Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it. — PhilCF

What religious texts are not interpreted by man? And if there is one and you've read it, how did you avoid interpreting it?

1 - The original texts are the word of God. When they are then taken and used to create contemptible and abhorrent structures of control - that's the work of man. — PhilCF

The various religious texts have quite different messages. In fact within these texts the messages are different, let along what believing in the Upanishads vs. the NT vs. the KOran leads to.

It was locked but not deleted.

This raises an interesting question. What is normal? After all the whole panoply of mental disorders is defined as deviations from the normal. — TheMadFool

I don't agree with everything I will quote Thomas Szasz on below, but your post made me think of his, and I thought he brings a bit to the thread as a whole.....

“If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia”
― Thomas S. Szasz

“The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. ”
― Thomas Szasz

“Doubt is to certainty as neurosis is to psychosis. The neurotic is in doubt and has fears about persons and things; the psychotic has convictions and makes claims about them. In short, the neurotic has problems, the psychotic has solutions.”
― Thomas Stephen Szasz

“Classifying thoughts, feelings and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying whale as fish.”
― Thomas Szasz

“The primary problem with modern psychiatry is its reduction of mental illness to bodily dysfunction. Objectification of those identified as mentally ill, by insisting on the somatic nature of their illness, may apparently simplify matters and help protect those trying to provide care from the pain experienced by those needing support. But psychiatric assessment too often fails to appreciate personal and social precursors of mental illness by avoiding or not taking account of such psychosocial considerations. Mainstream psychiatry acts on the somatic hypothesis of mental illness to the detriment of understanding people's problems.”
― Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct

I tend to agree. In fact, I tend to look at truth in a few ways. I am eclectic and ad hoc. I actually think most people are. But where it is important I think, is that the pragmatic approach is more likely to allow one to practice na idea over time to see if it works, rather than deciding yes, this is true so I will apply it. I think this is much more useful, lol, than not allowing this. Now of course someone with a correspondance truth model can do this, but I think they are much less likely to. And I think they are much more likely to judge people irrational who are using ideas that seem to or even do work for those other people, rather than see what is happening in situ - or even acknowledging that in fact they do this themselves in many ways. I think there is an inherent humilty in pragmatic approaches, and it is more exploratory.

Or maybe it's a fun game like chess but we should be advancing our career, etc., but can't let go of the fantasy that a certain kind of talk is Serious. — joshua

To me this would apply to any position on truth: correspondance, identity, pragmatic...

I think it is also interesting because I wonder if tribal societies manifest "OCD" as superstitions and sufferers of OCD in this society might be celebrated as "medicine men" in some tribal societies. — schopenhauer1

Can you link to something that supports this idea? I think this would actually support my thesis. If a pattern that causes suffering in one culture leads on to a position of authority in another culture, then ti makes parallels between what I have been calling collective neuroses and neurosis as traditionallly defined more likely.

I am skeptical that medicine men are sufferers of OCD, however.

Self-reliance and facing strong criticism are characteristic of adult behaviour. — S

But you don't face down strong criticism, you just bark a lot. Facing down strong criticism, involves interacting with the ideas you encounter, not dismissing them, often without argument, and insulting the other person. That behavior is the sign of presenting anger rather than being honest about your fears and inadequacies in actually demonstrating the problems in the other person's position. Also you are assuming that the criticism we want to avoid is strong. It's generally not. It's posters who are here to attack, that's their joi du vivre. There are also people who are not nasty, but who just don't make sense. A gnostic agnostic...I'd like to put him on ignore. It makes scrolling down threads more efficient. I won't come back in a few weeks having forgotten he regularly doesn't make sense and work my way into one of his quagmire posts.

Feeling a need to rely on an ignore feature and blocking out strong criticism is weak, childish and counterproductive. — S

If you don't want to be selective in your social life and other activities and you sit with people who bore you or criticize you weakly or on false grounds, and enjoy nobly taking on all comers like the adult you are. Go for it. For me, life is short. I'd rather be picky. I also don't read Harelequin romances. I don't watch shitty movies. I don't go back and read authors who were terrible, in case they suddenly gain skills. I edit all the time.

If I was like you and the only thing that interested me was expressing outrage at people and insulting them, then reading people I don't respect would be much more exciting.

Any suggestions, anyone? — Pattern-chaser

There's someone who is a good role model for adult behavior with a suggestion above. Unfortunately scrolling down this thread led to his very short insulting message immediately just getting shot in my brain. The moral coaches here want us to learn how to deal. Well, the only way I can deal with seeing someone be, as usual the scared acting out bully he is, nasty to a third party, is to at least make fun of him for you. And that's me showing restraint.

:up:

That's why I said, this is an opportunity to work on that.

If you pity yourself, it won't get easier.
If you practice, it might. — Shamshir

I'm wondering why you feel like you should be in an improvement coach role with someone you don't know, and how you know better than they do about how they should deal with their uniqueness.

It might not be the option he came here to opt for.

And his asking for understanding does not mean he pities himself. His knowledge of his tendencies obviously is vastly better than your knowledge of them. We each choose to focus on what we want to work on, ourselves. There are likely things you could be learning right now to grow around that do not involve judging other people's choices, people you don't know.

I am sure I am blocking sincere people with real products. They're just marketing. I use the highest settings. Sometimes things get blocked that should get through, but I can live with that. Heck, I have a dumb phone. I'm a 20th century guy.

people who you've avoided at social events don't carry on talking to you as if you were there. — Isaac

I don't know where you're from but on my planet some sure do, and especially at smaller gatherings it can be impossible to avoid hearing them or choosing between being rude or interacting.

blocked numbers are told they've been blocked — Isaac

On other forums I tell them I am putting them on ignore. This is both fair, since they know not to expect responses -they can certainly criticise my posts for the gallery, of course - and pleasant to say.

I think there's something uniquely rude about ignoring someone who may well be sincerely trying to communicate with you, with perfectly good intentions, when they don't even know you don't want such efforts. — Isaac

Well, they know. Since I tell them. And it is my judgment, generally, that there is something insincere or regularly rude in those I ignore. I wouldn't expect people to 'put up with' me, if their experience is that they think I am rude or regularly engaging in fallacies or trolling or neo-trolling. We are all selective in a variety of ways about how we are and are not in contact. I am not suggesting anyone else should do what I like to do, but there is nothing wrong with it. Since the ignore function is lacking here I do it as well as I can. But it is so much easier with one in place. And as an effect on the community as a whole I think it reduces pissing contests.

l haven't seen it. There is the pleasure in a bad movie.

yes, it doesn't seem to work/be there.

I think both more realistic and less realistic styles are interesting and have their aesthetic uses. I don't think we have to choose nor should we. Of course any film will be artificial, we simply to not seem images like that and most realistic films still have editing, carefully chosen angles, plot points, sets and so on. But I do think it is a meaningful criterion. I think some films are more realistic, and in areas I have expertise I can see when some films have made efforts to make things realistic. You can make a terrible or a great film on either end of the spectrum. You can tell a story via magic realism or something approaching a documentary style perhaps with people playing characters lke themselves or themselves, even - though sometimes actors do a better job then amateurs, since it is very hard to be like yourself in certain mood on cue for amateurs.

One can do this, but it is easier to get drawn in. While a spam filter on my email is dealing with a great deal more things I want weeded out, the principle is the same. I find it really streamlines my participation. Sometimes I do not notice the person I am reading, and once read, it can be harder, for me, to hold off responding. I also have a notice up that on my mail slot that keeps me from getting junk mail. I have a phone service function that keeps me from getting phone sales calls. I only invite some people to social events and avoid some social events with certain people there. I can walk by them. Cover my ears and make a ya, ya sound to avoid hearing imbecilic remarks or whatever it is I want to avoid, but in general I do take steps in many areas of my life to restrict my contact with others. In all of these I could 'do it myself', but then I like the convenience. I think it also can potentially frustrate trolls, if the function is available, since less people get trolled. And then neo-trolls, wehre they are sincere but have terrible posting habits, may find themselves not getting responded to as much. But mainly, it just works for me. I like the function.

Ignore list? I asked about this in another thread, I couldn't find the function, either the one for threads or for members

Is hate a good or evil attribute for us to have? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think this depends. When does the hate come up? Is it habitual - iow are there other emotions we have a harder time facing, so we convert fear or grief or confusion to rage? Is it a response to rage? I do believe it is good for me to accept my rage and hate, though often I am looking to see what may be underneath, if it seems like I am avoidng something I find more unpleasant.

Jesus said to love ourselves. That would include embracing our evil side. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I agree with the spirit of this, but I don't consider hate evil.

They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. — alcontali

...and at this time period.

To generalize it to how culture shapes anxieties would be to muddy the definition and significance of an actual neurosis with cultural practices. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I am intentionally muddying the water. These cultural neuroses may be milder in individual cases, however they are vastly more widespread, cost unbelievable amounts of money for sufferers, shift power away from individuals, at least often, to corporations, distract people from seeking real solutions, contribute to global warming, pollution, and not just a little, contribute to class tensions and social hierarchies, and because they are norms are much harder for the people to consider extricating themselves from them - from seeking treatment. I can grant that individual effects are less, but the societal level damages from these cultural neuroses, while hard to track, I consider likely to be enormous and pernicious.

The people with the disorders have trouble primarily contained to their own suffering, and then on their family members. Collective neuroses also detrimentally affect people who are many degrees of separation from the individual sufferers. IOW you can be immune to the meme aspects of the collective neurosis in question but still suffer.

First off, in order for something to be a disorder, it has to be a major disruption to their life. — schopenhauer1

It's an interesting combination of something that is an anxiety disorder with a self-medication aspect. If they were not allowed to engage in the behaviors that, say, the corporations have suggested solve the problem, they would have more of the full blown disorder. IOW the symptoms would be much more visible.

It has to be something that one cannot simply walk away from and turn on and off. — schopenhauer1

I don't think most people can walk away from these patterns. To move outside what they consider important norms creates trememdous anxiety and likely depression also. And further they will often be socially and even professionally punished for moving away.

Someone with an actual neurosis like OCD would have something like exact spots where things need to be. If they do not put something in that pattern or place, they think about it the whole day, they preseverate, they can't think clearly. In other words, they obsess. — schopenhauer1

This section reminded me directly of mobile use, in general, and then also the specifics of social media participation. So ritual interaction with the object, with surfing, that the object has been checked, is nearby and then all the rituals of self-presentation of likeing the right things of getting liked for comments and the ongoing anxiety around all this. Again, since the activity does have a self-medication aspect, the disorder is less obvious than some of the disorders.

They feel a compulsion to go back and put it in the "right" place or pattern. — schopenhauer1

Again, mobile use, but also hair style, make up, the way emotions need to be actively suppressed, certainly not expressed, and any let downs in this last, need to be 'explained' and 'reframed' and made up for.

Of course the neurosis sufferer - they no longer use neurosis in psychiatry, but I'll keep using the term since it has been used since the OP - tend not to have the additional anxiety about their oddness. They are not insiders, since having these collective neuroses makes one an insider. An OCD sufferer IS going to be judged. They will feel a sense of stigma, in addition to the underlying anxiety driving them. Cultural neuroses are based on anxiety creation - and consistent threat - with a way out. You conform. So there isn't the additional meta-anxiety of the disorder sufferer.

Many of the traditionally diagnosed can control their symptoms and function quite well on medication. Most of the collectively neurotic since the very pattern includes a self-medication aspect, can control their symptoms and function quite well.

Should the quite unlikely happen and I can convince many people that this is all correct, the ocd sufferer, for example, will still be able to receive treatment for his or her disorder. They might, potentially, feel a bit less shame, as they realize that normal people have similar patterns, though perhaps to a lesser degree. And then those with power who create these collective neuroses, will be challenged in a new and different way.

Hats off to the treating the question as an insult, allowing you a 'justification' not to answer, so that when you continue to present the false dilemma - insult or kiss people's ass - no one can say you're a hypocrite. Brilliant.

And also sad that you are often evasive this way. Under siege. Attacked even by questions and ideas that differ from yours. Attacked on all sides.

I got pulled back in by what seemed like a sense of humor about what actually is a really defensive stance in a world you feel attacked by.

I'll discontribute to what you experience as siege. I will not present ideas that differ from yours to you. I will not differ with your posts. I won't even read them. And I'll hold to that this time, even if you seem to have a brave period.

Of course there's reason to use that term here, otherwise I wouldn't have used it here. Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat my language for your sake. An example of speaking dumb would be to call left "right" and falsehoods "truths". If I think you're speaking dumb, I'll say so. — S

Sugercoat. Again the false dichtomy. Just argue the case, show the errors.

No, it was hypothetical, a thought experiment, where you're supposed to assume that the hexagonal Earth theory is of pragmatic use. Obviously I wasn't giving a real world example, obviously. — S

Right. But that has nothing to do with my point. You picked a poor example, one where you don't even take the time to see if you can come up with a use. IOW you picked an example that you think has no use, and yet it was an example, somehow, that I or some other pragmatists would be defending because it has some use.
And seem to think this is evidence of something. And you did this instead of using the example I provided. So you make up a poor example that no pragmatist and in case I haven't used, rather than using one provided. This is pretty much by definition a lack of integrity.

But how can something not be true if it corresponds with reality, thereby making it so? — S

Now you are defending your theory of truth which it seems is correspondence. I even specifically said that if that was your theory you are a believer of good theory of truth. But that's not the issue.
You treated a theory based on intrumentality as if it was wrong and stupid. Perhaps what we have are two different but workable theories of truth. I am not mounting an argument against yours. I am just saying that pragmatic theories of truth makes sense and, well, can be quite useful. I can deal with a diverse set of models and methodologies. So my saying that his makes sense is not saying yours is bad or dumb. And heck, perhaps a third is even better, or perhaps both our models are not the best ones. But I do note the pattern that if someone asserts something you would not, it means they think you must be wrong, and, given your habits of communication, they must, therefore, think you are stupid. That must be painful.

The amazing thing is, it might be, well, useful to have different views about the nature of truth out there, since it seems like each one has potential weaknesses. We don't have to decide which one is the Pope.

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, or do you think the options are either being nicey nicey or being insulting. Is it possible to be respecful without being nicey nicey and giving thumbs up and without being insulting?

cause I don't see anything in here...

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with.

about using emoticons. Maybe he said it elsewhere.

Maybe it wasn't a false dilemma, perhaps it was a strawman.

Re: my comment in the other thread. You didn't have to be nicey nicey to me here, but there's no reason to say 'speak dumb' here.

Now you made up a description of the earth as a hexagon, one for which you have no pragmatic uses, I assume, as if this showed that pragmatic truth is a poor theory. We know that Newtonian notions of absolute space, for example, and absolute motion, are not correct, in some correspondance theory of truth. Einstein took that away. However Newton's truths are incredibly effective. I think it useful to consider them true. and who knows, maybe someone will override Einstein.

You think your ideas about truth eliiminate having false truths?

Your epistemology is infallible?

Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way. — S

this is a false dilemma. You are presenting it as if the options are say surperficial nicey-nicey stuff or be insulting. You can avoid both and focus on the ideas. But the sentence X, here, doesn't hold because of Y.

And one can even be fussy and avoid words that imply the other person is wrong, like 'obviously'.

But that's what pragmatists do. They see process where other see final forms. To a pragmatist facts in minds are actually processes. And they are parts of processes. And I am not talking about how we decide it is true -epistemology-I am talking about what facts do. A fact that does not lead to predictions, future observations, that is not instrumental in some process, is meaningless and would not be true for me. It would just be a statement hanging in the air. You're arguing perhaps some correspondence type theory for truth.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
or maybe the identity theory of truth....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/

And if that's the case, I could be wrong, those are just peachy ways of looking at truth. I think more pragmatic ways of looking at it are better and actually match what I and in the end other people do when facts are involved. I don't think it is the correspondence, I think it is what the assertion does. I am wary of putting truth 'in' things. I think facts are processes that do things, not things that are true.

It's a bit like the 'do words contain meanings' discussion elsewhere, though with differences.

Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth. (1907 [1975: 34])

He said it was only true with regards to utility. The only way to see if it is true is related to utility. There is no knowing something is true without it having utility. It has to predict something, lead to something.

I think you are interpreting 'utility' to mean something beyond this. Like it has to be a valuable tool or something. The fact must effectively tunction in predicting something. That is its truth.

No, no, no. Look, let's start off simple, shall we? The statement, "Planet Earth is not flat", is true, yes? It's true because Earth is not flat. That's a fact. Is it useful? Doesn't matter. The objective measure, the truth-maker, is the fact, the shape of Earth, not how useful it is. If it was useful for Earth to be flat, or triangular, or hexagonal, that wouldn't make it so. It would not then be true. — S

Actually it has too matter if it is useful. A fact that has no predictive value is meaningless. At a bare minimum the idea that the earth is not flat will explain prior and future experiences. It will fit observations. It will be by itself or with other facts, lead to better practical decisions: flight paths, say. I suppose if one is an epistemological hedonist, then having a fact one thinks is true would be useful, since it would lead to pleasure. But otherwise truths are only true (for us) in that they connect up with uses. What they do, not what they are. Unless one is a Platonist, I suppose.

I get you here. Hm. I guess we should avoid conflating things. I think elegance and sense of understanding can lead to it being useful - seems like mathematicians chime in about this sometimes. But what I mean is that if a model or meta-model gives its users confidence, a sense of cohesive understanding, this may lay the ground for productivity. Call it a potential placebo effect if one must. I would black box that. But to think that there 'everything is water' is very elegant and we now have a deep understanding of reality means that we have something that matters is to conflate things, at least for me. I don't want to say that experience is useless or even wrong, but as a semi-pragmatist - with a pretty ad hoc bricoleur set of epistemological methodologies (which is a fancy way of saying I am a mixed bag), it shouldn't be confused with being able to change things, make things, get to new knowledge, help people, be practically useful or even, heck, spiritually useful.

It may well be a great first step towards those things.

It also seems to me that it is not a discrete step, that we move in and out of interaction with the world and each other and fussing with our metaphysics, consciously or unconsciously.

I tend to agree, but then I am a bit of an instrumentalist. So,

We can even speculate on which are most useful to achieve certain goals. — Isaac

I would strengthen to say we can do more than speculate, less than determine which is best. IOW we can look at the fruitfulness of the metaphysics, or the fruitfulness of the research based on it. If we notice that there seem to be dead ends, a slowing down of productivity, we could try to tweak or replace some of those assumptions. We could also recognize that we need not per se dismiss something that uses a different metaphysics.

Of course the usefulness of an assumtion or model can have a lot to do with factors that have nothing at all to do with truth or accuracy or even inherent usefulness. But I think some conscious work with that area could be helpful in general, and I mean even in science.

This, I think, is an error of binary thinking: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of analysis is possible. — Pattern-chaser

Also, when scientific analysis is available, that analysis is sitting on implicit and/or explicit metaphysics. That's what models are, that's what assumptions about laws and order in nature, and likely mathematics underlying various phenomena and so on are. Everyone is a metaphysicist.

I agree with your concerns. I think the concept can be useful if the person themselves feels like they are not enjoying life as much as others who have similar lives. That on some level that person feels like something is wrong. They worry too much - by their own estimation - are somewhat depressed, too self-critical...these kinds of things. They someone gives them a label for this pattern plus some way to minimize it. Cogntive behavioral therapy has some effect. Dynamic therapies can have an effect. If the pattern is actually coming from a traumatic experience, there are other treatments. IOW labeling a pattern can also be part of a collaborative client/practitioner relation. I think there are all sorts of things one should avoid doing in that relationship, which many professional do do. But I don't think the noticing and labeling of a pattern like this is per se bad.

Sounds a bit like the realist (hindu) version of my idealist structure.

The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled

Least risky right off the bat is an incredibly hard thing to track. But I assume you would be against parents buyng kids skateboards, since these are associated with injuries. Of course there might be subtle pains (social pain, loss of joy, but these are telling pains in the context of wanting all birth to end), but do these outweigh the accidents. Shoudl parents sterilize their children? It would seem from an antinatalist position they should. Right now it is illegal, but from an antinatalist position it would seem moral. It prevents them from not only having kids, but it will, in many cases prevent untold future selves from being put at risk without consent. The possible harms of the surgery and its results pale in comparisom with all those postential future sufferers.

Homeschooling seems right off the bat better. If the schools require being driven to (a major risk) or other transportation - we are dealing with all sorts of risk. Keeping them in a controlled safe environment seems automatically better and should be the default position unless studies show counterevidence.

No children should be driven anywhere. One of the most dangerous activities. Especially if the child is in the womb and cannot even give a child's limited consent to the trip.

One might question whether trying to give a child a happy childhood might increase the chances the child will procreate or will have more kids.

And one should be working on or encouraging research into a device that would kill all human life, all life that can suffer. Yes, this would be killing without consent, but it very likely could be painless and if everyone died, then there could not be the likely coming thousands or more generations of potential babies having their suffering risked. Killing everyone minimizes this risk. It is a consent violation, but one that people will not experience the pain of. When it happens, they will be gone.

Because one cannot weigh the positives of life against the risk of violating the consent of non-existent beings. We must share the priorities of the anti-natalists.

Even if they, as fallible humans, might be confused about some part of their beliefs, but not realize it, and this is a risk they take with everyone as they proselytize, ultimately, for the end of all human life. Should they be successful they will have, without the consent of those who would have wanted to live, wherever they are, risked their loss of things they would ahve valued differently, if they hadn't been all nipped in the bud.

And further if we look at the past normal would now often be diagnosable. And to put this another way, I think there is implicit in the contrast between norm and abnormal an approval of society. What if society is not conducive to homo sapians. Just as some ecological niche could be made problematic - and stressful - for an animal. The norm in that case should include people who are having emotional turmoil. But that's not the way it works, at least in practical terms, now.

Wow. [applause]

, I also wonder whether drugs were necessary for the artist/rockstar to convey an important useful message about music/art. — TheMadFool

Actually I wasn't worried so much about the kids imitating. I think it is a myth that the drugs are necessary for their art. I am sure that the drugs influence the art, but if the talent is there it can come anyway. Further I think one of the reasons so many rock stars lose their creativity - as opposed to painters and novelists, for example - is their drug use. The drugs may, I say may, accelerate the creative process, but you are stealing from yourself when you do this. Because they destroy the creative centers when abused.

Could it be that collective neurosis is a necessary evil - unifying society through establishing common cultural norms but, unfortunately, also providing a window of opportunity to unhealthy anxiety-causing cultural practices/norms/standards? — TheMadFool

I think collective practices can be bonding. Those would be the ones that are neutral or positive. The collective neuroses are damaging, though they may also be bonding. I think we can drop out the addition of more anxiety. Life is tough enough. We don't need to be worrying if people think we suck because we don't have the newest jeans.

All I'm saying is that both the good and bad maybe using the same access point in our minds and therefore collective neurosis is unavoidable but definitely manageable to some extent. — TheMadFool

I think there are reasons why some people create collective ideas that hate emotions or bodies, or teach us to be anxious about things that are not important - until we are taught to hallucinate they are. I would like us to look at these people and organizations - which of course many do already, though not with the collective neurosis model, perhaps.

Well, yes. But it seemed like you framed my first response as weighing in on solid/liquid issues. I wasn't. I just went back to my original reaction but via an image. There be other people who have made metal a fundamental substance, but the only ones I've encountered are those in TCM.

Well, the way you directed the discussion I'm led to believe, true to the term "neuorsis" whose definition you kindly provided, that collective neurosis is an illness - a weakness if you will, ripe for exploitation by the unscrupulous. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say we have an illness, but we are affected by nurture. If mommy says trees are dangerous and screams when she see them, children will develop anxiety around trees, at least many. It's not that the children are sick, it's that they learn socially. Commericals with subtext and unconscious messages, fashion news, movies, and so on, are a form of nurture we learn from.

That tells a different story and that "neurosis" may not be the right term to apply here. — TheMadFool

Well, the same behavior of someone fussing over something, like making fly fishing flies if they don't suffer or have anxiety around it, is not neurotic. So it is not the behavior, it is the suffering. Corportions tend to create anxiety and things like fashion are presented to us with the deeply embedded idea of potential failure, for example. So here we are dealing with neuroses, where unnecessary behavior is given an irrational importance coupled with anxiety.

Then you said the above which again looks like you're trying to criticize cultural norms as an illness and that we should resist or defy them but at a cost. — TheMadFool

Cultural norms, ones that have no practical objective positive to them, are irrational or non-rational. If they cause anxiety, then they are neurosis creators.. If they don't then they are simply ornamental.

We could say that collective neurosis applies to those social norms that can be used to exploit/harm us. You mentioned things like "right car" and it makes sense: Our desire to conform to a social standard makes us do irrational and, sometimes, harmful things. — TheMadFool

Yes, sort of you worded it here.

Is drug-abuse in children and young adults a collective neurosis? — TheMadFool

I would think it is a symptom of collective neurosis in general. But can be, in certain subcultures, a collective neurosis. The whole artist/rock star self-abusive abusive archetype in that subculture is a collective neurosis, where it seems like to be creative and cool, you need to do drugs to excess. That book I mentioned above Lost Connections. Interestingly the same author has a book on the war on drugs and drug abuse. They found that a very large percentage of drug abusers were abused as children, sexually or via other violence, sometimes neglect. IOW it's not a disease or set of genes, it is a reaction to nurture.

Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War of Drugs

is also an incredible read. I can't recommend it enough. Pretty much everything we have been told about drug abuse is not correct.

Now you're getting into traditional chinese medicine.

Thank you. I actually like it. It's a form of idealism.