another example of how wikipedia, like all conveniences, tends to low
quality.....
from 'pronoia.net':
"It was brought to our attention several years ago, via e-mail by Mr.
Fred H. Golder, that he believes HE in fact deserves credit for the
revival of the word Pronoia in 1982. To his point, Pronoia.net offers
a taste of his serious academic paper here. Writing at Queens College
in October 1982 (in SOCIAL PROBLEMS,V.30,N.1:82-91), Mr. Golder
summarizes:
"Pronoia is the positive counterpart of paranoia.
It is the delusion that others think well of one. Actions and the
products of one's efforts are thought to be well received and
praised by others. Mere acquaintances are thought to be close
friends; politeness and the exchange of pleasantries are taken as
expressions of deep attachment and the promise of future support.
Pronoia appears rooted in the social complexity and cultural ambiguity
of our lives: we have become increasingly dependent on the opinions
of others based on uncertain criteria."
Our response: Well, maybe feelings of pronoia are always
just a "delusion"... or maybe Mr. Golder just hasn't gotten the vibe?
:-) Seriously, it seems to us as if this pop-psych definition of the
word Pronoia holds up a dysfunctional and delusional minority to a
scientific zoom lense, and reports the view as if it were an accurate
representation of the larger youth phenomenon. Pronoia.net disagrees
with this basic premise"
...are you getting the vibe yet...?
Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I remembered seeing this word from
many years ago but, although I couldn't
recall the exact nuance, the definition given by gav didn't match my fuzzy
memory. Being 'pronoid' is not really a good thing. As usual wikipedia comes
to the rescue:
"Pronoia is the positive counterpart of paranoia. It is the delusion that
others think well of one. Actions and the products of one's efforts are
thought to be well received and praised by others. Mere acquaintances are
thought to be close friends; politeness and the exchange of
pleasantriesare
taken as expressions of deep attachment and the promise of future
support. Pronoia appears rooted in the social complexity and cultural
ambiguity of our lives: we have become increasingly dependent on the
opinions of others based on uncertain criteria."
I think pronoids would be accident prone and would tend to have a false
sense of security.
Are YOU one?
-Peter
On 23/10/2007, ian glendinning
wrote:
>
> Hi Akshay, Gav,
>
> I think I agree with Gav. Akshey when you say
> ""The universe is a conspiracy on my behalf", the very sentence is
> contradictory because conspiracy, like clapping, cannot happen without
> two participating entities. .... Swearing together to harm, is that
> the Purpose?"
>
> Depends what you think a "conspiracy" is.
>
> Natural evolution causes "harm" to some entities, making an omelette
> breaks eggs, so causing "harm" is not the issue. The issue, even for a
> well intentioned conspiracy (as opposed to one whose aims are malign)
> is essentially secrecy - how aware passive participants and the
> uninvolved are in the process and its motives.
>
> My theory, and the reason I tend to reject conspiracy theories
> (conspiracies by "them", the "system", etc) and see them as natural
> processes as follows.
>
> Yes, one reason is that human bystanders (even the passively involved)
> will always have different perspectives of means and ends ... how big
> a picture to take into account, how big an end is "justified" by how
> many "means" - a balance of values.
>
> But more importantly, the means and processes are often not so much
> secret, as un-recognised - discounted by too simple SOMist logic - so
> that people are more blind-sided than deliberately kept in the dark by
> anyone. Worse still we accept the blind-siding as the normal process
> of argument and justification - the SOMist meme - the rationalistic
> neurosis, natural hypocrisy.
>
> This latter case is by far the most important in the "whole world as a
> conspiracy involving me" angle that Gav is alluding to. There is no
> "them" here to deliberately keep secrets - but the accepted memes can
> leave us in the dark nevertheless.
>
> All this talk of deliberate ends is a question of teleology - purpose.
> For me teleology is in evolution - it's a natural direction (as
> opposed to end). At the biological level it is in the genes (not in
> the living beings). At the intellectual level it's in the memes (not
> in the hosts brains). These are the much misunderstood selfish genes
> and memes.
>
> Evolution is a natural conspiracy of natural processes. Whether it is
> on our behalf or not we benefit as the (so far) most advanced meme
> machine in our corner of the cosmos - the benefit is to the
> advancement of genes (and now memes). It's as well to remember that we
> are most importantly a collection of memes - the collection of genes
> and flesh and bone (and bacteria) are baggage along for the ride. The
> memes can keep a large part of our conscious intellect in the dark
> (Let them eat SOM, SOMist intellect for the masses).
>
> Fortunately some (Gav among them) are more enlightened, and recognise
> a good meme when they see it. We must not be uninvolved, passive
> bystanders.
>
> Thanks for that opportunity.
> Ian
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
