Judge Mental

[dsdsds]

Sorry, I can’t claim to know of (or even understand) most of his work. I studied some of his stuff 15 years ago in a college course. I know that he’s one of the great thinkers in media theory.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Is it not true that commonly the corruption includes psychological dysfunction? That is, many psychopaths and criminals honestly consider themselves to be exemplary anthropes.

Only you would know mate. Only you would know.

 

[hypewaders]

Thanks. Good to have you back.

 

[iceaura]

There are no bogeymen, no abnormal, antisocial, pathological, psychopathic sociopaths who do bad things

Yes, there are.

People do pretzel their logic to avoid guilt by association (e.g. "that's not true Islam"), but that does not mean nobody is guilty in person, rather than by association. People often (usually) do wrong without intending it, but that does not mean no one intends it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, there are.

People do pretzel their logic to avoid guilt by association (e.g. "that's not true Islam"), but that does not mean nobody is guilty in person, rather than by association. People often (usually) do wrong without intending it, but that does not mean no one intends it.

Of course there are "guilty people" but they are no more abnormal than you or I. "Normal" is a false concept which is essentially meaningless, an ideal.

 

[hypewaders]

But Sam is not a nihilist. :cringe:

 

[iceaura]

Of course there are "guilty people" but they are no more abnormal than you or I. "Normal" is a false concept which is essentially meaningless, an ideal.

? Whatever are you talking about?

Some people are sociopaths. Not all people are sociopaths. Most people have empathy, feel guilt an remorse, etc.

Some people are sadists. Not all people are sadists. Most people derive little or no pleasure of any kind from viewing the reactions to gratuitous acts of cruelty and inflictions of pain.

It requires months of specialized, full immersion indoctrination to make a soldier out of most people. But some people take to the role like ducks to water.

And so forth.

 

[S.A.M.]

? Whatever are you talking about?

Some people are sociopaths. Not all people are sociopaths. Most people have empathy, feel guilt an remorse, etc.

Some people are sadists. Not all people are sadists. Most people derive little or no pleasure of any kind from viewing the reactions to gratuitous acts of cruelty and inflictions of pain.

It requires months of specialized, full immersion indoctrination to make a soldier out of most people. But some people take to the role like ducks to water.

And so forth.

So all those 'crazy' people in power are what? sociopaths, sadists or indoctrinated?

One of the things I find very peculiar about thinking in the west is how quick they are to label anything as abnormal. Most times, its is a matter of degree, not kind.

 

[hypewaders]

I believe that they have become indoctrinated in a self-congratulatory self-admiring way. When I've had high-paying jobs with respectable responsibilities, I hated it. But that's off topic.

What is interesting to me is that I did think better of myself, with inner disrespect to others. This resulted in discomfort that could be immediately relieved by feeding the ego (I found). So (considering also the behaviors of Presidents and Congressmen) there is obviously a psychosis lurking that can infect a large proportion of people who find themselves making decisions for others. Type "A" personalities, especially in high office often develop and exhibit very similar, and (I expect) definable psychoses. If this is true and becomes recognized and acted upon, it will be historic. In the USA, we have a particularly instructive recent past, that is an incredible exhibition of irrational (crazy) national policies. I don't see evidence of oligarchic cabals- I see evidence of mental disease as a result of a dangerous systemic accountability deficiency, which is an ideal environment for irrational decision-making that follows familiar and predictably disastrous patterns. We have an ailing political system in the USA, that is putting stupid or debilitated people under highest responsibility.

I don't consider political psychosis necessarily evil. I would begin to associate the power trap with evil based upon deeds. I believe that -even provided that we're all insane- we're all still responsible to avoid harm to others (and to other thinking creatures IMO). In legalistic context there may be final determinations made in court about consciousness of others BUT rare exemptions aside we are all accountable if we hurt people- OK, we all should be.

It is conceivable (to me) that we may be successful in adapting our political system in the USA, with clear deliberate intent at achieving a world-standard (or better) level of political accountability. I happen to think this is a problem that can be fixed, within a decade or less; holding politicians accountable for criminal negligence. I am talking about prison sentences, house arrests, travel restrictions, Sciforums bans- all sorts of sanctions against many old men formerly in high corporate and political office. I humbly suggest we remodel the Pentagon into the flagship United States Federal Prison. 5-star inmates can conduct fascinating tours for the public. Duly convicted terrorists and high-profile political criminals can share together in fulfilling "retirement" work (i.e. making solar distillers & such for impoverished people) and leisure time (box-cutters at 10 paces:kidding: ) for the rest of their lives.

A forbidding but proud old building complex re-dedicated to national security adjoining our nation's capitol would be a rational and proud sight to see IMO. A designated circle of hell (probably 3rd ring) will be needed, capable of temporarily housing the entire Congress, whenever they may receive a vote of national no-confidence concerning a pressing issue in world events. There would necessarily be a Presidential Suite in the center of the Pentagon, for the purpose of housing a President who has been a bad girl or boy. In an outer circle, Congress must occasionally (when necessary) earn the trust of the People (advance the best remedial Plan fulfilling the national consensus) in order to be let out again. Yes, we'll feed them, and do them no harm- we shall merely insist occasionally (& Constitutionally, under the the Upteenth Amendment) that our representatives may not go home until implementing a rational solution to a particular national problem. After 3 days without answers, the law shall require that (without negotiation) we cut off the booze. After a month the Congress begins to forfeit large percentages of their pay and benefits. 6 month deadlock triggers a new election, and sitting Members are ineligible to run. Well, they're free to run home to Momma, or anywhere else they can get jobs (retirement forfeited by the Congress under XX Amendment).

Oh, and campaign finance reform too, of course. So many registrants to form a Party, and equal promotional (to the Cent) funding to every eligible political party. I firmly believe that there are legal remedies for our present political attraction for / acceptance of crazy people in power. I think we enjoy a Constitutional foundation and framework that are worthy of bold reform and modernization. I think if we put our minds to it, we could make it very uncomfortable if not impossible to lead the USA in an irrational way. I know this gets into the human potential for informed democracy, and that tangent probably deserves a separate thread. I'll think on it if you/others will. Is there a good prior thread about the democratic potential?

 

[hypewaders]

@ Sam, "watching" Mfg Consent now, as a radio show. Yes, yes, yes is my impression so far (10 minutes in). :yawn:

@ ds http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-G...tenberg-Galaxy/112393115438826?v=wiki#content Very Interesting. OMG Thank You.:xctd:

 

[hypewaders]

This is somewhat redundant, but I was still thinking about this when I posted in another thread (now I've moved the exchange hence):

I'll never forget attending the presentation put together by Iranian students where they wanted to talk about Iran and its people and the Americans kept cracking jokes about bombing Iran. These were academics and graduate students, mind you, peaceniks. They did get all righteous when one conservative got up and talked about Iranians killing Americans [where? when?] but their own lack of perspective was invisible to them.

But is the condition permanent? When Britain let go of her empire, they packed up their bloody kitbags with some dignity remaining, and seeing no profitable purpose in further corruption, murder, warfare, occupations, "nation-building" etc. I believe that a sea change is approaching, when most USis will want to see investment in the USA and not Afpakiraqiniranisaudiuaiieeistansrael (the most half-baked comic theatre of empire in history). Which is insane (our empire, I mean). It is extraordinary and portentious that this dying empire is fully naked and on conspicuous public display pre-mortem- which (combined with economic recession) may accelerate the adjustment period. Presto: Smarter USis. We're only a little bit behind on current events, and when we start to question our assumptions, our learning about our personal connections with the world will become much more focused and protracted, until wiser USis demand a major shift in national destiny (for the better).

There is a philosophical point in there that I am seeking more opinions about- The possibility and likelihood that the USA can change; augment self-awareness and global awareness, as a society.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"Normal" is a false concept which is essentially meaningless, an ideal.

"Normal" is just a setting on a washing machine.

With our system, the rich get in office so the sytem is based on making the rich happy.

Actually there's not a high correlation. In fact the richest people, the ones who can finance their own campaigns, are almost never elected. Look at Ross Perot.

What our system selects for is people who love power and who know how to win elections. Unfortunately neither of those traits correlates highly with the ability to govern.

The only place you find really competent people in power is at the very bottom of the ladder, on the city council or the school board in small towns. Once somebody goes up a couple of rungs, it becomes more a question of how badly do you want the office, what are you willing to do to get it, and how much popularity can you generate.

 

[hypewaders]

What if it were democratically possible to change the rules?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What if it were democratically possible to change the rules?

The rules that we can change are not the ones that we need to change.

The problem with the American political system is that it's too big. There are too many levels of elective office. By the time you rise from municipal government into state government, the formal rules have been overridden by the informal rules. Lust for power and ability to become popular will always win elections. At the national level, competence becomes nearly irrelevant.

The only solution is to make government smaller, and that sure ain't gonna happen any time soon.