Are we all “dittoheads” to some ideology?

[coberst]

Are we all “dittoheads” to some ideology?

Wikipedia informs me that “dittoheads” are “faithful listeners to The Rush Limbaugh Show. Limbaugh explains that these adoring fans are not necessarily those who agree with his views; “they are people who love the show and what he's doing, and hope he never stops doing it.” Dittohead is a term that came into use because one caller said “ditto” to a string of former callers who praised Limbaugh’s rants; he recognized that time was important on the show and just wanted everyone to know that he wanted to “OK” all the glories previously announced by others.”

The “art of reasoning consists in…getting hold of the big ideas and hanging on to them like grim death”--William James

I think that the ‘big idea’ is the ‘big question’ that we must answer if we desire to comprehend “why do we do the things we do?”

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Sapiens display a need to be hypnotized by leaders.

Psychology is a domain of knowledge that is complex and filled with concepts that are completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of our population. But Psychology provides us with an insight into why humans do what they do that no other domain of knowledge can provide.

Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and just below God.

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. “Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted.”

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.

A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.

I concluded that we are all dittoheads to one degree or another. Intellectual sophistication is a means to extract our self from our self imposed dittoheadhood.

Do you have any interest in comprehending why humans do what they do?

Can you think of any subject matter that might provided this insight better than does psychology?

Have you ever tried to study psychology?

[RichardHresko]

Read "Escape From Freedom" by Erich Fromm.

[grotto]

Along with that, read "freedom from the known" J. Krishnamurti

[coberst]

Read "Escape From Freedom" by Erich Fromm.

Tell us something about it.

[Uberzensch]

Are we all “dittoheads” to some ideology?

I concluded that we are all dittoheads to one degree or another. Intellectual sophistication is a means to extract our self from our self imposed dittoheadhood.

Do you have any interest in comprehending why humans do what they do?

Can you think of any subject matter that might provided this insight better than does psychology?

Have you ever tried to study psychology?

For a more recent psychoanalytic study of ideology, read Slavoj Zizek's The Sublime Object of Ideology. It basically gets at the psychoanalytic need for ideology to provide meaning to our world.

So, yes, we are all dittoheads. We all follow something, blindly. Most of the important questions we worry about have no answer. Therefore, we follow some ideological framework to guide us and provide answer. This is similar to a Kuhnian paradigm, to borrow a reference from another of your posts. Paradigms define facts, which we need to draw conclusions. Unfortunately, facts don't exist.

Ideologies define facts. In our liberal democratic society, freedom of speech is a right. Democracy is the only legitimate government. Murder is wrong.

These are the facts of our world, not the facts of the world.

To answer your other question, psychology is useful to comprehend these questions and I do try to study it when I can. The problem I often run in to is the somewhat irrelevant organization of disciplines in the academic world. Why psychology is separated from philosophy, history or sociology has more to do with silly organizational rules than anything useful. I find that you often need bits and pieces from many different disciplines to make any interesting headway in these topics.

[NikolaiI]

First of all, that is not what hypnosis is. Hypnosis is not submission to another's will. Not at all. You should research it for what it fascinatingly is before you use it so incorrectly again.

Second, what makes you think the real world is harsh, while fantasies are enjoyable? How do you know you aren't making the "real world" harsh just by your own harsh sense of life?

Third, are you so sure you are correct in what is real? How do you know you are not completely as mired in illusion, samsara?

What is real is what is essential, what is eternal. I use essential in the Eastern sense. Nothing of the temporary, ephemereal world is real. All that is false, illusion. It doesn't exist in relation to the eternal.

You do not need to accept what I say; I do urge you to search for the real for the rest of your life. You may find it.

Ideology is just a word. Perhaps many live under one. I tend to think of things differently. I think of what kind of life is someone leading. Many people are leading lives in ignorance, they do not look for anything beyond the senses. Many are leading something between that and an intellectual life. Like you, I advocate getting an intellectual life. But I don't think it is all there is. An intellectual life is better than a purely sensual life, but even with the intellect we are not fully satisfied. How is an intellectual life supposed to culminate in knowlege of oneself, conscious, subconscious, and whatever more there is?

[billl]

wow, i think this is an eye-opening discussion. i like uberzensch's extension of the metaphor to how people can use an ideology in place of an individual (therapist, guru, book author) as a means to justify our position, or indeed, provide our position.

maybe this can go a little far--i think we can see an evolution of ideologies (maybe, usually...???). for example, in politics, the shift from authoritarianism to monarchy adds stability, and a shift towards republicanism and constitutional democracy promises, ultimately, even more stability during times of technological/social change. and some ideologies just seem better suited for particular situations. also, having a pre-approved, well-thought-out range of approaches to chose from does help to give one a head start in the analysis of all this.

But, yeah, it's easy to fall for something, hook, line, and sinker--and just let the illogic (or even the logic) of the particular go unexamined. Especially when it's a SYSTEM that we're putting OUR face on, rather than coming from some more obvious father/mother figure.

I had never seen those Freud quotes about group behavior. Possibly, he was more right about the people of his time and place, in comparison to the people in the post-Freud world (which isn't everybody, by a long stretch, but still...). But I do think it is a good lens through which to scout out various manipulations of large groups, and the possibly unconscious motivations for "our" more ditto-headed moments. Hmm.

[billl]

Nickolai, hypnosis most certainly can be used to control a person or group. "Heightened suggestibility" is a phrase that would be difficult to avoid when defining any standard usage of the word "hypnotism". I am surprised to see your objection (perhaps you want to point out that hypnosis can also be extremely beneficial...?).

Also, I think it is OK to have an interest in the temporal, ephemeral world. There are great gifts t/here (as well as suffering, to be sure). Even if we know better, I think it is OK to live in, share, and think about 'maya'--and get passionate about it, too.;)

[coberst]

Kool-Aid didn’t kill those people.

Transference and suggestibility killed those people.

In October of 1978, surrounded by hundreds of his followers, cult leader Jim Jones was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head; this event took place in Jonestown, Guyana, where the followers of Jones drank the Kool-Aid of group psychology, killing them self by drinking a soft drink laced with cyanide at the cult's sprawling compound.

The images of bodies found at the compound were seared into the consciousness of a generation. The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" came to describe any blind devotion to a cause or person. It was not the Kool-Aid that killed all of these people but it was a human propensity called transference.

Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

[RichardHresko]

Tell us something about it.

Fromm was a social psychologist active in the middle years of the 20th century. He was a strong critic of Freud (who he felt erred by insisting on wars of polarities within the human psyche) and developed a theory of social psychology that focused on the human ned for attachment. A somewhat simplified encapsulation of his thesis in Escape from Freedom is that if we are not integrated well into society with outlets for creativity and healthy connectivity, then we will feel disconnected and frustrated and will accept almost any impositions on our freedom as long as we feel some connection to a force that appears to have power and offers a sense of belonging.

[billl]

more great stuff about group mind, thanks coberst! just what we need in this networked age.

[NikolaiI]

Nickolai, hypnosis most certainly can be used to control a person or group. "Heightened suggestibility" is a phrase that would be difficult to avoid when defining any standard usage of the word "hypnotism". I am surprised to see your objection (perhaps you want to point out that hypnosis can also be extremely beneficial...?).

Also, I think it is OK to have an interest in the temporal, ephemeral world. There are great gifts t/here (as well as suffering, to be sure). Even if we know better, I think it is OK to live in, share, and think about 'maya'--and get passionate about it, too.;)

No, that is not what hypnosis is. A person cannot be hypnotized against their will. It is not subjection of one to another. Since one cannot be hypnotized against their will, and many cannot even be hypnotized even if they wish to, it certainly can not be used to control, to subjugate. I would recommend researching it, as what it really is is actually very fascinating.

[coberst]

Fromm was a social psychologist active in the middle years of the 20th century. He was a strong critic of Freud (who he felt erred by insisting on wars of polarities within the human psyche) and developed a theory of social psychology that focused on the human ned for attachment. A somewhat simplified encapsulation of his thesis in Escape from Freedom is that if we are not integrated well into society with outlets for creativity and healthy connectivity, then we will feel disconnected and frustrated and will accept almost any impositions on our freedom as long as we feel some connection to a force that appears to have power and offers a sense of belonging.

I have read Fromm's "The Heart of Man" and was left with the impression that he agreed much with the ideas of Freud.

[billl]

Nickolai,

I think you are making a worthwhile point--to say that hypnosis is used to control another person is pretty misleading. Anyone going to a professional hypnotherapist needn't worry too much about a shameful surrender of their will. That being said, anyone who voluntarily undergoes hypnosis will, to a certain extent, be at the mercy of the hypnotist. It is just professional ethics (and/or trusted witnesses) that would protect one from unwanted suggestions.

Also, I think that coberst's point shouldn't be dismissed or ignored, despite the possibility of it's being interpreted as a slander against well-meaning, trustworthy hypnotherapists, and/or a misuse of the word as they might prefer it to be used (although I doubt they would). It's unfair to expect Freud to anticipate future sensitivities regarding the use of the word, and I think people since his time can be forgiven for using terms like 'mass hypnosis' and singing songs with lyrics like "She's got me hypnotized." But I think a textbook on clinical hypnotherapy and/or hypnosis for entertainment purposes would not spend too much time on the involuntary initiation of a hypnotic state.

('Trance' state might be another term to use, but it moves away from the word used by Freud in the original quotes, and is liable to irritate all manner of other worthy groups and practices associated with the word 'trance'.)

I think it remains the case that our susceptibility to hypnosis (even the clinical, benign form) is good evidence of a mechanism by which people might surrender their consciousness to a certain ideology, perhaps even involuntarily, especially if it's presented in an 'effective' way. A charismatic speaker; a confidence man establishing rapport; a well-paced essay; the effective use of music, visuals and voice on television--all of these might expose one to the same state of "heightened suggestibility" achieved in clinical hypnosis (albeit at various depths, or levels of effectiveness).

Someone defending the interests of well-meaning, professional hypnotherapists can't be blamed for taking offense at coberst's (and Freud's) rather unappealing association of the term 'hypnosis' with the surrender of one's consciousness and will to another individual (or ideology). Still, I'd like to hear what you have to say, beyond the trouble with the terminology.

I wonder what your feelings are about the point of the original post: that humans appear to have a certain capacity for (even vulnerability to) "suggestibility", and that (in addition to its potential use in therapeutic contexts) it can lead to "group mind" and associated tragedies for individual development?

[NikolaiI]

Nickolai,

I think you are making a worthwhile point--to say that hypnosis is used to control another person is pretty misleading. Anyone going to a professional hypnotherapist needn't worry too much about a shameful surrender of their will. That being said, anyone who voluntarily undergoes hypnosis will, to a certain extent, be at the mercy of the hypnotist. It is just professional ethics (and/or trusted witnesses) that would protect one from unwanted suggestions.

Also, I think that coberst's point shouldn't be dismissed or ignored, despite the possibility of it's being interpreted as a slander against well-meaning, trustworthy hypnotherapists, and/or a misuse of the word as they might prefer it to be used (although I doubt they would). It's unfair to expect Freud to anticipate future sensitivities regarding the use of the word, and I think people since his time can be forgiven for using terms like 'mass hypnosis' and singing songs with lyrics like "She's got me hypnotized." But I think a textbook on clinical hypnotherapy and/or hypnosis for entertainment purposes would not spend too much time on the involuntary initiation of a hypnotic state.

('Trance' state might be another term to use, but it moves away from the word used by Freud in the original quotes, and is liable to irritate all manner of other worthy groups and practices associated with the word 'trance'.)

I think it remains the case that our susceptibility to hypnosis (even the clinical, benign form) is good evidence of a mechanism by which people might surrender their consciousness to a certain ideology, perhaps even involuntarily, especially if it's presented in an 'effective' way. A charismatic speaker; a confidence man establishing rapport; a well-paced essay; the effective use of music, visuals and voice on television--all of these might expose one to the same state of "heightened suggestibility" achieved in clinical hypnosis (albeit at various depths, or levels of effectiveness).

Someone defending the interests of well-meaning, professional hypnotherapists can't be blamed for taking offense at coberst's (and Freud's) rather unappealing association of the term 'hypnosis' with the surrender of one's consciousness and will to another individual (or ideology). Still, I'd like to hear what you have to say, beyond the trouble with the terminology.

I wonder what your feelings are about the point of the original post: that humans appear to have a certain capacity for (even vulnerability to) "suggestibility", and that (in addition to its potential use in therapeutic contexts) it can lead to "group mind" and associated tragedies for individual development?

I don't know... I don't really understand the phrase "associated tragedies for individual development."

[RichardHresko]

I have read Fromm's "The Heart of Man" and was left with the impression that he agreed much with the ideas of Freud.

He was within the psychoanalytic school, but his affinities were more in line with Karen Horney than Freud.

[mmaria]

Freud was a pessimistic interpreter of the world and human place in it. It all comes from his belief that sexual desire is in the basis of human mind. And it is the man's sexual desire which is, as Freud thinks, mostly uncontrollable by its owner. If one cannot control his sexual instinct, speculates Freud, this instinct leads to its opposition, which is, according to Freud, the instinct of death. The instinct of death (Thanatos, as Freud called it) is an invented, fake notion, normal human beings have no such instinct in their nature.

[coberst]

Freudian psychology has been dismissed by many. I am convinced that Freudian psychoanalysis is the principal source for our ability to "know thy self" and human nature. Theism and antitheism cannot be left behind until we comprehend the self and human nature. We cannot comprehend the source of theism and antitheism without the help of Freudian psychoanalysis.

I think that Freudian psychoanalysis may not me greatly useful for alleviating mental illnesses, especially in light of our medical pills that seem to help that problem, but Freudian theories, as modified, regarding psychoanalysis is the only theories that I am aware of that helps us comprehend human nature such that we can begin the process of defined by the admonition to "know thy self".

[NikolaiI]

Freudian psychology has been dismissed by many. I am convinced that Freudian psychoanalysis is the principal source for our ability to "know thy self" and human nature. Theism and antitheism cannot be left behind until we comprehend the self and human nature. We cannot comprehend the source of theism and antitheism without the help of Freudian psychoanalysis.

I think that Freudian psychoanalysis may not me greatly useful for alleviating mental illnesses, especially in light of our medical pills that seem to help that problem, but Freudian theories, as modified, regarding psychoanalysis is the only theories that I am aware of that helps us comprehend human nature such that we can begin the process of defined by the admonition to "know thy self".

Two words... Hinduism and Buddhism.

There's a book called Drinking the Mountain Stream, which is actually two volumes, which has the songs of Milarepa. After reading those and meditating on them, I came to the conclusion that Mila, who lived almost 1000 years ago in Tibet, was almost infinitely farther advanced in psychology than Freud, or the very great majority of psychologists in the last 200 years have ever gotten. It's incredible how feeble Freud and other psychologists slightly before, slightly after, are in comparison to Mila (and for that matter other Hindu and Buddhist yogis and saints.) I am not saying all yogis and saints are genuine, but ones like Mila compared with Freud are like dragons compared to a deer.

[RichardHresko]

Freud was a seminal thinker in the West's coming to terms with internal psychological states. That being said, it does not follow that he was always, or even often, right. His importance is in the fact that he opened a new discussion of psychological states that has been fertile.

A number of Mmaria's comments would be seconded by both Horney and Fromm (not to mention Jung and many others). The palpable misogyny in some of his works could also be added to the list of faults.

The importance of Freud in spite (and perhaps to some degree because) of his flaws illustrates an important aspect of learning: the value of being wrong.

People who judge things as true or false depending on their own experiences, insights or predilections and who insist on grading ideas depending on their personal flavor of the Truth have stopped growing and, ironically, are forever blocked from the truth they claim to seek.

An attitude that promotes learning is one that looks at different systems and decides not their truth but their utility to one's own understanding puts one in a position to grow, especially since such an attitude allows for one to humbly recognize that the reason why the system has no utility to oneself often says more about the person doing the evaluation than the system.

[NikolaiI]

If Freud is feeble, Freud is feeble. It has nothing to do with anyone else except Freud. Please be direct, RichardHresko.

Oh, and Freud was a dittohead. :D :lol:


When I say, feeble, I mean... frozen, rigid, negative, conformist. Even if he thought, even he is acclaimed as, even if he appears to be nonconformist, I call him conformist. Intolerant. Stagnant. Shy of evil, but not good. For me, someone must be a saint to contribute a great deal to philosophy. Milarepa was a saint. He did not drink the hard drug they call alcohol. He did not do cocaine. He did not smoke cigars. He was an enlightened saint and yogi. Freud, in relation to a self-realized buddha, is just like an empty can compared with the ocean.

[grotto]

Hmmm, I think this says quite a bit on the subject at hand. Quite a bit of dualism with an upright dittohead conformist ending. To be free from dittoheading, I think it’s important to understand why one can’t stand on their own thoughts. Fighting one dittohead agenda armed with another’s dittohead agenda and well, let it go on long enough and there will be a war.

The whole I need a group to be part of, validation only comes from conforming to a specific way, and the please except me for I am lost perpetuates this. The courage to stand alone is not a very gratifying place to be in our society, a free thinker is always gauged by the organization or unit, and the group will never back an outsider because so few can let go of the ideas that the group has established. But he is not like us! He must be wrong! Even saints are followed by dittoheads.

[NikolaiI]

Life is infinite. All of ideas to the contrary are false.

I believe, yes I am using this word. Perhaps you are following a ditthohead philosophy which disallows absolutely the use of the word. I believe that life is infinite, quite well said in the words of William Blake, "if the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear to us as it is, infinite."

Richard you keep using the term "Flavour of truth." You say very little of relevance. My philosophy is one of hope, truth, strength, knowledge. Yes, though we are infinite, there are bonds in this life. My philosophy is about coming to know oneself truly, breaking free of the bonds. To be free is to be infinite. To know oneself is to be free. How do we go about breaking those bonds? That is quite the question, it contains the essential part of human endeavor.

Yes, Mila was an enlightened Buddha. No, Freud was not. What Freud has to offer is confusion at best, and philosophical suicide at worst. What Mila has to offer is freedom, knowledge. I am not interested in fighting any battles, Grotto. Nor are any assumptions you might make about me true or false, nor could they possibly be true or false, as you have nothing to base it off of. All you could possible do is randomly call me correct or false, I would recommend you do neither.

The only goal here is communication. I am not trying to lay into you, Grotto, I think you understand this (that it is for communication). I am merely trying to communicate. I am not trying to put up any barriers to that, and if someone says something to me in honesty, I'll mull over what they said.

I am not trying to save or solve the problems of the world. I am not trying to fix the world or make it ideal. I have no goal at all, whatsoever. But I won't lie either, and to talk in any manner except the way I do, would be a lie. This isn't to say I always tell the truth or that I always know the truth. But I do know, yes, know, that this is maya, and that our true nature is divine, is unbounded, is free, and full of bliss and knowledge. The only message of God for creation is, "Be at peace, - be still, and know that I am God - know that all is Mine, and know that you are transcendental, your nature is - in other words, your source - is me." Since God is the source of creation, the true nature of creation is the Divine. I am not randomly saying this nor am I merely repeating something I heard, nor am I saying this for any reason except that I have been filled, completely, beyond what I could imagine anyone else has ever felt, this feeling of infinite reality. The nature of all is emptiness; the nature of that emptiness is infinity (substitute divine, buddha).

If we know ourselves, then we know we are transcendental to all this material universe, these shadows, these ephemeral phenomena, this maya. If we don't know ourselves, we think we are this body. If we do know ourselves, we know we are transcendental, the author of our life, at one with our source (God) in that we create our entire reality.

Take it or leave it, Grotto.

[grotto]

Smile a little NilolaiI, I’m only playing, none of it is serious and I know what your talking about. All I point out is, where do the words come from? You do like to use a lot of words to say so little at times and a lot of what you say is other people’s words, that was my only point in this dittohead thread.

Using others quotes, pointing to scriptures or saints is just hiding your own thoughts in protection behind a safety net of established beliefs. The attack on Freud is an example, you stated your opinion with no real merit and then hid behind what you deem a saint is by sighting Milerepa. Freud had an agenda just as any one else, saint or sinner who has ever put a pen to paper.

Freud may or may not be the answer, but he certainly isn’t irrelevant. Even if he is only a gauge in a point of time, there is still thoughts to ponder in his work. To call someone unworthy of spiritual value because they acted in a way that is foreign to you in the saintly quest is closed minded in my view. Given all you have read, you know for your self how man great eastern thinkers have at one time been under the influence of mortal vices.

There are many ways of looking at things and what we see isn’t always what is. I don’t follow you around the forums, we cross paths at times and I always read your posts in those threads we share. Look on the bright side, I respect your opinion enough to always read it in those posts, that is more than I can say for some others. You take the stance of having a loud voice with much verbiage, so, you will have to also take the stance of having to be called out on occasions. Answering on your own is being who you are in your own nature; hiding behind dogmas, saints and quotes is dittoheading.

I’m not your enemy and I have no malice towards you. I know that the written word doesn’t always come out clear, but I can assure I mean no harm. Will I try to invoke thought? Yes indeed! Thought is also what I get from your posts and a lot of others posters, that is why I am here. Even dittohheads give me things to ponder.

[NikolaiI]

I do not. You do. With many words you say nothing. I used that many words to say also, I am not trying to upset anyone. You used that many words to disagree with me on one, single, point. Which was, when I said I do not say these things, merely repeating what others have said. Obviously you disagree with that very strongly. I will leave it at that.


But you could be more direct, and say that. It would be better.

Don't be so condescending that I should smile, because some random stranger thinks I am worhty enough that he will read my posts. I think you missed, absolutely missed, my post's meaning. You don't understand what I am saying. That's fine. What I am saying, quite simply, is that there is joy beyond joy. Bliss beyond bliss. Peace beyond peace. Self-knowledge, that is the nature of the divine.

This is not something random, simple, or false. You would do well to consider it carefully. Our nature is this divine. The reason our nature is this divine is because our source is this divine. It means that before all twists and turns which made us think "I am this body," and "I am this ego," finite, we were the boundless source. The only being in the universe is the being of God, the infinite source, the non-dual divine. The rest is illusion (of the source).

This is what I am saying.


Grotto, if the only thing you have to say is you disagree, then say that directly. Don't be condescending, don't tell me to lighten up. I will do the same for you (not speak condescendingly).

[RichardHresko]

Hmmm, I think this says quite a bit on the subject at hand. Quite a bit of dualism with an upright dittohead conformist ending. To be free from dittoheading, I think it’s important to understand why one can’t stand on their own thoughts. Fighting one dittohead agenda armed with another’s dittohead agenda and well, let it go on long enough and there will be a war.

The whole I need a group to be part of, validation only comes from conforming to a specific way, and the please except me for I am lost perpetuates this. The courage to stand alone is not a very gratifying place to be in our society, a free thinker is always gauged by the organization or unit, and the group will never back an outsider because so few can let go of the ideas that the group has established. But he is not like us! He must be wrong! Even saints are followed by dittoheads.


If one is convinced one has discovered the truth then there is of course a need to judge everything solely in terms of one's own flavor of truth. An attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts" takes over, listening stops, and the volume goes up. After all, if one believes that one has found the "Truth" there is no need to learn anything more...

One thing that amuses me is the popular misconception of medieval European thought as being rigid and close-minded. It was Peter Abelard (12th Century) who with Heloise, introduced dialectic to post-classical Europe (and initiated the sic et non that is a typical feature of Scholasticism). This method requires one to hold two opposite points of view in mind simultaneously.

Those who require only one answer would no doubt find such an exercise almost unbearable if they tried. As a result they would see a statement that Freud was both a seminal thinker and that he made errors as being unclear and indirect. For such Freud can only be either a saint or feeble.

It may well be true that to make progress towards Truth (though one will not achieve it) one must first deny one has it.

[grotto]

As you wish NikolaiI, Then I disagree, I wasn’t being condescending, I was being light hearted.

[NikolaiI]

If one is convinced one has discovered the truth then there is of course a need to judge everything solely in terms of one's own flavor of truth. An attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts" takes over, listening stops, and the volume goes up. After all, if one believes that one has found the "Truth" there is no need to learn anything more...

One thing that amuses me is the popular misconception of medieval European thought as being rigid and close-minded. It was Peter Abelard (12th Century) who with Heloise, introduced dialectic to post-classical Europe (and initiated the sic et non that is a typical feature of Scholasticism). This method requires one to hold two opposite points of view in mind simultaneously.

Those who require only one answer would no doubt find such an exercise almost unbearable if they tried. As a result they would see a statement that Freud was both a seminal thinker and that he made errors as being unclear and indirect. For such Freud can only be either a saint or feeble.

It may well be true that to make progress towards Truth (though one will not achieve it) one must first deny one has it.

Oh Good heavens, are you incapable of being direct?

[NikolaiI]

As you wish NikolaiI, Then I disagree, I wasn’t being condescending, I was being light hearted.

I disagree. You were being serious, and heavy. Accusing someone of hiding behind others' quotes is a heavy thing to say. Just as accusing them of not thinking for themselves, of not being capable of finding truth, so on and so forth, etc.

I will just say, if a thing loves, it is infinite.

And as for being light-hearted, I whole-heartedly agree with you. That is absolutely what I believe. We should be light-hearted and happy. As Nietzsche says, not with wrath, but by laughter we slay, for our enemy is gravity. And what I am saying, my essential message, which I have said, though may not have got me, is that we should be at peace, and make peace for ourselves. When I say there is something more to knowing than just reading, just understanding in such a removed manner; when I say we are transcendental, though this word seems to be almost an off-switch for as far as you will coincide with me, I am saying that we can know more; by realizing ourself as the author of our own life... that is what I meant by transcendental.

to RichardHresko: again, what I am saying is that we should be peaceful, focused on God always, but theist/atheist doesn't really matter; we should be peaceful and make all effort for perfection. If not perfection, then we should strive for our ideal.

Life is so, so incredibly rare in the universe. And human life even more rare. And for a human to realize the full potential of human life is so much, so much greater than simply to live a somewhat mental life, every so often simply dulling the senses to find some temporary oblivion. What I am saying is, human life is so, so, so much greater and more fulfilling than mere sense enjoyment.

And it takes a lot of effort to perfect life. A lot of mental effort to keep the mind sharp. We can't become self-realized without effort, that's the opposite. But taking both sides of an issue, that is one way to sharpen the mind, but not the only way.

Duality is an illusion Richard. You will realize this one day, sooner or later.

Life is infinite. Don't worry and be happy.

[RichardHresko]

Returning to the theme of the thread and my current part in it (discussing the ideas of Erich Fromm presented in his book Escape From Freedom)...

Fromm diverges from Freud in that he sees the importance of social connectedness to be fundamental to human health (pp. 12-28). I will note in passing there there is an article on extreme isolation as a form of punishment in the New Yorker magazine of March 30, 2009.

Freedom is seen as being an ambiguous good for humans because it is not only a freedom to do things and be creative, but also a separation from safety since it involves separation.

Fromm argues that if one feels completely free of everything then there is the possibility of being overwhelmed by one's one insignificance (page 21).

One neurotic response to this is the development of an "authoritarian personality," which seems to have much in common with the "dittohead" mentioned in Coberst's opening post in this thread.

"The essence of the authoritarian character has been described as the simultaneous presence of sadistic and masochistic drives. Sadism was understood as aiming at unrestricted power over another person more or less mixed with destructiveness; masochism as aiming at dissolving oneself in an overwhelmingly strong power and participating in its strength and glory. Both the sadistic and the masochistic trends are caused by the inability of the isolated individual to stand alone and his need for a symbiotic relationship that overcomes this aloneness." (p. 221)

The authoritarian character also can not conceive of differences as being alternatives.

"Differences... to him are necessarily signs of superiority or inferiority. A difference which does not have this connotation is unthinkable to him." (p. 171)

Needless to say, if an idea is different from what the authoritarian believes, it is not only false, but its proponent must be weak or "feeble," since the authoritarian must ally himself with the strong.

In a later post I will deal with Fromm's ideas on how to avoid the trap of authoritarianism.

All page cites are from Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom, (New York: Rinehart & Co, 1941).

[coberst]

Richard

I think that few people comprehend Fromm's work. Perhaps you might begin to post some of his thoughts on various forums. I think that it is important for people to become aware of these ideas.

The following are two OPs I made that were based on Fromm's work.

Paradox: Narcissism is Necessary and Detrimental for Survival

The fetus resting in the womb is in a state of absolute narcissism. Freud says “By being born we have made the step from an absolute self-sufficient narcissism to the perception of a changing external world and the beginning of the discovery of objects.” The absolute self-narcissism is partially dissolved and divided with objects.

The “normal” person, in maturity, has made an apportionment of narcissistic energy between the self and the other in a manner that society finds acceptable.

Originally Freud’s view of narcissism was based on his concept of sexual libido wherein this psychic narcissistic energy was directed for sexual manifestations. This theory was later modified by Freud and was empathesized by Jung as an energy that binds the needs of the individual both internally and externally to fit the needs for survival. Highly charged energies create forces that motivate behavior for that organisms’ survival.

The comprehension of human behavior depends upon an understanding of these narcissistically energized forces.

Primary narcissism is the label given to this force accompanying the new born; wherein the only reality is the self, its body and its accompanying sensations associated with a need for sleep, bodily contact, warmth, thirst, and hunger.

Moral hypochondria is little different from physical hypochondria manifestations. “The narcissism underlying physical or moral hypochondriasis is the same as the narcissism of the vain person, except that it is less apparent, as such, to the untrained eye.” K. Abraham calls this negative narcissism and it is characterized by feelings of inadequacy, unreality, and self-accusation.

How do we recognize the individual with abnormal levels of narcissism? S/he shows all the signs of self-satisfaction, generally oblivious of others, very sensitive to criticism, little genuine interest in the outside world, and all of these characteristics are often hidden behind an attitude of modesty and humility.

Another important characteristic of some individuals is the association of certain aspects of their person that become objects of focused narcissism. They become very sensitive to any disagreement with their ideas, their honor, their house, their car, intelligence, or physical prowess. S/he will often seem to have fallen in love with all of their stuff.

“Speaking teleologically, we can say that nature had to endow man with a great amount of narcissism to enable him to do what is necessary for survival. This is true especially because nature has not endowed man with well-developed instincts such as the animal has…In man the instinctive apparatus has lost most of its efficacy—hence narcissism assumes a very necessary biological function…Narcissism is a passion the intensity of which in many individuals can only be compared with sexual drive and the desire to stay alive.”

Narcissism has an important function to perform—it is important for our survival. However, there is a serious down side. Extreme narcissism makes us indifferent to others and incapable of giving our personal needs second place to the needs of the community. Extreme narcissism is the opposite of empathy; it makes us asocial creatures unable to cooperate for the common good.

Another dangerous result of narcissism is that it distorts our ability to reason and to make good judgments. “Narcissistic value-judgment is prejudiced and biased. Usually this prejudice is rationalized in one form or another and the rationalization may be more or less deceptive according to the intelligence and sophistication of the person involved…If he were aware of the distorted nature of his narcissistic judgments, the results would not be so bad. He would—and could—take a humorous attitude toward his narcissistic bias. But this is rare.”

The narcissistic person reacts with great anger when criticized. S/he tends to take all criticism as a personal attack; this can be understood when we recognize that the extremely narcissistic person is unrelated to the world; s/he feels alone and frightened and these feelings lead to compensation by self-inflation. “When his narcissism is wounded he feels threatened in his whole existence…This fury is all the more intense because nothing can be done to diminish the threat by appropriate action; only destruction of the critic—or oneself—can save one from the threat to one’s narcissistic security.”

Depression is a means other than rage for struggling against a wounded narcissism. The narcissistic person uses the shield of self-inflation, acquiring a feeling of omniscient and omnipotent, to overcome the arrows of the outside world. The narcissistic person dreads the feeling associated with depression and one way to combat this alternative is to attempt to change reality in such a way as to conform to his self created image. This is done by associating with others in a dynamic of group narcissism.

This post is getting too long; I will close by saying that group narcissism represents the most dramatic phenomenon that leads to human destructiveness.

Ideas and quotes from “The Heart of Man” Erich Fromm


Are we wolves, sheep, or merely half-awake children?

“It seems that the majority of men are suggestible, half-awake children, willing to surrender their will to anyone who speaks with a voice that is threatening or sweet enough to sway them.”—Fromm

If we, women and men, are merely sheep then why is our history so different from a sheep-like society? Even the half-awake child will note that our history has been written in blood. Such a situation has led people, such as Hobbes, to say “man is a wolf to his fellow man”.

Is it our true nature to be wolves and only inhibitions prevent us from exposing our fangs? I do not think so, for there are countless opportunities each day to bare our vicious fangs if such was our nature. There are many possible explanations for this conundrum.

Building things only to destroy them and killing others seems to be our human purpose. But massive destruction and killing are really the result of leaders who seek to further their own interests. These leaders are no different from you or I; it is the power they hold that makes it possible for them to escalate the ordinary selfish motives we all harbor. “The ordinary man with extraordinary power is the chief danger for mankind—not the fiend or the sadist.”

Of course Hitler alone did not threaten civilization; he required the herd of citizens who harbored passions of hate and fear to act as an accomplice to destruction and death. Fromm sites the three forms of human orientation as being the fault that makes such a history of destruction possible.

A ‘syndrome of decay’ that “prompts men to destroy for the sake of destruction, and to hate for the sake of hate” form the basis for “the most vicious and dangerous form of human orientation; these are love of death, malignant narcissisms, and symbiotic-incestuous fixation.”

Would you say that humans resemble more as wolves, sheep, or merely half-awake children?

Ideas and quotes from “The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil” by Erich Fromm

[RichardHresko]

Here is the second part of my digest of Fromm's thought as presented in Escape From Freedom:

In the first part what I attempted to convey was a sense of Fromm's idea that people seek to escape from freedom because they feel their freedom as isolation. This fear sometimes engenders a maladaptive set of responses that he refers to as an "authoritarian character."

The question arises then, is it possible to be both free and not trapped into seeking security in a system that allows one the illusion that one's Flavor of Truth is the only reality with its obvious stultifying effects on the personality of the afflicted and society in general?

Fromm's response is that it is possible to avoid this cycle of wishing to be free and then scurrying for security in another system.

"If the individual realizes his self by spontaneous activity and thus relates himself to the world, he ceases to be an isolated atom... there is only one meaning of life: the act of living itself." [Emphasis in the original text.] (pages 262-3)

He goes on to point out on pages 263-4 that recognizing individuality involves also accepting differences and equality. It also involves embracing ideals that "express the desire for something which is not yet accomplished but which is desirable for the purposes of the growth and happiness of the individual." (page 266).

To close this brief account of Fromm's book and relate it back to the theme of this particular thread, the point should be made that in order to escape being a dittohead or an authoritarian one needs to embrace one's individuality, which can not be done if one insists that there has to be one unalterable system that is correct.

[RichardHresko]

Richard


Are we wolves, sheep, or merely half-awake children?

“It seems that the majority of men are suggestible, half-awake children, willing to surrender their will to anyone who speaks with a voice that is threatening or sweet enough to sway them.”—Fromm

If we, women and men, are merely sheep then why is our history so different from a sheep-like society? Even the half-awake child will note that our history has been written in blood. Such a situation has led people, such as Hobbes, to say “man is a wolf to his fellow man”.



Ideas and quotes from “The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil” by Erich Fromm

It would be helpful when you quote sources to give pagination and name the specific works.

As to the question on human nature: all, none, and more besides. I honestly think the point has been missed when there is an insistence on categorization of this kind.

One might consider when things are muddled and things don't fit neatly into categories whether the problem is with the reality or with the categories.

"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Hamlet 1.5.166-7