their mistakes. Like.. there's an interaction between the world and the ego that's supposed to be taking place, but it isn't. People like that are beyond help. They'll just eventually die from their stupidity. — Mongrel

Would that coincide with a stereotypical extravert conservative who classifies success as a personal achievement yet ascribes failure to environmental circumstance?

Would that coincide with a stereotypical extravert conservative who classifies success as a personal achievement yet ascribes failure to environmental circumstance? — Gooseone

What does classifying success as personal achievement and ascribing failure to environmental circumstance have to do with being an extravert conservative?

But BC, I am left-wing. I am against globalization, against corporatism, against lobbying, against special interests and donors, pro environmental protection. But I also happen to be against progressivism in culture :P

I mentioned "stereotypical", it's not always the case but I've observed this behaviour in real life many times over. I am informed here by George Lakoff's strict father model when assessing conservatism and the concept of being an individual responsible moral agent weighs heavy, generally speaking.

If combined with being extravert to a high degree, it would seem likely that there's little awareness of any self serving bias at work. Ascribing failure to environmental circumstances internally could appear to external observers as "not learning from mistakes". It could also just be plain stupidity though...

I mentioned "stereotypical", it's not always the case but I've observed this behaviour in real life many times over. I am informed here by George Lakoff's strict father model when assessing conservatism and the concept of being an individual responsible moral agent weighs heavy, generally speaking. — Gooseone

Well I experienced the strict mother model and I am a conservative and an extrovert.

If combined with being extravert to a high degree, it would seem likely that there's little awareness of any self serving bias at work. Ascribing failure to environmental circumstances internally could appear to external observers as "not learning from mistakes". It could also just be plain stupidity though... — Gooseone

Still, I fail to see this. Whether I fail in action X because of my environment or because of myself, to me, it's the same thing. I failed. Doesn't matter how and why. If it's because of the environment, it's my fault - I should have controlled the environment, or at least predicted it. Ascribing failure to circumstances seems to be merely a way to deceive yourself that you failed because of the environment - which isn't true - you always fail because you don't manage your environment well enough.

Re Jacque Fresco, I basically agree with that. It's very similar to one of my favorite quotes (which I already shared on the quote thread): "The only error is your failure to adjust your preconceptions to reality."

The definitions of the op are rather useless. By defining the positive with the negative they imply an infinite regress of circular reference. The primary definition is mental illness, which is defined as an "incapacity". This implies a capacity which is deficient. But "mental strength" is itself defined as a lacking of mental illness, and therefore it is inherently a deficiency, by this definition. The primary deficiency, "mental illness", is said to be of a non-physical origin, so this implies that the capacity itself which is deficient in mental illness, is also non-physical, or else there would be no way to relate the deficiency to the capacity.

The glaring problem of the definitions is that mental strength is not defined by referring to this assumed non-physical capacity, such that mental illness would be defined as a deficiency of this non-physical capacity. Instead, mental illness is defined as an incapacity, and mental strength is defined as the negation of this incapacity, such that we have no defined classification for the capacity itself, only an implicit reference that the capacity is a non-physical capacity

We are left with a logical puzzle, produced by implicit references. It is only by piecing together this puzzle, that we can determine that mental strength is really being portrayed as a non-physical capacity, and ask what does this mean. The definitions imply that it is "non-genetic, non-inherited, non-acquired from accidents/diseases". So what is this capacity supposed to be?

Ascribing failure to circumstances seems to be merely a way to deceive yourself that you failed because of the environment - which isn't true - you always fail because you don't manage your environment well enough. — Agustino

This is what I'm implying, whereas 'you' are able to see your environment as something which you can manage (I would say learn to adapt 'to' more productively) it's not self evident that others see it that way. If there's no self reflection on one's own role in failure (which is easier to do if the blame is laid fully in the environment) there's never an inclination to adapt. The example you give in that clip works very well and I'm inclined to think a conservative extravert is more likely to think (using the example from the clip) "they've been wronged by this bad guy".

You could reflect on your assessment that you define mental illness as an inability to adapt to one's environment where mental strength is seen as being able to adapt favourably. It appears to me that you see non -conformism to a "mad world" as a favourable adaptation, this concerns a value judgement and not necessarily an objective reality. (Mind you I'm in favour of non -conformism to a large extent.)

There's a common environment in which we all function and we have an internal environment we use as a cue to be able to function in the common environment, I would see it as a mental strength to be able to persist from obliging immediately to cue's from the common environment but at a certain point I would see it as a detrimental if the internal environment becomes the only cue with which "prospering" is judged.

Again, I'm not really arguing your case, rather elaborating on it. I make a distinction between mental illness caused by physiological defect and mental illness caused by conceptual misunderstanding (which could very well lead to physiological defect). With the latter the distinction between non - conformism and irrational non -compliance is hard to make and one's own value judgements (bias) plays a big role here. Gaining objectivity towards bias is crucial here, if this is glanced over it's just a battle between an overall value judgement of society vs.one's own value judgements.

You indeed address the crux of the matter. Metaphysically I assert an embodied view of mind, though non-physical in immediate appearance I do not believe in mind / body dualism. Similarly, our environment is both physical and abstract, we can feel physically hurt if we're abstractly harmed and conversely, the emotional engagement we might have towards certain abstract conceptions can inform our physical engagement.

This view makes me assert that our emotional inclinations play a big role (I don't think people are capable of full rationality). Basically I'm saying that what's important to us plays a very very big role. If one values their role in society to a high degree they can be distraught if they fail to settle down and have a nice house, kids, etc. while someone who favours their own integrity might not care about such "futile irrational values" and can easily endure a solitary existence by valuing non-conformism.

Even the word "strength" depends on what we value abstractly, in any case it might be seen as an ability to endure certain immediate circumstances to achieve a goal on a longer term. I also happen to think "mind" and the way humans are able to use it has / is this function (making abstract projections about the future which can aid us in directing (controlling) our current behaviour).

What do you think about people who fail to live up to their own standards? Don't you think they are also more prone to mental illness? And if the answer is "yes", does this suggest, to you, that one should have and maintain no standards for oneself? Would this offer a better approach to life? Or perhaps someone should do something entirely different, and if so, what would that be?

I don't think people shouldn't have standards, no.

"they've been wronged by this bad guy". — Gooseone

Well they have been wronged by that bad guy. But the fault isn't with that guy - that guy is a bad guy. It's their judgement that's the fault - they didn't judge him correctly. If they had judged him correctly from the beginning, they would never have been harmed. So their failure is merely the opportunity to begin again, as Henry Ford said, this time more intelligently.

"The only error is your failure to adjust your preconceptions to reality." — Terrapin Station

I don't like this formulation, because it presumes there is a "reality" set in stone, and your preconceptions have to match that reality. But I think that you and your preconceptions play a role in affecting your environment and reality. Your preconceptions may very well become reality if you play your cards well. My point is precisely that one must not abandon their preconceptions - but rather so seek to organise and control their environment, that their preconceptions can find expression.

I've had many preconceptions about reality. I've held onto them - some of them for 15 years or more. And I've also had the great great pleasure of seeing some of them turn into reality - So Terrapin, I cannot agree with your distinction, because it seems to suggest one must abandon their preconceptions in favour of some given reality. And that's precisely what I'm negating. Reality is not just given - but also made. And yes, that means you'll have to fight some people, you'll have to battle some forces from your environment, and seek to win. But that's what life is about. If you give up your preconceptions - as you call them, then you give up yourself, and that's just a shame.

If you influence the world, so that in the future it meets your preconceptions, then you don't have to adjust your preconceptions, right?

I don't quite like this academic approach. You're not really quibbling with ideas, you're quibbling with their formulations. But their formulations are ultimately quite irrelevant to their applicability, or to their value as ideas.

You are committing the error that Nietzsche spoke against: "Perhaps - thus he [Socrates] should have asked himself - what is not intelligible to me is not necessarily unintelligent? Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled?"

This is a very common error amongst academics. There are some peasants though in this world, who have less than 1% the "knowledge" and "sophistication" of an intellectual, and yet can get a lot more done. How come? Because a lot of this quibbling is empty of substance and useless.

If you influence the world, so that in the future it meets your preconceptions, then you don't have to adjust your preconceptions, right? — Terrapin Station

You don't have to renounce them, no.

Sure. So that's consistent with this quote.

But if at present, reality doesn't meet your preconceptions, should you figure that it is what is in error and that the way you expected or wanted it to be right now is correct instead? It can't be other than it is right now can it?

But if at present, reality doesn't meet your preconceptions, should you figure that what is is in error and that the way you expected or wanted it to be right now is correct instead? — Terrapin Station

What does error mean? Error means it's not according to how it should be. How should it be? That's what your preconceptions tell you. So that means you recognise your present reality as not being what you want, and instead seek to move towards the reality you do want.

So that means you recognise your present reality as not being what you want, — Agustino

The point, though, is that present reality can't be other than it is. At that moment, you have to recognize and adapt to what is and work with it--that's all you've got at any present moment.

The point, though, is that present reality can't be other than it is. At that moment, you have to recognize and adapt to what is and work with it--that's all you've got at any present moment. — Terrapin Station

Yes, you have to recognise that it is as it is.

Yes, you have to recognise that it is as it is. — Agustino

That's all the quote is saying, really. That's what you have at that moment, and it's what you have to work with.

The word preconception has a bad connotation. When someone says you have a preconception, generally it means you have a thought/idea you shouldn't have.