Do you believe that conservatives are alive?

Post Reply New Topic

Spazzdog wrote:

The only other person who has an inner voice like the one I described is schizophrenic?!

Why did it take me so long to find out about this?

I don't talk to myself most of the time though. The thing is, I believe my inner voice is smarter than I am. Also, I thought this was my conscience. I even thought God might speak to me through my conscience.

Back to the drawing board.

You know who else I think is a schizo? JD from Scrubs. He is always talking to himself and hallucinating.

I think that voice in my head is smarter than me sometimes too, but I don't think it's my conscience because sometimes I don't think the things it says are exactly moral.

Sometimes mine is overly judgmental but for the most part it seems to know more than I do.
I studied demonology because I went through a stage where I felt spiritually attacked.
It actually helped me so then I thought that maybe angels really exist. I've seen a few and that was pretty wonderful. I'd like to think I'm not crazy because it feels so real, but when everyone around is telling you that you are wrong and all evidence contradicts what you believe, then you probably don't have a good grasp of reality. Then I hear about faith and try to cling to that because I don't want to lose my mind.

Anyone who spends any amount of time in elevators or using public transportation has likely questioned the humanity of others around them in those situations.

I use the term "sheep" for the people that the OP described, and they don't necessarily tend to be politically conservative. More likely just more comfortable blending in.

I like a quote from Dead Like Me: "People are not snowflakes." I apply this to hippies and tree huggers, or anyone who adopts subculture appearances. They like to think they have original thoughts and ideas. While they have a higher probability of being "unique" than those of the mainstream, they are almost never original. I know this from first hand experience of participation in a subculture. However, the term Dani Filth coined "Pissing in the Mainstream" is rather fun.

Why are you talking about liberals if this thread is about conservatives?

People are sheeple, both conservatives and liberals.

I think a case for conservatism can be made, based upon a few notions. A notion of culture in society as being a glue for that society in keeping social solidarity can be upheld. A notion that social continuity is necessary rather than radical social change, based upon the notion of human society as evolutionary can also be conservative and reasonably intellectual. Thirdly, a notion of divine ordination behind human order, and thus the need to act in accordance of divine law for moral/pragmatic reasons.

The former view is probably better ascribed to neo-conservative philosophy, which is based upon the notion that culture stands against self-destructive nihilism. The second view is better ascribed to a Burkean conservative, based upon politician/philosopher Edmund Burke, as well as other figures such as Hayek. Both can be considered rational. The final view is findable in religious conservatism, and it is likely the most idealistic view of conservative as it is in relation to a transcendent, rather than in contrast to nihilism, or a result of pragmatism, however, arguing for a theological position could theoretically be rational, even if this theistic notion is fixed idea, because of the notion of a first-person relationship to a transcendent, and perhaps argument based upon notions of this deity or natural law.

Thus 3 views of conservatism are possible as rational, I think, however, do they prevent fixed ideas from emerging in thinkers? No, nothing does, because people are not perfectly adaptive, but rather have the bias towards confirmation. In fact, the notion that rational disagreement can exist is argued against by some decision-making theorists, but disagreement, even amongst the highly intelligent exists, thus people are intellectually dishonest. I was reading this paper recently though: http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf (20 pages of writing I think, has a lot of references at the end, sort of interesting as it addresses philosophy and psychology) As well, it is hard to argue about the consistency of a particular position, while admitting a position to hold flexibility, either we talk about something fixed by intersubjective communication, or we do not talk lacking the existence of intersubjective objects to refer to.

Umm.... perhaps I am missing something, but a bias towards conservatism, and a bias towards variation away from a current order seems more like a psychological matter of belief-formation, rather than a huge epistemic problem in one side or the other.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 25 Feb 2009, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do sometimes when I am alone, but I think that is essential dialogue cataloguing, if you will, that an autist does, though I could be wrong. I think it's more hallucinatory when it's purpose doesn't benefit the individual in general. Like do you ever imagine that someday you'll write a book, and you'll become famous enough that Oprah will have you on her talk show, and you imagine what you would say to her in that event??

Last edited by Averick on 25 Feb 2009, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Religious conservativism is simply using religion to justify the social order and legitimize social norms. It basically uses the myth of a transcendent being as a tool to foster anti-rationalist populism and strongly favors the group over the individual.

Well... no, actually I think that would be closer to neo-conservatism, since I think neo-conservatives think that the myth of religion is an important thing to create social stability.

Religious conservatives actually believe that the proper view of the religion justifies the social order and legitimizes the social norms. It actually believes in the transcendent being, and it is anti-rational due to it's denial of the more liberal notion of the "rational man".

I think that conservatism tends to be group-oriented in general. I can see Burkean/evolutionary conservatives supporting individuality as the proper path for society, as Hayek's views can be used to justify conservatism to some extent, but was himself a major figure in the libertarian movement. Herbert Spencer's views of evolutionary society also came together with his libertarianism. The reason for this notion in that ideology is that evolutionary conservative ideas are bottom-up, and see society as emerging from human actions, thus although they focus on social norms, they can see individuality as the direction society is and should be going, only they focus on making sure the change is organic rather than too rapid.

Well... no, actually I think that would be closer to neo-conservatism, since I think neo-conservatives think that the myth of religion is an important thing to create social stability.

Religious conservatives actually believe that the proper view of the religion justifies the social order and legitimizes the social norms. It actually believes in the transcendent being, and it is anti-rational due to it's denial of the more liberal notion of the "rational man".

I think that conservatism tends to be group-oriented in general. I can see Burkean/evolutionary conservatives supporting individuality as the proper path for society, as Hayek's views can be used to justify conservatism to some extent, but was himself a major figure in the libertarian movement. Herbert Spencer's views of evolutionary society also came together with his libertarianism. The reason for this notion in that ideology is that evolutionary conservative ideas are bottom-up, and see society as emerging from human actions, thus although they focus on social norms, they can see individuality as the direction society is and should be going, only they focus on making sure the change is organic rather than too rapid.

The nature of the internal dialog in my mind range all over the spectrum. From the good and productive to the bad.
I've never seen angles, but I've had some pretty intense experiences with what seemed to be demonic forces (thus my schizophrenia diagnosis). The most powerful experience I had in a long while was a dream in April 2007 which had a demon trying to suffocate me and I woke up grasping for breath. Soon after I got up that morning I thought I saw something in the house which looked like it. I also sometimes feel like I'm waiting for a message to come to me which will explain everything to me, about why I feel the way I do and where it's all going. Sometimes I begin to fall asleep and don't remember where I am and wake up with my mind spinning until I remember where I am. These episodes are sporadic and random. Sometimes the thoughts are mild and hardly noticeable, while other times they dominate my life. The more intense episodes I experience which involves seeing things or supernatural experiences in my sleep are spaced further apart.


Actually, yes I do. And those thoughts are the most annoying and I'm always annoyed by Oprah trying to treat me special. But those sort of thoughts aren't of my own making, I don't even like going down that road. I think it's silly and ridiculous when I haven't even written anything to begin with. I wish I didn't have such a bad case of psychosis because I don't know which thoughts are mine and which aren't.

How do you know it isn't the simple fact that Oprah is just plain annoying??

Averick
I don't fantasize about being on Oprah, but I do fantasize a lot. I'm still trying to work on a novel and I have a memoir that I just need to piece together. So, I do imagine book signings and such. I think that sort of fantasizing is good as it is goal oriented.

Spazzdog, I've had a similar experience as the one you described. That's why I got into reading about Shamanism. It seems to help. Maybe that's why I skid past the psychologists. The last time I saw a psychologist was last year and she and I got along great.
She said she didn't think I had asperger's or was autistic but another psychologist who is a neurosurgeon suspected that I was on the spectrum.

Anyway, if you get a chance, read this book. It's a historical account of spirit possession and it validates these experiences. It is possible to process schizophrenia through more wholistic means. There is no scientific cure for it. Besides, I wouldn't want my inner voice to go away. It's a very sad mental state as it can cause one to have suicidal tendencies and make you feel alone. I think shamanism is very helpful. You don't have to believe it's actual demons if that bothers you. You can assume they are just archetypes and stuff made up by the imagination. Nonetheless the experience is very real to the observer.
Demons can go, angels can stay.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup ... ti_id=4002

haha, perhaps. But at least most people can just turn her show off! They don't have it invading their mind like me, and to much emotional distress as well.


I don't mess with spiritualism anymore. I encountered a lot of charlatans, sanctimonious dips**ts, and new agers with weird indigo child/autism beliefs who want to make you feel special so they can take advantage of you for their new age political agendas. It's mostly a bunch of stuff to make people feel better but with no solid basis in reality. I already experienced the collapse of the house of cards that was the failure of my new age indoctrination, I don't want to go through that again.

I don't give anyone money. I'll buy or rent a book now and then though. Most of the time I just look up stuff online if I'm reading new agers. It's more of a solitary pursuit and internal.
Psychologists and meds are much more expensive btw. Plus that route just makes a person feel more damaged. And, as I said before, there is no cure for schizophrenia.

However, I do think there is something to the starseed and indigo phenomenon.
The traits are just a list like any other criteria for a mental diagnosis.
The main trait of these new age labels is that the person feels they are here for a mission and have something important to know or do.

Whether it's all a myth or not, the proof is always in the pudding. If it helps people to surmount obstacles, I think it's a good thing. Everyone should feel special. Most normal people accept it as fact that they are special. Why should we feel broken?

I quite agree that everyone should have a basic sense of confidence in themselves to sustain themselves but the concept that everyone is special is an oxymoron.