Social Psychosis

Social Psychosis

Disclaimer This dialogue is not meant to offend, but to motivate. It is not meant to superimpose its content of described societal behaviors onto the narrative of every individual life. It is not meant to preach any truths or accuse anyone of fault. If it were so, then this account would be entirely inaccurate. Instead, it is focused on dissecting the established societal narrative as a whole. If something rings true, then it is something that is a part

of your personal experience or simply something that you’ve observed in others. If it is agreeable, then strive to change it through a productive discussion. In the midst of resistance, aim to motivate and not defend. If it’s something you disagree with, then move on, continue reading or stop altogether-nothing you have to say will change the already established narrative of this piece.

K

On Patterns of thought Thought is perhaps the single, most important thing people have. We don’t often think how thought processes conduct themselves. Are they linear, chaotic, interdisciplinary? Do they operate on a structured cohesive network of beliefs or do they exist in contradiction? These are, in a way, meta thoughts.

Self-awareness comes from the intricate and frequent examination of thought. It is conceivable that insecurity, self-deprecating attitudes and partial unhappiness are a result of the lack in self-awareness-- in the sense of how one’s thoughts or capabilities extend themselves as physical agents in the material world. Unhealthy thought processes completely counter self-confidence. The inability to identify and prevent the occurrence of internal accidental negativities is a lack in complete self-awareness.

There are two patterns of thought that I have been able to identify indefinitely. Of course, as any general rule, there are exceptions. I don’t plan to tackle them here, as I feel that experientially I am not at liberty to speak of them.

The ‘Not Good Enough’ Conundrum:

A pattern of thought that forces low self-esteem onto the cognizant agent. It is analogous to a metaphorical ball and chain. It is a causal loop of striving for self-improvement toward an unachievable and unrealistic standard, set on by the agent themselves. The loop will continue until a breaking point is reached. Then, it will start all over again.

The ‘What If’ Hypothesis:

A paranoia-like state where hypothetical future scenarios are taken to stunt intellectual, personal and social development. Caution is good in some cases, but when it’s overtly obsessive in its manifestation then one reaches a problem. From a theoretical and temporal perspective, it is helpful to think about possible world scenarios or deterministic futures.

Ironically, equilibrium can be reached through self-awareness: an ability to identify these patterns of thought as they are occuring in one’s self. And then resisting them.

Narcissus & The media narcosis

>>Information has become an important commodity. <<

The Risk society established itself around World War II as one that obsessively protected data from foreign intelligence. In the 21st century, as the notion of privacy is starting to become obsolete, people handle their information differently. In a sense, it is still very much a Risk Society, but one that is afraid to lose its personal digital track of memories, consisting in photographs, text and other relevant mediums. However, the informationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s essence is still devalued by way of easily accessible digital memory catalogs, i.e. the social profile.

>>Information is something we give for free, <<

later advocating and protesting our lost privacy. Unfortunately, we are not just daily receivers of massive amounts of data bites that ultimately overstimulate the nervous system and result in our reluctant passivity and intense anxiety. We are also the generator of that information-- a sort of closed cause-effect system. The ironic thing is, most of that information is useless in the grand scheme of events. The exception, of course, is businesses and companies who use it to actively target a certain demographic or you specifically.

>>The more information there is, the less enriched we become.<<

With reported shorter attention spans, todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social culture is one of obsessive multi-taskers and chronic scatter brains. Contemporary tragedies include no wi-fi connection and misplacing phones. This, in turn, means that tech advancements have transcended their role as an extension and have morphed us into servo-organisms for inanimate devices. Thought-provoking media is perhaps the answer to self-awareness, but it is becoming more and more inaccessible. Books, for example, are becoming more beautiful, but more expensive. They are suffering an unfortunate regress and becoming a privilege once again.

>>Information and literacy are becoming a trait, enjoyed by the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy.<<

Intellectually charged and beautifully designed magazine racks are a line-up of unattainable bliss. Inaccessible. Again. The culture of magazines is dying, as the interest in them is dwindling. I think it is a mistake to primarily search for culture and meaning within the parameters of the digital world. The web is not void of these things, but they are misdirected and overpowered by the Internetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own brand of culture.

>>Objective information and magazine culture are dead.<<

The competitive business of print press has lost its meaning and highly regarded status. Now, it is just a group of people, desperately clinging onto their art, writing words of activism, news, culture, criticism and hoping for the best. On social media, we become our own little magazine stand that is perpetually and mechanically recycling content. Mindlessly re-posting foreign opinions, because they align with our brand or this ethereal image of ourselves. We advertise this persona via social media and, more often than not, develop serious societal anxiety, because we are aware that this fictitious ideal is an over-exaggerated and unattainable image that now everyone expects from us.

>>Information is based on narcissism.<<

The myth of Narcissus is a working analogy of the state of human fascination with technology. In a few words, Narcissus is a young man, a beautiful hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia, who was proud and did not treat loved ones with kindness. Nemesis, a mythological Greek goddess who punished mortals for their disdain and mistreatment, put a spell on Narcissus. The boy became in love with his own reflection in a body of water and lost his will to live. Imperceptible to the affectionate love and desperate cries of the nymph Echo, Narcissus died there.

>>Information is based on digital narcissism.<<

Similarly, the digital culture of today has turned us into digital narcissists. Consumed by devices, we spent time on social media platforms, curating an image of ourselves that is set, idealistic and divergent of how we truly act in real life. Aristotle said that humans are social animals. Therefore, instant communication and social technology are unavoidable and logical developments in our history as a species. But this desperate need for socializing has made us anti-social and reluctant to interact with the outside world; reluctant to experience the surrounding landscape to its full capacity.

The first thing most of us do in the morning is check our phones and turn on the news. How about we just get up, have a cup of coffee on the balcony and start getting ready for the day that awaits?

>>Information is took for granted.<<

That being said, no one values the handwritten letter-- itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a ghost of the past.

Feelings Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote: “Thus, emotion is first of all and in principle an accident.” And it is, isn’t it? An accident that can lead to wonderful things or one that can create a domino effect of bad situations. But at the end of the day, it is something positive, no? Even nonclinical depression and circumstance-based existential despair harbor a rich pool of knowledge that can only be accessed if one really deals with them.

It is cathartic. Ironically, once you have survived the emotional bondage of extreme sadness, the residue remains. Yet, you find yourself at peace both internally and externally. Your experiences, negative and positive alike, become an integral part of the psychological aggregate that constitutes you as a person. At the end of the day, YOU survive, which from an evolutionary and theoretical identity perspectives is all that matters.

So, isn’t it funny how people are scared of feelings? How they do not want to own up or deal with these fundamentally humane experiences? That they try to escape them due to the possibility of all-consuming hurt?

But Escapism, thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only a concept. A mediocre life is one that you try to avoid feeling; one that shuts the door on the pleasure or pain that comes with embracing the immaterial self, the soul, the incorporeal. It is a denial for actualization; a closed door to a whole world of experiences, each enriching or devaluing your psyche, but still containing at least a small spec of enlightenment. When the barrier between the self as the intellect and the self as the emotion is broken, can an individual begin experiencing true harmony and internal peace in times of absolute chaos.

Descartes is known for making the argument that people are dualist in nature; that they have two components, whose essence is somewhat conceivable, but their interaction is wholly mysterious. Those are the body and the mind. It is the ultimate crossover between counter-opposites. Yet, for the most part, there is a clean line of communication, albeit undefinable. In a sense, the mind itself is dualistic in nature.

It is intuitive that the mind can be divided into rational and irrational categories.

Pragmatism makes you stiff, while sensitivity makes you vulnerable. By their very definition, both are liable to imperfections and disadvantages. For guidance and the mindful embrace of each, go by Aristotleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mean. For balance, surrender to both.

Embrace emotion in its entirety; do not repress it-that is subconsciously living in agony; be mindful of others.

Embrace the intellect in a similar manner; keep it at bay, so it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t spiral out to the dark corners of existence; be mindful of own mental capacity.

It is a gentle tug of wars between the two essentially distinct components of mentality.

The unrealism of love

Our expectations of love are often rooted in a fantasy that fleets away as time progresses. We forget realism and embrace fiction. We put strain on, emphasize, expect, love.

Love is ultimately and irreversibly fetishized in society. When the glass inevitably shatters and we snap out of this dream-like intoxication, we are angry, disappointed and we resent. Passively of course, for confrontation is not a strong trait for many-- unfortunately. We break up, fall out of love, feeling used and heartbroken. Then we do it all over again, consistently failing to examine the issues in our previous encounters.

Love is special, though. It is so special that I cannot even express it through anything. The most famous paintings from the Renaissance wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do; romantic novels either; love cannot be contained, it cannot be captured. It can only be felt and shared.

If there be no mental barriers, it can be both the greatest or worst thing that can ever happen. Either way, it is better than being indifferent.

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m deeply saddened by those who refrain from this embrace. No matter the situation, I feel they are missing out on one of the greatest feelings in the world.

A culture of mediocrity Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental rights that should be enjoyed by every single human being in this world. Combined with the Internet, however, this becomes somewhat problematic, especially for the creative spirit. It is important to note that I am not advocating any type of limitations of right, but simply observing the phenomenon that comes from adjoining the aforementioned rights with the limitless and often consequence-free digital space.

Ignoring for a second the veil of anonymity, the Internet is home to a lot of innovative ideas, groundbreaking prose, beautiful poetry and emotion-invoking art.

However, the very nature of the digital platform and the way it enables unrestricted self-publishing is somewhat hindering the art and culture industry itself. It fosters a culture of mediocrity, as the majority of artistic expression on social platforms is simply, to put it mildly, bad.

People with a vision, those who are truly meant to create struggle to get noticed; They deal with stolen artwork-- an act made easy by the immaterial nature of the digital footprint.

Those people become stressed and demotivated.

Yet, their survival depends on creative talents.

In its essence, the Internet is a cluster fuck of bad content and social confrontation.

We often lack the cognitive capacity to separate the bullshit from genuine creative intent due to our overstimulated perception system. Does one realize that there might never be anyone of Tolstoyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s caliber? Or James Joyce? Or any big name you could think of? The chances of gaining popularity for an exceptional literary piece are slim.

Due to the passivity in our culture, that is an inherent byproduct of a digitized society, we are only susceptible to the flashy, image-obsessed and overbearing personas of pop culture.

For how to address the creative quality depletion in society or how to widen the scope of the talent radar-- I have no answer, nor am I optimistic.

On Absolutism When it comes to political, philosophical or ethical principles, absolutism is a rather unforgiving concept. In “The Leviathan” Thomas Hobbes lavishly advocated that effective governments and peaceful societies are a product of absolute authority. He maintained that any civilized society should elect a person, The Leviathan, whose judgment was final and not subject for dispute. The absolute authority would operate in the interest of the commonwealth and the maintenance of peace. Of course, Hobbes’s Absolutism is rather idealistic, as is any theoretical assumption.

The regime is reducible to tyranny. But in a sense, don’t we live in a rather absolutist society? Aren’t we keen on shutting down ideas and opinions, because they don’t coincide with the general public opinion? I’m inclined to ascribe The Leviathan as being the commonly held cultural opinion that promotes freedom of speech and expression, as long as it is within pre-established boundaries.

Societal collectives often become blind in some respects. One of the drawbacks of the 21st century is that we immerse ourselves in immaterial movements and forget to promote social, political and economic agendas outside digital constructs. That is, movements like #MeToo are amazing and beneficial to self-confidence, awareness and acceptance. But,they are also reasons why we start censoring ourselves in the real world. For there to be change, something must be done within the parameters of physical human interaction. A public space where people have the option of having an open and honest discussion about the things that scare them most and the stigmas that should no longer be there. In the quest for equality, we begin the subliminal creation of guidelines that take away our power and free will; that tell us what we should or shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do; that take away our bodies from us, and tell us what we should be doing with them instead.

In our quest to be tolerant, we become paranoid, we strive for homogeneity. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to be that way.

Closing remarks Dostoevsky once wrote that there are two types of people in the world-- ordinary and extraordinary. The existence of both is required for the successful upkeep of a civilized society. While the first kind answers to governmental and moral laws, the second is absolved from them. As in, there are individuals, so exceptional, that limiting them by law would be a crime in itself. Of course, Dostoevsky does not allude that all people that break the law are extraordinary people.

I somewhat agree with this statement. But I would like to modify its meaning. I do believe that society divides itself into the aforementioned categories. However, I do find that there is the potential in every ordinary person to become extraordinary due to the sheer unpredictable nature of the human psyche, the exquisite intricacy of thought and innovation, as well as the deepened commitment to kindness in its purest form. For the most part, the light remains untapped and that comes as no surprise.

However, people should know their self-worth.

gloomdoomchild@outlook.com