Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

All of these rely upon the construction of meaning, and in some way "overlap" with it (in other words, identity wouldn't be possible without meaning).

There is some semantics probably at play, and maybe this is purely theoretical, but I could conceive of identity without any meaning derived, or maybe more specifically, an identity which doesn't extend past an arbitrary label.

I see. So even despite the fact that studies show depression and anxiety to be on the rise, you'd say they're still under-diagnosed?

Well like I said the term "diagnosis" means meeting full criteria. In that sense we can't be under-diagnosing because people A. Have to request a diagnosis and B. Have to meet criteria. What I meant is that A. Not everyone who would meet criteria seeks a diagnosis and B. You can not meet full criteria and still experience significant and distressing symptomology.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is some semantics probably at play, and maybe this is purely theoretical, but I could conceive of identity without any meaning derived, or maybe more specifically, an identity which doesn't extend past an arbitrary label.

How? I'm trying, and I can't conceive of an identity that isn't meaningful. And furthermore, how would this meaning not derive from some concept of social awareness? (i.e. I understand myself as a white man because I'm not a black woman, which I happen to know exist beyond my immediate perception of reality)

As far as I can tell, a non-meaningful concept of identity wouldn't be identity because it would exhibit no qualities of self-reflection. It would be some abstract notion of simply being-in-itself, which doesn't qualify as identity (I don't think).

Well like I said the term "diagnosis" means meeting full criteria. In that sense we can't be under-diagnosing because people A. Have to request a diagnosis and B. Have to meet criteria. What I meant is that A. Not everyone who would meet criteria seeks a diagnosis and B. You can not meet full criteria and still experience significant and distressing symptomology.

Okay, so the criteria for depression/anxiety needs to be changed?

 

[Dak]

How? I'm trying, and I can't conceive of an identity that isn't meaningful. And furthermore, how would this meaning not derive from some concept of social awareness? (i.e. I understand myself as a white man because I'm not a black woman, which I happen to know exist beyond my immediate perception of reality)

As far as I can tell, a non-meaningful concept of identity wouldn't be identity because it would exhibit no qualities of self-reflection. It would be some abstract notion of simply being-in-itself, which doesn't qualify as identity (I don't think).

I could be described with the label of "metalhead", and it's accurate in the sense that I listen primarily to metal. I get no meaning out of that. That said, I would be irritated if someone tried to characterize me as someone who listens to country or something - because it's inaccurate. There's no "struggle" in listening to a particular type of music in this country. Now, were I play in a metal band, or grow up in a very repressive nation which looks poorly on nonsanctioned "rebellious" music, I could imagine deriving meaning from either playing or listening. I think one can reflect on the idea and not gain any meaning out of it. This is the difference between identities which consist of competence and those which consist of consumerism. Hell, there are suicidal people whose identity is "being a sad person".

Okay, so the criteria for depression/anxiety needs to be changed?

Well like I said, that someone has to "meet criteria for a diagnosis" has a lot to do with procuring insurance coverage. The APA has to draw a line somewhere that captures as many people as possible without capturing so many that there's a systemic revolt. People can meet criteria in the symptom sense, but not for the adequate sustained duration. Or you could have persistant symptomology of certain kinds but not enough symptoms. The degree to which you are experiencing the right totality of symptoms sustained over the exact amount of time doesn't necessarily map on exactly to the degree in which these distress you, and we are not necessarily talking about something which persists indefinitely. Your lifetime likelihood of experiencing actual clinical major depressive disorder is something like 20-25% iirc. My original point though is that depression and anxiety rates are going up (and probably underestimated) because of a systemic lack of meaning within the predominate culture, a lack which is likely to grow as more things appear arbitrary and we unreflectively adopt a hedonistic conceptualization of meaning.

 

[Einherjar86]

I could be described with the label of "metalhead", and it's accurate in the sense that I listen primarily to metal. I get no meaning out of that. That said, I would be irritated if someone tried to characterize me as someone who listens to country or something - because it's inaccurate. There's no "struggle" in listening to a particular type of music in this country. Now, were I play in a metal band, or grow up in a very repressive nation which looks poorly on nonsanctioned "rebellious" music, I could imagine deriving meaning from either playing or listening. I think one can reflect on the idea and not gain any meaning out of it. This is the difference between identities which consist of competence and those which consist of consumerism. Hell, there are suicidal people whose identity is "being a sad person".

The identity of suicidal people is in contrast to people who aren't suicidal. People who identify as being sad need to have happy people with whom to contrast themselves. In other words, it doesn't make sense to think of oneself as being sad unless one has an alternative for comparison.

This doesn't mean that someone doesn't actually feel sad; it simply means that sadness doesn't correspond to identity without some broader meaningful context.

My original point though is that depression and anxiety rates are going up (and probably underestimated) because of a systemic lack of meaning within the predominate culture, a lack which is likely to grow as more things appear arbitrary and we unreflectively adopt a hedonistic conceptualization of meaning.

Well, we may not have anywhere else to go, but I just don't understand what you mean by a lack of meaning. I can't even begin to wrap my brain around this concept. I believe that depression is on the rise, but I don't think it's because of a lack of meaning.

 

[Dak]

The identity of suicidal people is in contrast to people who aren't suicidal. People who identify as being sad need to have happy people with whom to contrast themselves. In other words, it doesn't make sense to think of oneself as being sad unless one has an alternative for comparison.

This doesn't mean that someone doesn't actually feel sad; it simply means that sadness doesn't correspond to identity without some broader meaningful context.

Well, we may not have anywhere else to go, but I just don't understand what you mean by a lack of meaning. I can't even begin to wrap my brain around this concept. I believe that depression is on the rise, but I don't think it's because of a lack of meaning.

It would seem that we are using different conceptualizations of meaning, and I understand you to be using it in more of a definitional, relational sense. I don't get some portion of meaning for my life from clinical work because I'm not doing not-clinical work. I think in this case if pressed for a definition for how I'm using meaning at the moment I would have to revert to the old porn definition of knowing it when I see it.

As a separate issue, if you don't think a lack of meaning is the/a reason for rising depression, then what factors do you think might be at play?

 

[Einherjar86]

It would seem that we are using different conceptualizations of meaning, and I understand you to be using it in more of a definitional, relational sense. I don't get some portion of meaning for my life from clinical work because I'm not doing not-clinical work. I think in this case if pressed for a definition for how I'm using meaning at the moment I would have to revert to the old porn definition of knowing it when I see it.

Fair enough.

But you wouldn't say that you get some portion of meaning for your life because you're doing your best to help people as opposed to harm them, or be apathetic? The sense of self-worth doesn't intersect with your sense of self-identity? I find that hard to believe.

As a separate issue, if you don't think a lack of meaning is the/a reason for rising depression, then what factors do you think might be at play?

I think that a lot of the factors you pointed out could be at issue, I just don't think this means that society has become less meaningful. Meaning is such a multifaceted and complex concept to begin with that I have a hard time imagining how our culture itself is producing less meaning, whatever that might (ahem) mean.

If people feel that they're contributing less to society today than in the past, I'd propose that this isn't because of a lack of meaning but because of the complexity of meaning, i.e. the difficulty of people to position themselves within modern society. Meaning hasn't vanished, it's just constantly being redistributed.

Maybe it's fair to say that society's evolving faster than individual humans can keep up with (or want to keep up with). But again, I don't think that translates into the absence of meaning.

 

[Dak]

Fair enough.

But you wouldn't say that you get some portion of meaning for your life because you're doing your best to help people as opposed to harm them, or be apathetic? The sense of self-worth doesn't intersect with your sense of self-identity? I find that hard to believe.

I'm not sure my self-identity is necessarily tied into those things. I have my public narrative that goes on statements of purpose but I'm not sure the degree to which I would hold tightly to it. There's a piece in the being a "positive contributor" but that's vague and could take many forms other than what I am doing and want to do. I feel as if I'm in the process of achieving what is approximately the best version of me that I can be. As we age and make various choices, certain better and worse versions of ourselves become non-options, so some theoretical absolute best version of myself is likely already unobtainable, but what matters is am I closer to it today than yesterday. How are my skills and my temperament being put to their best use? How am I balancing this with my values? I took a comparative advantage approach to answering these questions a number of years ago and here I am.

I think that a lot of the factors you pointed out could be at issue, I just don't think this means that society has become less meaningful. Meaning is such a multifaceted and complex concept to begin with that I have a hard time imagining how our culture itself is producing less meaning, whatever that might (ahem) mean.

If people feel that they're contributing less to society today than in the past, I'd propose that this isn't because of a lack of meaning but because of the complexity of meaning, i.e. the difficulty of people to position themselves within modern society. Meaning hasn't vanished, it's just constantly being redistributed.

Maybe it's fair to say that society's evolving faster than individual humans can keep up with (or want to keep up with). But again, I don't think that translates into the absence of meaning.

This might be accurate to some degree. If we define meaning as in "having a place as a positive contributor" then I think the pace of technological and societal evolution is ripping possibility away from a growing number of people - which still means it is becoming less meaningful. I don't think it is an unsolvable problem or that a solution has to be luddism, but I do think that hedonistic materialist approaches aren't anywhere near a solution - in fact they most likely exacerbate the problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good answers, not sure how much more I have to say. We could go on and on over the former point.

 

[rms]

wasnt sure where to put this, but ive heard about the book and it just sounds right up my alley:

https://www.ted.com/talks/isabel_wi...n_and_the_power_of_a_single_decision#t-889865

(warmth of other suns, i believe its called)

 

[Einherjar86]

Sounds like a really good book. I didn't watch the video, but read some about the author.

Why is it up your alley? Are you studying race in America? Or just interested in it?

 

[rms]

I imagine I'm done in the humanities after this nice jobless stretch LOL

My preferred reading of any history is people making their own way and then that own way having a large and noticeable impact. Big time sucker for that in any region

 

[Dak]

I imagine I'm done in the humanities after this nice jobless stretch LOL

My preferred reading of any history is people making their own way and then that own way having a large and noticeable impact. Big time sucker for that in any region

History: A story of incentives and the people motivated by them.

 

[Dak]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...273&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

People who would be put on the restricted lists included those found to have committed acts like spreading false information about terrorism and causing trouble on flights, as well as those who used expired tickets or smoked on trains, according to two statements issued on the National Development and Reform Commission’s website on Friday.


Those found to have committed financial wrongdoings, such as employers who failed to pay social insurance or people who have failed to pay fines, would also face these restrictions, said the statements which were dated March 2.

It added that the rules would come into effect on May 1.

The move is in line with President’s Xi Jinping’s plan to construct a social credit system based on the principle of “once untrustworthy, always restricted”, said one of the notices which was signed by eight ministries, including the country’s aviation regulator and the Supreme People’s Court.

 

[Einherjar86]

Black Mirror isn't that far away.

 

[EternalMetal]

lol, how is not paying a fine equivalent to aiding terrorism or disorderly conduct? I wonder if people who accidentally forgot to pay a parking ticket or some equivalent on time would be permanently blacklisted from public transport? It sounds as though it may be likely considering the "once untrustworthy, always restricted” mantra. Seems a bit draconian to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

More than a bit, I'd say.

 

[rms]

https://knowridge.com/2018/03/12800...grating-comet-setting-off-global-firestorms/#

 

[rms]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ce-class-white-and-black-men.html?mtrref=t.co

@Dak , it's got your favorite stat

 

[Dak]

A result of the tri-forces of victim culture, welfare culture, and the drug war.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty good review, sums up some of my objections to Pinker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/enlightenment-how-pinkers-tutelary-natures/

And here we encounter the paradox that Enlightenment Now never considers, even though Pinker presupposes it continually. The challenge for us today is to construct an informational environment that mitigates the problems arising out of our previous environmental constructions. The ‘bugs’ in human nature that need to be fixed were once ancestral features. What has rendered these adaptations ‘buggy’ is nothing other than the ‘march of progress.’ A central premise of Enlightenment Now is that human cognitive ecology, the complex formed by our capacities and our environments, has fallen out of whack in this way or that, cuing us to apply atavistic modes of problem-solving out of school. The paradox is that the very bugs Pinker thinks only the Enlightenment can solve are the very bugs the Enlightenment has created.

What Nietzsche and Adorno glimpsed, each in their own murky way, was a recursive flaw in Enlightenment logic, the way the rationalization of everything meant the rationalization of rationalization, and how this has to short-circuit human meaning. Both saw the problem in the implementation, in the physiology of thought and community, not in the abstract. So where Pinker seeks to “to restate the ideals of the Enlightenment in the language and concepts of the 21st century” (5), we can likewise restate Nietzsche and Adorno’s critiques of the Enlightenment in Pinker’s own biological idiom.

The problem with the Enlightenment is a cognitive ecological problem. The technical (rational and technological) remediation of our cognitive ecologies transforms those ecologies, generating the need for further technical remediation. Our technical cognitive ecologies are thus drifting ever further from our ancestral cognitive ecologies. Human sociocognition and metacognition in particular are radically heuristic, and as such dependent on countless environmental invariants. Before even considering more, smarter intervention as a solution to the ambient consequences of prior interventions, the big question has to be how far—and how fast—can humanity go? At what point (or what velocity) does a recognizably human cognitive ecology cease to exist?