Amerika

Science offers understanding of the physical world, to a point, but also introduces cognitive tools in the forms of categories which are by nature incomplete and inexact. With science, the human mental models of the world become our tools and more important than their imperfect implementations.

For example, psychology likes to diagnose mental health problems and aberrant behaviors as instances of certain mental disorders. This “pathologization” allows people to write off their own behavior by attributing it to the disorder and not choices they have made.

In turn, that leads away from healing. If you can scapegoat the symbol in the form of the disorder, then you do not need to make any inner change to your thinking that will enable you to avoid the disorder. It is now something done to you, not a choice by you.

The literary and mythological tradition, carried forth somewhat in our religions that are a degeneration of past tradition, views people on a case-by-case basis, and therefore sees psychological dysfunction as part of character and not some external force manipulating them.

It sees the root of mental health problems as selfishness, self-centeredness, narcissism, solipsism, egotism, or individualism — these are the same, and usually mask themselves with empathy, altruist, and equality — and those as choices made by a character who thinks they are more rewarding than the alternatives.

These correspond to a short-term focus because that makes the individual feel good instantly, as opposed to delivering a long-term peace of mind.

Interestingly, morality and science find themselves on the side of passing judgments about these. Science acquits the individual of responsibility, and religion does the same through forgiveness and other jargon. In no case is the individual responsible for his choices.

As the Age of Symbolism winds down, we are rediscovering how moral ideas concealed practical reasoning about how to preserve your character against the onslaught of insanity. We are all constantly bombarded by the insanity and poor character of others, trying to seduce us into their low standards.

The literary-mythological view sees these as choices made by the individual based on their inner qualities. That is, we evolve differently, and some can do less with their minds than others, and some are just more selfish which leads them to short-term thinking because they do not care if long-term thinking is better.

They just want what they want, they want it now, they want someone else to pay for it, they want someone else to clean up the mess, and they want the people who inherit the mess to know that they got downranked by someone who got away with a little sin (or even a big one).

Are they sociopaths? Let us not pathologize: they are individualists. For them, the individual comes before Order (natural, divine, hierarchy, logic, sanity) and they derive pleasure from getting away with their little sins.

They run up against something we see in the movie High Noon, which unintentionally chronicles one aspect of Crowdism and the committee problem, namely that people avoid difficult problems and will accept being cucked, dominated, and exploited as a result.

Committees are comprised of people who want to get paid, so they are averse to risk, which means that the problems they are created to solve will be scrupulously avoided. If you take real action, you risk failing, which endangers the paycheck and the career.

Instead, committees delight in surface treatments or addressing causes-as-effects, a type of means-over-ends logic. If you have poor people, just give them some money. If you have crime, throw them into rehab. Put some paint on the situation, like a house-flipper or used car salesman, and move on.

Committees are based on compromise or the idea that any goal is less important than keeping everyone happy because they get some surface treatment directed at them. If you cannot solve poverty, at least buy off anyone irritated by it and pass the bill on to your fellow citizens.

Over time, this kills societies because people turn on each other over money. Then they have the monkey on their back and can only mentally adjust to more of the same. They tax more, spend more, and find this makes their money worth less, but have no way of understanding this.

In High Noon, one man endorsed ends-over-means logic: if the bad guys are ruining the town, remove the bad guys. Everyone else endorsed just putting up with the bad guys and paying more money so that they did not have to risk themselves.

It was designed as a metaphor about McCarthyism, but applies to every human situation. As it turned out, McCarthy was right, so it is best if the movie simply remains a Western about an eternal truth of humanity; you can see the same in how Odysseus confronts sailors reluctant feasting and unwilling to move from a threat.

The High Noon calculus says that whether we stick with the scientific-psychological pathologization or accept that character determines mental health, we have a problem if we let these people stick around: ordinary people will pay them off, and gradually slip into rule by parasites.

There are only two options. You either remove them or self-destruct. Psychology will not admit this, but literature would, even if it mostly shied away from the difficult conclusion that Colonel Kurtz later brought to our attention in Apocalypse Now.

If weeds exist in your garden, you remove them without mercy. If there is a snake in the bedroom of your child, you remove it (whether saving it or killing it). If you tolerate parasites in your society, they will take over by turning the rest of you against each other, and then blame an external force like Satan or schizophrenia.

Tags: capitalism, collapse, committee problem, crowdism, high noon, satanism, schizophrenia, taxation