h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK I'll have to do this next bit quickly ... there's a movie on I'd like to watch in about twenty minutes!

CARING TOO MUCH

I spoke a bit about apathy earlier. I told about my own inclination towards apathy. However this is not the whole picture. I have the opposite inclination as well - caring so much that it hurts! And then as a reaction I 'blunt' my feelings and become apathetic. This can happen with great rapidity in myself: I find myself caring passionately for people or something, to the point where I can't bear it, and then I decide to cut myself off from it, and deciding I don't give a damn. This 'cycle' can repeat itself several times a day.

Now I've found the more 'unstable' I am, the more extreme is this 'cycle'. Giving this some thought I've come to the conclusion that there should be an *optimum* amount of caring - not too much, not too little. Not so much that it becomes overwhelming. Not so little that I neglect real duties towards others. There's the situation where I lie awake at nights and in the morning, worrying about problems. Now ... there's the attitude that worrying is always counterproductive. I don't believe that. I believe there's a level of 'functional' worrying, where prolonged and intensive thinking about a problem, actually helps one either come up with a solution to the problem, or some other way of coping with the problem. When I worry about others, I try and direct my worrying towards some constructive end. Worrying that actually accomplishes a solution, is not counterproductive.

A lot of my 'worrying' is directed towards plants and animals, and I do find that I can direct 'worrying energy' into something positive that I can actually do.

Another thing I've found is that the more mentally stable I am, the more 'care and worry' I can handle. This is a thing that can be called 'psychological resilience'. A very strong mind can withstand great preturbations. This is just like a very healthy body, can endure a lot of stress and discomfort. So ... a guideline by which someone can guage his or her mental stability and strength, is by how much 'caring' he or she can handle. I mean the kind of caring that actually *hurts* oneself. I've found I can handle progressively more of that as I become mentally stronger and more balanced. I also find I can train myself to handle more caring - like one can train one's own physical fitness.

But there's another factor. There's also the role of society. I sincerely believe in the desirability of a society where people are more involved with each other. In such a society, people can help each other out, care for each other. Caring can be shared. When others help one bear a load of care, the overall level of caring in the community or society can be raised enormously.

Then there's the factor of 'apathy generation'. I referred earlier to television. The other media also play a role. People today are bombarded with messages, with claims to their attention. They see advertisement after advertisement asking them to buy something. On the other hand they are also bombarded with 'events' that they are only supposed to watch, not participate in. In newspapers they are bombarded with news of bad things that happen about which they can apparently do nothing. I believe all of this can dump all sorts of cares and concerns on people that they cannot properly respond to and in various ways they become dulled and desensitised or learn to be apathetic. A complex subject I can't do justice to in a short paragraph! I will, I hope, return to the topic later.

Then there are all the stress factors people encounter in their work and personal lives. When personal stress rises to the level where it can barely be coped with, there's no energy left to care for others.

Finally ... I truly believe that the issue of caring, or compassion, can serve as a barometer for the general health of society. A high level of compassion and caring would indicate that people are *able* to think about others ... which would mean that they themselves are fairly well off. Not necessarily though ... many people who have personal circumstances that are quite tough, are nevertheless able to have great compassion with others. And on the other extreme, people who are extremely well off, might have little compassion. They may not know what the suffering of others is like, never having suffered much themselves. So ... there might, too, be an 'optimal' level of caring and compassion, that would indicate that a certain society in general has a good level of mental health and wellbeing.

OK just this for now. There's much more to be said about each of these 'points' I've mentioned here, but I want to go see the movie now!

I hope the movie is something lighthearted, and that you don't spend your entire life analysing everything, but just enjoy?

Your post in a nutshell says we need 'balance' in all things. Something I have written about before in one of my articles I think. You need to find a balance with your condition, which I gather is very difficult, and a balance in all parts of your life, again not easy.

Nature is the perfect example of balance, but in humans that point of balance varies from person to person, as does truth. If you start to analyse everything to the 'enth' degree, and try to understand all things, many of which are beyond human understanding, I think it would send you crazy.

I was very idealistic when younger but I got in too deep, and it could have made me ill. However, with age has come acceptance of things I cannot change, though I still get angry and try to do the impossible. Most of what you say and do is just a part of you, but it is are exacerbated by your schizophrenia, not caused by it, tipping the balance a little towards obsession.

For many years now I have strived for balance, acceptance and peace of mind, and I am beginning to think that only comes with age! It is amazing what having a family does to your perspective on all things, and looking after elderly, ailing parents does likewise.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you.

Websailor

Hello again Websailor! Thank you for your response and I hope you are well. The movie was 'Mission to Mars' and it wasn't that good, but I relaxed enough while watching it.

What you say does make sense. But I'd like to add a few observations to it! The issue of 'balance' is another one that is very interesting to me. There's a specific 'angle' related to chaos theory which I would like to write about. Namely ... living beings, are in fact, what are called 'far from equilibrium systems'. That is to say, we are actually all in a state of *imbalance*! We are poised on a kind of 'knife's edge' so to speak, between order and chaos. We need an inflow of energy to maintain this condition of what I call 'creative imbalance'. There are different degrees of this 'imbalance'. The more complex and intricate a system is, the farther it is from 'equilibrium' and the more energy inflow it needs to maintain itself. This is true of organisms: a tree is a thing that is closer to equilibrium than a human being, but still a tree is very far from equilibrium compared to a rock.

The same is true of human societies. Modern city life is very much further from equilibrium than a small hunter-gatherer tribe.

There's also a connection with the 'Gaia' principle. Our whole *planet* is very far from equilibrium compared to a dead planet like say Mercury or Venus (I don't say Mars because there still might be life there). Our atmosphere contains a mix of gases that is dependent on constant replenishment and absorption of gases that, when left alone, would quickly react with each other or with the soil and rocks. An 'equilibrium' atmosphere would have no free oxygen in it - oxygen is a very reactive gas and combines with lots of other things. We only have as much oxygen in our atmosphere as we have, because living things (green plants and algae) keep creating oxygen and pumping it into the atmosphere.

The principle of a 'far from equilibrium' atmosphere can even be used to decide if there's life on a planet orbiting another star. If we can make fine enough spectroscopic measurements of the atmosphere, and we see there is a notable percentage of oxygen (or other reactive gases in case extraterrestrial biology should be very different from our own) on it, it probably means that there's life there!

Now, this is what I discover about myself ... I am in fact a 'far from equilibrium' system ... as a human being of course, but compared to other people as well! This means I am by nature poised on a sort of knife's edge between being sane and 'crazy'. Occasionally I tip over too far and land myself in trouble. But if I can stay out of trouble I find that functioning 'far from equilibrium' is part and parcel of being creative and of using all my abilities optimally. In my own case - and this I believe is true of humans in general because of the kind of beings we are - it's not so much *energy* (food) that I need a constant supply of, but information and other kinds of stimulation like art, communing with nature, and so forth. Of course our modern civilisation consumes huge amounts of energy as well, in fact can be said to be 'addicted' to this energy, and this is becoming a problem as you and I very well know! Another topic ...

You know what Websailor ... I actually *like* analysing things, thinking about things! It does not detract from my enjoyment of things. The more I can learn and find out about something, the more I appreciate it. I have a huge thirst for knowledge. The 'holistic philosophy' I spoke about earlier, helps me to *rapidly* absorb knowledge and relate it to things I already know, and also to re-organise my knowledge as new evidence comes in.

You are right ... I do tend to be obsessive! But again ... I know this about myself by now, and I do try and hold myself back from becoming totally consumed by something. The key for me is considering my overall life and not *neglecting* any important aspect of my life ... make time for the things I *have to do* as well as the things I *want to do*. This is life discipline. Discipline is another topic I want to talk about. Sometimes it helps having people watch over one. I have people watching over me who can tell me when they think I am becoming too obsessed about something.

Do you know what? I have 'peace of mind' even while being in mental turmoil. I am happy and content at the same time as being hugely dissatisfied with the state of the world. Some people may find this hard to understand, but it really is the case. The mind is a complicated thing and can do much more than most people are aware of!

I just want to add a few more observations:

I know very well the danger of being too obsessive or even too 'productive' or 'creative'. I know of a man whose writings I have read a lot, who used amphetamines to increase his 'productivity'. He would sleep minimally; he would engage in extreme physical training; he would read and also write voraciously. For long there was apparently no problem. He seemed lucid and level-headed. But there were problems. He had an extreme level of confidence in what he was saying while in fact he was on shaky ground (he made a number of logical mistakes in his arguments). His behaviour became eccentric and eventually he landed himself in a psychiatric institution. He came out but was very run-down mentally and physically and died at a relatively young age (about 49). In his youth he had appeared extremely mentally and physically robust, but it caught up with him in the end.

I have a friend as well (though I've not heard from him in a long time) who also has such problems. He's bipolar - but I think eventually this condition worsened and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He would also work like a man possessed for a while, but then he would crash and burn. He lost many jobs as a result. He couldn't 'manage' his excess energy properly so as to avoid the burnout periods and, again, over time this wore him down. In the end he had hallucinations and delusions like hearing voices and thinking people were plotting against him. (I also had ideas like that on various occasions).

It may seem to you that I am in danger as a result of being too obsessive. But please take my word for it that I know about this danger myself! I do manage my 'enthusiasm' so as to be able to sustain it rather than having it excessive for a while, and then 'crashing'. One thing that helps is that these days I sleep well each night. In the days when I was much more 'unbalanced' I often went for days without sleeping! My medication makes me sleep. Sleeping well each night helps keep me on an even keel.

Hitler, Stalin, Apartheid - Paranoia

I've been diagnosed with schizophrenia of the paranoid type. So what is paranoia? It can be defined as a condition of extreme anxiety or fear, which when excessive can go to the point of delusion. In my own case, when more sane, I merely experience anxiety or fear based on what I consider to be *real* problems - mainly, environmental destruction and deteriorating conditions in human society. I still believe those are real problems and they still cause me a lot of anxiety and fear. Another topic ...

But there's also the delusional kind of paranoia. This included, for me, the belief that somebody was out to ruin my life or kill me; the belief that there were sinister forces trying to control me; the belief that there were strange things going on with my life that I was unaware of, or that 'real' reality was something completely different from how it seemed - that my whole 'reality' was fabricated in some way by outside ('demonic') forces. Sometimes I had believed that I had actually killed someone and subsequently 'forgotten' it. There have been a myriad of such delusions in my life - I can't discuss them all here and don't want to. I just want to note what paranoia is and to indicate that I have personal experience of it, and have learnt about paranoia through painful personal processes.

The above, delusional, kind of paranoia is the kind that can be considered a 'mental illness'. It is the kind that can totally ruin a person's life and ability to function in society. It's the kind that lands people in psychiatric institutions. But there's a more subtle kind of paranoia as well, that can affect people considered 'sane' and able to function to some extent in the world.

That brings me to Hitler and Stalin. I want to talk about how even people who are great leaders can in fact be *extremely* fallible. The problem is, that Hitler and Stalin are today seen as purely evil people, and as belonging to an era that is gone and will never return. But when I look at them, I see in them, simply *factors* that are present in many people today - factors that when given free play and lots of power can still wreak the kind of destruction wrought by these men.

Hitler and Stalin were both paranoid. Both of them saw 'enemies' all over the place. To Hitler, it was the Jews. He believed that the Jews were powerful and that they plotted against other peoples and that they were a corrupting influence that weakened and destroyed societies. He saw evidence for these beliefs everywhere he looked. This is a characteristic of paranoia: it sees lots of 'signs' where often there are none. An aspect of schizophrenia is seeing more 'meaning' than actually exists. More on that later ...

Stalin as well was paranoid. He saw enemies everywhere. He believed even his closest friends would stab him in the back. No-one around him was safe. He had people he believed to be threats to his power killed. Lots of them. He had lots of people killed for being 'counter-revolutionaries'. It was a reign of terror, and people honestly were terrified of Stalin. Many times allegations of counter-revolutionary activities were pure fabrications. He had quotas of how many thousand people had to be executed in each town. He had people deported to gulags where many died in misery.

Hitler and Stalin both ended up as being mega-murdereres ... victims numbering in *millions*.

But these mega-murderers could have done nothing without power! How did they gain power? They had the support of vast numbers of people! How many Germans allowed themselves to be taken in by Hitler? How many Russians, by Stalin? They saluted and shouted 'hail our Leader'! They paraded and pledged their allegiance! They carried out the orders! Neither Hitler nor Stalin *personally* killed those millions. Other people did it for them.

These leaders rose to their positions of power. Both of them showed their true colors pretty much from the start. But the people were willing to accept their messages. Hitler's allegations of the threat of the Jews were believed by the people. Stalin used all sorts of intrigues to establish and extend his power and prestige in the Communist Party, but he appeared a 'man of the people' who would rebuild his country after the war, and the people were willing to do what he said and consider an enemy of the Party and the country, whomever he called an enemy.

But of course, both these leaders also kept a lot of what they did secret. The public never knew the full extent of the horrors they perpetrated, until long after the facts. But still ... the public had, by their attitudes, 'enabled' these leaders in their mega-crimes.

To me there's a mental health aspect there: the Germans at the time of Hitler's rise, and also the Russians in Stalin's time, were both peoples who had been bashed down and were, metaphorically speaking, bruised and bleeding. The Germans had suffered the defeat of the first war, economic hardship and a wound to their national prestige. The Russians had also experienced the hardship of the war, compounded by the trauma of the communist Revolution.

There are signs in Hitler as well as Stalin, that they actually had inferiority complexes. They were driven by such complexes, to gain power, to 'prove' themselves ... but an inferiority complex is difficult to satisfy, no matter what successes are achieved.

Now, if one considers the condition of their respective *peoples* ... might it not be possible that there were feelings of inferiority in the large mass of people in their countries as well? That their messages of raising the people up again, were more potent to the people, because of these feelings of inferiority?

Also ... people in a bashed-down situation are more receptive when an outside enemy is blamed, than when they are blamed for their own situation.

SO: in the horrors of Stalin and of Hitler, it happened that paranoia of a single individual, eventually detrimentally influenced the fortunes of entire countries and millions of people. Proof that a mental-health aspect such as paranoia, is a matter of concern not just for individuals. It can manifest on a huge scale. One can indeed examine entire societies for the levels of paranoia present in it, and the potential harm that can be caused.

In my own country this is also a factor. In the years of Apartheid, paranoia was widespread. Our leaders, as well, told us about all the enemies who were out to destroy us. I can vouch for it that white people truly believed they were fighting a communist threat and that was why the black people were not allowed political rights. We believed the black people had been 'seduced' by the communists and were patsies for Russia; that when we allowed 'one man one vote' our country would effectively become a communist country, and we would all lose freedoms. We went on to fight a war in Angola based on such beliefs. We oppressed people in the country, we sent people to prison, we killed people. We did this because we were motivated by fear.

Fears that turned out to be irrational. What we all feared, happened: the ANC was unbanned, Nelson Mandela was released, and the black people got the right to vote. What we feared to be the outcome of that, spectacularly failed to happen. Far from being communist, South Africa is in fact now *too* capitalistic. More capitalistic than the old South Africa used to be. I would much rather live in a much more communistic country! In fact it turned out the communist threat had been spectacularly misrepresented to us, by our leaders. They *made us* fear things we should never had feared. Well ... I was a teenager when it all came crashing down. The fall of Apartheid, and the realisation that I had been spectacularly misled by my leaders, played a big part in my own psychological problems. Once again, thats a long, long story ...

The paranoia, however, still remains. White people *still* distrust the government, the new democratic government. And I distrust the government too because I know that the old government lied, so why won't the new government lie? It does seem that they learnt some tricks from the old government. It does seem as the main thing that changed, is the color of the guys in power. It does seem to me that interests 'behind the scenes' are more important than the needs of the ordinary people. Paranoia, paranoia ... and most black people still distrust the whites. After all ... most whites still enjoy much more actual, practical power and prosperity than most blacks. And the longer and the more the quality of life of the black majority fails to improve, the more the discontent and frustration grows, the more people want easy explanations and solutions. This could still, easily ignite into a huge amount of animosity and violence against the remaining white people here (many whites have fled the country, fearing for the future ... paranoia, paranoia.)

What does one call paranoia that turns out to be justified? When there are *really* people out to get you? When there are *really* conspiracies of groups against each other? When people smile to each others faces but secretly plan each others downfall? When there are lies, deceptions, subterfuge, clandestine shenanigans? When it is impossible to find out what is really going on?

More paranoia can be found when one looks for it. There's a country to the north of South Africa with another leader who clearly seems to be paranoid, seeing an enemy behind every bush, and instituting measures that oppress his own people, grinding them right down into the dust.

Then there's another very prosperous and powerful country who's also seeing threats and enemies in the most unlikely places, waging wars against countries perhaps less than a thousandth as powerful as they are ... will this change? Or will there be surface change, but the deep fears still lurking underneath?

HOW TO COUNTER PARANOIA

OK after having gone into the nature of paranoia ... what can be done about it?

This is the part I'm actually not quite sure of yet. But here are some ideas for now ...

In my own case ... I have had to do 'reality-testing'. First of all the thing to ask is ... if this belief is NOT true, how might holding it be harmful?

If you think in terms of 'enemies' out to harm you ... this might lead you to want to harm *them*. In my own case, in the past when I thought I was becoming potentially harmful to others, I often turned my paranoia back on myself. I would rather hurt myself than hurt others. That has been a factor in my suicide attempts: I noticed that I was becoming dangerous to others and the only way I could think of getting rid of this danger, was getting rid of myself.

But this was not right either. I am happy now that my suicide attempts did not succeed.

Here I want to point something out that is very important. Paranoid schizophrenic people are *not* a particular threat to other people. There are paranoid schizophrenic people who become violent to others - often turning violence towards the people who take care of them. But they are the minority. Paranoid schizophrenic people are much more likely to harm themselves, than others.

A *very* paranoid person cannot do 'reality testing' on him or herself. Such a person has not much control about his or her thoughts or ideas, and needs medical help. The idea of 'reality testing' can only work in a person whose condition is stabilised to the point where he or she can actually recognise his or her own possibly paranoid symptoms and reflect on them and try to modify them.

When you are just on the verge of getting better, you can understand that in the past you had become too paranoid. But in the present, you still have thoughts and impulses that might be paranoid. You don't know which, though! You still think that, for instance, there is indeed a government agency controlling your thoughts.

How could you know if that was true or not? Well ... it might help if you read up on paranoia and schizophrenia and learnt that believing others were controlling your thoughts, was in fact a fairly common symptom of paranoid schizophrenia. Another angle would be to read up on science and coming to the conclusion that the state of science and technology at the moment would not allow this kind of thought-control to happen. One could also consider one's own situation and wonder what possible benefit these powerful people could obtain from controlling one's thoughts. None of that is conclusive evidence against such a belief, though.

Another way to counter the idea of others controlling your thoughts is to endeavour to build up your own abilities to think for yourself and in a way that would benefit your own life and that of those around you. Build up your own mind, your mental abilities. When you've improved your ability to think and act in your own and others' interests, you will certainly be less likely to think you've been controlled by evil sinister outside forces.

It also really, really helps to have support outside yourself. Paranoia makes it difficult to trust anyone. One might think that the very drugs one needs to take to get better, are actually harmful. You might think those caring for you are trying to poison or enslave you. This is where people trying to care for a paranoid person need to be very careful, sometimes forceful, but also ... they must really endeavour to win the paranoid person's trust.

If the paranoid person can learn to trust someone, that is a big step forwards. But trust is such an incredibly touchy topic. Betray such trust just once and you may never get it back again.

Trust is an issue in the entire world we live in, our society, our civilisation. This is particularly hard for me. Lies are everywhere. Our leaders, the people in power, *lie*. They sometimes tell huge lies. Lies are all over the media. Honesty and integrity don't seem to count for much. Truly and really! People honestly don't seem to value the truth. They are content to be lied to. They are content to lie to others. They are content to have the very concept of truth made questionable. They do not see how the loss of *truth* would be a great loss, indeed. They do not see how with the loss of the idea of truth, just about everything else goes out of the window as well. If *everybody* always lied it would be one thing ... then you would know for sure to never trust anyone. But if many people lie, but some tell the truth, it is much more difficult. If you learn that powerful people often lie so as to strengthen their power, you learn to doubt powerful people from the outset. But some *may* be sincere. Some may be sincere, but misguided. Some may be sincere and honest and actually telling the truth. Whom do you believe?

You need to build up an understanding of the world and the nature of things, of reality. You need a *philosophy*. It has to make sense, be internally consistent, and also externally consistent ... take everything out there in account. It needn't be a perfect and complete philosophy. In fact it couldn't possibly be perfect and complete. But you need an overall view of the nature of reality and us in it, and there is indeed a possibility of a philosophical system that is *adequate* though not perfect.

Because 'truth' has been made so suspect I want to affirm that I believe there IS such a thing as 'truth' and it is simpy how things really are. There IS a reality, at least one reality namely the one in which we live including all of the past, present and future, and all of the Universe, the one we're living in. There's this planet we live on, and this star around which it orbits. On this planet we have oceans and continents and lots of living things. This planet has a past, which is what it was. Certain things DID happen and certain things did NOT happen. We certainly don't know everything that happened and everything that happens or will happen. But merely because we don't know it, doesn't mean it isn't so. There is something that 'is so', and that is reality.

Learn about reality. Learn about history and science. There is 'truth' there, though never absolute. But certain things can be said with an extraordinary degree of certainty. Certain events in human history almost certainly took place. We may be wrong about the details, but for instance we can say with fair confidence things like the first and second world wars really took place, the plane-bomb attack on New York in 2001 really took place et cetera. The paranoid's problem is he may believe in events that didn't take place or believe that things that took place were lied about. Some people think the Holocaust never happened during World War 2, and some people believe the plane-bombings were orchestrated by the US government. Both those beliefs have paranoid overtones, and both those beliefs can be tested by trying to find evidence to corroborate or refute them.

But the thing is ... there must be something that is 'the truth'. Either the Holocaust DID happen, or it did not. Either the US Government was involved in 9-11 or it was not. It's not necessarily a case of simple 'either/or' ... a simple choice between history as presented to us, and our own theories of what really happened ... it might for instance turn out the Holocaust did happen but less people died than was supposed ... or it may turn out the Government were negligent about aspects relating to 9-11 and tried to cover that up. But in either case ... there must be *something* that is really the truth.

In practice we never know the exact truth, but there are some things more likely to be true and some things that pretty much certainly are NOT true. One cannot believe anything one likes... at least, one cannot believe anything one likes and be *right* as well. One must take responsibility for what one believes. Especially when the things one believes might end up hurting others. Which is certainly the case with paranoia as I hope I made clear.

So: any kind of belief falling in the 'paranoid' category must be tested to establish its truth. Every kind of conspiracy theory. I am NOT saying all conspiracy theories are false! There have been conspiracies in the past and there certainly might be ones in the present, perhaps even *big* ones. But if one holds to a conspiracy theory that is wrong, very wrong, it can be very harmful. At the very least, believing in such a conspiracy makes one very worried and fearful, and unnecessarily so!

Very dear Willem,

Well thought out and well expressed ou kerel. But then you are not an "ou" kerel. |You are a young kerel.
"Ou" makes "kerel" into a term of affection.

So what category does using that adjective fall ? Perhaps there are other categories which should be considered not only just T or F. Is that where Logic falls down.?

I am concerned about the use of the term conspiracy.

Conspiricy includes in it's definition in my very large Collins Dictionary the assertion that it is to perform harmful and or illegal acts.

Well harmful and illegal are both very negative actions.

When I asked K. about his understanding about the word conspiricy he said a better word to use would be to
"Protect".
I found that very meaningful.
We are going for a drive along the coast this afternoonnand I am really looking forward to it. Apparently past the entrance to the Channel tunnel and then down to somewhere called St Mrgarets Bay which is a very protected cove. I am looking forward to it.
I have not driven since the beginning of the year. I do not miss it becsause I have this quite fantastic view. but sometimes I wish that we could go out more often for a drive.

How are the plants.? I have some marvellous succulents on my balcony that have been thriving and flowering like violets and amber lights. They are so striking. Little shining beacons in the weatherwhich has been so hot.!! I expect they might get a dreadful fright with the cold. Except of course that in the Karroo the nights are very cold.

Trust you mention. That is incredibly important in every relationship.
Go well, "jong" kerel,

Christiane and K.
alsoRan80

Hello AR80 and thanks for reading and replying!

I wanted to examine 'paranoia' as a phenomenon ... both in people diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, but also in people considered more 'normal'. A very characteristic aspect of paranoia is the belief in 'conspiracies' - and yes indeed I do mean illegal and harmful or subversive. I mean this in the sense that people who are paranoid, are prone towards believing that other people want to do harm to them. This belief can actually take many different forms. One such belief that is very frequent is that paranoid people believe that secret government agencies are listening to their thoughts, or controlling their thoughts, or beaming thoughts into their minds. Obviously, if such things are *really* going on, it would be a conspiracy, because governments deny they are doing such things. So, *if* they are actually doing such things, it would be a conspiracy: all people who are involved in the project must be sworn to silence and secrecy. It would be a conspiracy to cause harmful and illegal acts because it certainly is against human rights to control people's thoughts and it can cause harm to people as well.

But the above is just a hypothetical situation. It's not to say that it is real (or that it is not real). It is a theory: the theory that goverments are secretly controlling people's thoughts. It can be called a conspiracy theory because it's a theory that people are conspiring together to cause harm to other people.

Now, there are many such theories, some of which are believed by enough people that the theories themselves become popularly known and gain even more support. So for instance there is the theory that the Americans faked the Apollo 11 Moon landing; the theory that president John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a government agency and not by a lone assassin; the theory that the 9-11 plane bombings were not the work of Islamic terrorists, but that of the US government itself, trying to create an excuse for going to war. These are all conspiracy theories that are believed by large numbers of people. But that doesn't mean they are true! In fact they are almost certainly false. But when people believe they are true, it influences their attitudes and also behaviour. In many cases, negatively.

The belief in conspiracy theories is often called 'paranoid'. But paranoia is only paranoia when it is based on a delusion. In other words, if people are really out to get you, then you are not paranoid. If a conspiracy 'theory' is really true, then it too is not paranoid.

But it can be very hard to establish whether any particular conspiracy theory is true or not! Many of the people advocating these theories, have lots of 'evidence' to prove them. But such evidence is most of the time circumstantial. No smoking gun, nobody caught 'red-handed' in the act. The question is ... is it possible for people 'behind' conspiracies to cover up all the evidence necessary for proving the conspiracy?

There have been conspiracies that have been uncovered; to me it stands to reason that there are other conspiracies that have never been uncovered, and some going on still. To me it also stands to reason that there might and in fact must be such conspiracies that are doing great harm, by manipulating things 'behind the scenes'. Ordinary people are unaware of such manipulations and are easily duped and exploited. Thus, I want all such harmful conspiracies to be brought to light. I want the world to be rid of them. At the same time, I will not believe every conspiracy theory that is presented to me. There *must* be substantial evidence to prove that the conspiracy is real. The belief in conspiracies that don't really exist, is the harmful thing, as I pointed out in my previous postings. They cause people to start mistrusting and fearing each other and when driven to extremes can cause violence and suffering. So we must steer clear either of not recognising conspiracies that are real, and believing in conspiracies that don't exist. Once again one must have the integrity and courage to seek out the Truth - the *real* Truth, whatever it might be.

If you have time you could read this article on conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

I haven't forgotten this thread! I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking, and am planning to soon post a few 'essays' about the next mental health issue - depression!

Hi Willem,

I will look forward to reading your next essay on depression . Perhaps, after that one, you could do one on anxiety? Just a thought .

All the best.

Nigel

Hi Nigel! Thanks for reading! I do intend to speak about anxiety sometime!

I just want to point out where I'm speaking from. I am *not* a mental health expert, and nothing I say here should be seen as substituting for professional mental health treatment or advice. I am speaking mainly as a philosopher, and my 'angle' in these essays is looking at larger society rather than individuals. I will try and help individuals understand their problems better but also I will always advise people with severe problems, to go and get professional medical help! But if they do get such help, and/or otherwise are able to think about their problems, then I hope to offer them some things to think about that might help them understand it all, and hopefully cope, better.

OK so let's consider depression! Well, first of all ... what is it?
My dictionary defines it like this:

1. A state of unhappiness or hopelessness.
2. A psychiatric disorder showing symptoms such as persistent feelings of hopelessness, dejection, poor concentration, lack of energy, inability to sleep, and sometimes suicidal tendencies.

(There's of course the economical term 'depression' as well but that doesn't concern us right now.)

Basically, there's first just the general feeling of being 'down'. Many of us ... I would in fact say, all reasonably healthy people (in mental and physical terms) ... have experienced this and do experience this. In other words - feeling down is actually a normal and healthy part of life. We can't be happy all the time, and in fact we should not want to. Life has ups and downs ... at least I think a person for whom life only has 'ups' is living a very 'unreal' sort of life! Feeling down is a natural response to life's downs.

So ... if we feel 'down' we are experiencing the first definition of 'depression', and we may rightly say, 'I am feeling really depressed right now!' And people around us may understand this and try to cheer us up. This too is natural. A person feeling down or depressed, for 'normal' reasons, will also respond to 'normal' things that would alleviate this depression, like someone else doing or saying something cheerful, or other ways to cheer one's self up like perhaps listening to happy (or sad - which works for some people) music, or reading a book, trying to think about something else, or just deciding to be cheerful, or in fact, just riding out the depression till it passes.

When depression is *severe* or *prolonged*, however, it can be dangerous. Even short of what is called 'clinical' depression, there are conditions that can seriously detract from one's quality of life, and ability to act effectively.

So let us now look at the condition of 'clinical' depression ... or as it is called 'major depressive disorder'.

This is characterised not just by the aspect of feeling 'down' or 'low', but also some or all of these specific symptoms:

- Finding no pleasure, or interest, in things or activities one used to enjoy or find interesting;
- Feeling worthless, guilty, helpless or hopeless;
- Lack of appetite, or other disturbance of normal eating; weight gain or loss may happen
- Feeling lethargic, low in energy, chronically fatigued
- Poor memory and ability to concentrate;
- Withdrawal from social activities and contact with friends and family
- Poor libido
- Thoughts of dying or suicide
- Disturbed sleep - too little, or too much

A 'major depressive episode' would be one where at least five such 'symptoms' have been manifesting for at least a two-week period.

(References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_episode)

A single 'major depressive episode' can be fatal if a person becomes totally despondent and commits suicide. It is not necessary that depression should last for very long for it to reach this level. I know that in my own case I've experienced depressive episodes that came on extremely rapidly and to the point where I was suicidal and in a few cases actually attempted suicide.

In my own case I can also testify that there's a 'background' of mild depressive tendencies. I am very, very frequently fairly hopeless ... in the sense, having little hope for the future of humanity and of the planet. I am just aware of *so* many things that are going wrong, and about which it seems almost everybody is ignorant and nobody is doing anything. And so, so many things going on are threatening the people and the things (animals, plants) that I love. So many loves of my life, are in danger. I am experiencing this atmosphere of constant threats. These threats go right to the core of what is valuable to me. I think human civilisation is at risk, and I *LOVE* human civilisation! In the sense of being 'civilised' and 'civil'. I want more of that ... at the very least, I don't want what we call 'civilisation', to become any worse than it is. I would love it if it became much better. There's so much room for improvement! But there are so many ways in which it can become worse as well. And so many ways in which it seems it IS going to become worse. Our 'civilisation' is under strain and this will likely soon stress it to the limit.

I LOVE people as well! I do NOT want them to suffer, or become bad people. I don't want people dying of hunger, or being malnourished, or not getting good education, or good opportunities in their lives; I do not want them to be discriminated against; I don't want them to behave violently, to hurt or kill each other. So when those things happen, it hurts me as well! And those things DO happen. Again, it seems those things are more likely to get worse before they get better.

I LOVE plants and animals! I do not want a SINGLE species of plant or animal to become extinct! I love them all! All of them constitute the natural beauty and splendour of this planet. Their diversity contributes to the interestingness of this planet - of every region on it, every place on it. The living things make the planet the incredibly wonderful and special place it is ... in our solar system as well as in our Universe. Life here on Earth is unique. Even if life exists elsewhere, it will not be like what we have here. Every species is irreplaceable. When it goes extinct it's gone forever (I don't have much faith in 'Jurassic Park' like resurrections of extinct creatures ...) I want no extinctions. Even more ... I don't want plants and animals to be decimated short of extinction either. Rhinos and elephants are not extinct yet, but there are vastly less of them than there used to be. I don't like that. I want *EVERY* species to thrive and flourish. I want humans, rather than exterminating other creatures, helping them instead. We *can* help, rather than harm. Helping makes more sense to me, than harming. So when we harm, rather than help, I don't like it! It hurts me. It makes me feel very very bad ... sad for the species we are harming, and also ... bad about being human. I feel bad about being human, when *humans* turn out to be these destructive things. I would feel good about being human, when humans started paying attention to *helping* each other, and other species as well. But I have little hope of this happening any time soon. Thus I feel hopeless. This generates in me a 'background' condition of being perpetually disappointed in the actions of ourselves as a species ... a background condition of having little hope, feeling negative, fearing the worst. I do not *always* consciously feel depressed. I am often happy or cheerful. But the minute I think about the bigger picture ... the current 'condition' of humanity and of the planet ... I'm depressed again. Though this is mild ... the mere fact that it is pretty much *always* somewhere in the background ... makes it a danger factor, because this 'mild' depression can suddenly and seemingly without warning, escalate into something severe. A single specific incident, for instance, can very rapidly amplify this low-level background depression, into something potentially life threatening.

I suspect that on our planet, as a result of the way things are, a great many people are 'afflicted' with such a kind of low-level background depression ... like a slumbering volcano that can erupt at any time.

More in the next 'essay'!

Hi Wiloem,

Have just come adross this thread againl

I wonder if one narrowed the use of the word "theory" to mean something that has adtually been proven to be true.

It would make discussion more meaningful I think.

If a conspiracy has been been shown to actually only exist as an idea or in the imagination then I suppose one could not use the word theory but would be obliged to use the word "Infamy" perhaps?
Just thoughts .

CME AR80

No AR80, the word 'theory' applies to something that has not yet been proven to be true, and pertains to things that are unlikely to be true as well as to things likely to be true. My dictionary gives these meanings to the word 'theory':

1. Rules and techniques; the body of rules, ideas, principles and techniques that applies to a particular subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice, e.g. economic theories.

2. Speculation; abstract thought or contemplation

3. Idea formed by speculation; an idea or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture, e.g. 'she believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than witgh vinegar'.

4. Hypothetical circumstances; a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical, e.g. 'that's the thoery, but it may not work out in practice'.

5. Scientific principle to explain phenomena; a set of facts, propositions, or principles analysed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.

6. 'in theory': under hypothetical or ideal circumstances but perhaps not in reality.

I want to point out something else. In science, *no theory* is every actually proven to be true. It is impossible to prove even such a thing as the theory of gravity to be true. In fact Newton's theory of gravity IS NOT TRUE. Einstein's general theory of relativity now supersedes the theory of Newton. And in fact Einstein's theories of relativity are not proven to be true either. In fact they probably are not. One day a new theory may come to take their place. And the new theory might not be true either.

Do you know of the work of the philosopher Karl Popper? In his philosophy of science, he asserts that it is impossible to ever prove any scientific theory (which are the results of inductive reasoning) to be true. It is possible to prove many theories to be *NOT* true. This means they are falsifiable. Popper and other philosophers say the hallmark of a proper scientific theory is not that it can be proven true - it never can - but that it can be proven untrue. A theory that is not 'falsifiable' - that cannot be proven *untrue* - is not a proper scientific theory. It may still be a theory contending something that might be true or false, but it would fall outside the province of science.

AR80, are you perhaps confusing the word 'theory' with the word 'theorem'? A theorem is something different, and it has a mainly mathematical meaning! In mathematics, a theorem is a statement or a formula that can be proven from a set of hypotheses or assumptions. A theorem is valid if it follows logically from the hypotheses or assumptions. That means if the hypotheses or assumptions are true, the theorem must be true. But if the hypotheses or assumptions are not true, then the theorem is not true either. At any rate mathematics is a field of its own, not necessarily related to 'truth' in the 'real' world!

Hi Willem,

I believe that I said that my idea was for discussion. Well, you demolished it completely so no discussion......... !!.

Yes I have studied Popper with a wonderful philosopher at Stellenbosch,. The finest philosopher in South Africa. Also studied
Merleau Ponty with him.

Am feeling positively weak as I am trying to do too much at the moment. So thus endeth the discussion.,,,,,,,, !!

Totsiens

CME

No Willem, I am not confusing the word theorem with theory!!

Incidentally in philosophy, one discusses ideas, and things. One does not go all out and just attack. That happens in boxing!! As I have no wish to be a boxer, I shall not answer your ruminations on life anyore. Perhaps you do not want them answered. I think that is what the problem is. !!

With affection as always.

Christiane.

AR80 I didn't mean to 'attack' you - what gave you that idea? I just gave the dictionary definition of 'theory' and then I put a bit of info about Karl Popper ... and I never said we couldn't discuss the issue further! We can speak about Popper, why not ... in fact there is much about Popper's statements that can be questioned. About every single thing I said, you are welcome to disagree with me. We could speak more about any aspect of anything I said. I then simply asked about 'theorem' because honestly, I haven't heard the word 'theory' used in the sense you mentioned in your posting, so I thought you might have been thinking of 'theorem'.

In philosophy, one can discuss ideas and things, but one must be able to agree about the definitions of words used - otherwise there will be confusion about what is said. I was just trying to clarify the meanings of the words I was using!

AR80, I am really, really for making you feel attacked! I had no idea whatsoever that you would feel I was attacking you. Honest! I want to keep talking with you about this, because it's a very important issue. I'm not trying to appear as if I knew everything because I don't and I know that.

Hi dear Friemd. Perhaps I am feelinmg a bit tetchy today.

Anyway, let us agree to disagree. !!We can still discuss things without saying that either of us is right -!!

With affection

AR80

thanks for 'agreeing to disagree' AR80! I want to say - it is not my aim to say the 'last word' about this, and it is not my aim either to convince people of every single thing. It is more important for me to just 'start people thinking' about the issues! And do their own research and reading as well. Again I'm very sorry about having appeared like a 'know-it-all' and to have appeared to disrespect your position and your knowledge and experience etc.!