On 2008-05-17 14:22 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
> On May 16, 9:12 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-17 01:58 +0100, stephen allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> One thing about most of the convoluted explanations generously styled
>>> "conspiracy theories" is that normal people don't think that way. It
>>> takes at least obsessive-compulsive traits to become deeply
>>> interested in these theories, and it requires clinical paranoia to
>>> give them complete credence.
>> There is no rational reason why "conspiracy theories" should be treated
>> differently, from a intellectual or philosophical point of view, than
>> any other theory about what matter so ever.
>> This means that aside from fact checking -- which is pretty much
limited
>> to at most refutal -- there's the basic criterion of falsifiability,
and
>> hypothetical minimalism (Occam's razor).
>>
>>> There is a class of mental pathologies that inherently seek to impose
>>> the stamp of their disorder on any movement in which they
>>> participate.
>> Or much rather that some memes (ideologemes) may be prone to resonate
>> with certain cl***** of psychopathologies and that the holders of such
>> memes may join together.
>> This does by no logical means imply that those who dare doubt the
>> honesty or morality of US-American rulers are psychopaths.
>>
>>> The two share a psychodynamic basis as defenses against an underlying
>>> paranoid psychosis--obsessive conspiratorializing and homo***uality.
>> Now, now. You may have gotten yourself in more deeply than you can
>> handle there. We'll have to examine that step by step. (I assume "the
>> two" you're referring to are those that occur at the end of the
sentence).
>>
>> There's no such thing as a "defence against a paranoid psychosis". A
>> paranoid psychosis itself is the defence. A paranoia isn't ever
>> "underlying". Same goes for a psychosis in general.
>> Paranoia is, to put it shortly, the projection onto objects outside of
>> the self of repressed pulsions inside the self. The
>> "conspitratorializing", as you put it, has little, if anything, to do
>> with paranoia, in strict scientific (psychoanalytical) terms. It does,
>> however, bear all the hallmarks of obsessive, compulsive behaviour (you
>> can recognise that when actions or attitudes become means for
>> themselves, id est serve no purpose).
>>
>> Mind, this does NOT mean the "conspiracy theories" are factually wrong.
>> Psychopathologies, or biopathologies, are only ever about the
>> _dynamical_ aspect of psyche, not the _topical_ aspect; in other words,
>> it is about HOW people think and feel, not WHAT they think and feel.
>>
>> Homo***uality. Is homo***uality a psychopathology? At least for some
>> cases: yes. It may be for the case for all, but it's difficult to tell.
>> At any rate, for those cases where it is psychopathologically
>> determined, it is a superficial element of the character, comparable to
>> a paranoia in that it too is a defence against underlying pulsions.
>> From the point of view of how it is determined, how it is formed,
>> however, homo***uality as _nothing_ to do with paranoia or compulsive
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Those inaccuracies aside, however, I don't see
>> a) any sensible connection between your last sentence at the previous
>> ones; or, indeed, the matter at hand;
>> b) any other possible interpretation of that sentence (if it were
>> accurate) than that you wish to state all "conspitratorializers" are
>> faggots.
>>
>
> Not dealing with homo***uality, which, IMO is just another normal
> human condition, like people who like this or that ***ual practice,
Just one short note on that. I wrote that in some cases homo***uality is
neurotic, because psychotherapeutical practice has proven this to be so.
Psychotherapies regularly removed (or "cured", depending on how you see
it) the patient's patent or latent homo***uality. And psychotherapy has
nothing to do with suggestion -- it does in fact work by rather removing
suggestions (this does of course only apply to genuine Freudian
psychotherapy, not what goes by under this name nowadays).
However, there may be cases in which its aetiology isn't neurotic. And
at any rate, we'll certainly agree that it is a private matter and
within the realm of private liberty to engage in homo***ual practice or
not. If people subjectively suffer from it, chances are it can be cured.
If not, well, let them have their fun.
> Some of you know of Steve Walis who posts to this forum a few times a
> year. He has dedicated his life to all sorts of wacky theories
> combining things like the fictional historical method Issac Assimov
> used in his Foundation Trilogy (arguably the best sci-fi ever written)
> novels called "Physcho History", a literary device which was a stand
> in for dialectical materialism and MI5 doing mass-hypnosis. For Steve,
> Physcho History is REAL and not made up. He even has a Physcho-History
> web site. Steve was actually a mental patiant in the UK.
>
> I think there is a mild issue of paranoia going on with people who
> come up with stuff like this.
As a matter of fact, not really. It may play a thin role in it, but what
these elaborate, intricate yet very much contrived constructs reflect
mainly is obsessive disorder. See the answer to Stephen for more
elaboration.
> You combine this with his view that *everything* in the bourgeois
> media is a lie, *has to be lie*, then I question the well being of the
> person making these claims.
But he doesn't. Vngelis regularly posts excerpts of the Guardian, or of
more obscure texts found on the internet, and it seems he takes their
contents for granted. How does that fit into it?
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
