Since anomie has been brought to the table

[Ian Livingston]

Well, drugs can occasionally work, but there is no excuse for the
prevalence of their prescription, beyond the wealth generated in the
sales and the accompanying dollars from the bond to the doctor
(pusher). If the organism is left untreated and only the symptoms are
allayed, no real benefit accrues. Mental illness is real, but the fad
of profiting from the delusions of people who want very much that
they, or their child be mentally ill rather the product of
maladaptation, that is a trend of the 20th century. I really do not
think mental illness is on the rise, I think instead population is
still on the rise and people suffer from alienation in the vastness of
the crowd. That's not mental illness; that's social illness. Any
attempt to treat that with drugs runs counter to the general good.
Education is the only viable protocol.

I like Keith's idea: anytime a pol comes up with a boner, he gets edited.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we need a moderator, like we have here on the Plist. When someone
> comes up with a really stupid idea (post)
> that idea is simply consigned to oblivion.
>
> "Hey, i think we should attack Ir...DELETE"
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I cannot agree that fiction is an adequately representative
>> sample of human insight upon which to base a generalization to all
>> humanity, and particularly not Nobel literature, which prize is
>> awarded more for prose and overall beauty than the deep study of human
>> psychology, philosophy, and sociology. Literature certainly can shade
>> our interpretations and provide metaphors by which to express the
>> insights derived through study, but it does not substitute for
>> scientific investigation. Anyway, for every Nobel laureate awarded for
>> insights into human violence, there are legion examples of human
>> kindness and succor in the world.
>>
>> I will agree, however, that governments foment violence, because
>> governments represent the potential power of a people concentrated
>> into bodies skewed by avarice, lust, and the desire for personal fame
>> that those thus represented consent to follow. Individuals are more
>> capable of progressing along lines of development than are groups, and
>> when it comes to violence, it is the line of values development that
>> is most influential. If a woman or a man desires something the pursuit
>> of which will do no harm to others, that pursuit may be said to be
>> virtuous, in keeping with the values of what is good for all; if, on
>> the other hand, that person desires something in someone else's house
>> and that person would be harmed by the loss of what the first desires,
>> then the pursuit of that desired object is not virtuous, and runs
>> counter to the value system of what is good. A fight will almost
>> certainly ensue. Governments make those fights big, nasty brawls that
>> kill lots of innocent people and destroy billions of non-human lives
>> in the process. No adequate assessment has even been attempted, for
>> instance, of the impact the massive bombing the US gave SE Asia during
>> the Vietnam War. There really is no way of knowing how many species
>> might have been thus rendered extinct. But, wait, I'm down a rabbit
>> hole. It is not because humans are violent by nature that wars get
>> waged, but because groups of humans progress slowly along
>> developmental lines. We can sit back at our distance and judge the
>> warriors from our personal developmental memes and say oh, what beasts
>> men are, but in so doing we speak only about our values, not about
>> what fed the violence and how to help prevent that from happening
>> again. It seems logical that there are ways to avert
>> government-sponsored violence, and the thought of doing so certainly
>> induces good feeling, but the how of it is a big question. Maybe there
>> could be some test to determine the ability of potential leaders to
>> negotiate changes in values that represent that which is most
>> conducive to goodness for all, or some such utopian plan. If the
>> future is an open book, it behooves us to keep the book open.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Very interesting thread. Thanks Alice. Agreed, we have this violent
>> > streak.
>> > Is it more pronounced in some, or simply less under control? Who decides
>> > what level is socially acceptable? It's a difficult question to answer.
>> > Democracy seemed like the best idea so far, and still does, in many
>> > ways,
>> > but how do we make it work for everyone? Again, difficult. So many
>> > different
>> > cultures, levels of intelligence, moral awareness, belief systems, etc.
>> > So
>> > many different people living in increasingly compressed spaces.
>> >
>> > As far as suicide, we know so much about human psychology, sociology,
>> > but I
>> > still don't think we really completely understand what drives us.
>> >
>> > There's a lot in this thread to think about.
>> >
>> > anomie-"an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and goals and
>> > the
>> > socially structured capacities of the members of the group to act in
>> > accord
>> > with them". How big is the group? Our neighborhood, state, church,
>> > school,
>> > country? Complicated issues.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen
>> > <lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Don't know about your specific type of think tank, but of course
>> >> there's
>> >> Robert K. Merton, one of the most important sociologists of the 20th
>> >> century, who referred to Durkheim's concept of anomie and transfered it
>> >> to
>> >> his theory of deviance (still used in today's criminology) in 1938.
>> >> Merton
>> >> defines anomie as "an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and
>> >> goals
>> >> and the socially structured capacities of the members of the group to
>> >> act in
>> >> accord with them". So there is no continuity between cultural goals and
>> >> the
>> >> required means. At least not when you stay with legitimate and legal
>> >> means.
>> >> So some - think Pacino in Scarface - become criminals to fulfill their
>> >> American Dream --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 07.01.2012 16:35, Paul Mackin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>> The staff sociologist at the think tank i was at used to use the word
>> >>> to
>> >>> described the psychological state of workers brought about by the
>> >>> meaninglessness of industrial work.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lack of rule was extended to mean lack of meaning.
>> >>>
>> >>> He quoted Durkheim sometimes.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > www.innergroovemusic.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
>> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
>> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
>> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.innergroovemusic.com



-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant