Being or Having: The Pathology of Normalcy

TimeLine

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me.

The homo consumens culture, that dynamic ideology where everything becomes an object for consumption including yourself, has symbolically become a cure for our alienation. The narcissistic and selfish qualities inherent to those that believe in this ideology peculiarly stems from a type of hatred for themselves or quiet desperation, an insecurity and lack of self-esteem.

Unconsciously, this new type of person is a passive, empty, anxious, isolated person for whom life has no meaning and who is profoundly alienated and bored. — Erich Fromm

Consciously, however, they are not bored neither isolated considering the vast social options that enables a network of communication to help compensate for the subjective feeling of alienation and anxiety. If you dress a certain way, have a lot of likes on your Instagram photo, speak and behave in a manner that is pleasant, while pretending to individuality they have 'sold' themselves in and amongst the hundreds of millions of others doing the exact same thing. This requires constancy, a continuity that forces the person' existential experiences to remain static, superficial and without substance. Such a person is vain.

One is therefore replicated in this machine, an empty object because in the mind of the masses, if one does what everyone else is doing, simultaneously everyone is cured from this isolation; there is a symbolic unity. What that means is that we have a feeling of anxiety or depression that is unconscious, and this feeling is an emptiness or a void that we attempt to fill, adding things symbolically into it in an attempt to fill it and so cure this alienation.

This is an illness. It is a symptom of the pathology of normalcy.

So, as an example, if we assume that a 'normal' family is a man and a woman with 2.5 children in a suburban home with a picket fence, if we experience a divorce then perceptually we become 'abnormal' because we are different. We usually understand an illness when one is obviously 'more' sick; if someone has a cold or flu and is bed ridden, they are obviously more sick than a healthy person. Epistemically, our understanding or language is formed through contrast, but when everyone has the same symptoms of this social disease?

The mode of being, or the being mode of existence is a productive relatedness in human experience, a realisation of the potentialities inherent within and to communicate that through action. The having mode of existence manifests itself through a destructiveness to this inherent qualities within and compensates the boredom and absence of an inner life through the continuity of consumerism.

What do you think of the following quote?

Instead of being related, being in touch with love, with hate, with fear, with doubt, with all of the basic experiences of man, we all are rather detached. We are related to an abstraction, that is to say we are not related at all. We live in a vacuum and fill the vacuum, fill the gap with words, with abstract signs of values...

The reason for this is the ambiguous character of our social reality. In mastering this reality, we develop our faculties of observation, intelligence, and reason; but we are also stultified by incessant propaganda, threats, ideologies, and cultural 'noise' that paralyze some of our most precious intellectual and moral functions.

Pseudonym

↪TimeLine

Sounds like the whining of someone with some agenda they're too scared to lay out so they hide it behind a lot of flowery obfuscation.

Yes, there's something very wrong with society nowadays, I think anyone with any sense can see that, and blaming "incessant propaganda, threats, ideologies, and cultural 'noise'" isn't going to ruffle any feathers is it? Who thinks propaganda is a good thing?

The problem is, behind all this vague hand-waiving, there will be some specific agenda, only loosely tied to the very real issues with society. Inevitably such agendas stem from nothing but personal bias, and lead to nothing but idolatry.

If there's something wrong with society (and I'm certain there is), the solution will be in real changes people make to their actual day-to-day life, changes which can be demonstrated by at least some logical theory, to actually work. It won't come from some ambiguous prose.

TimeLine

↪Pseudonym

Indeed, but there is a reason for that, which I quoted from Erich Fromm' work based on a Buddhist mantra that attempts to articulate that there is a genuine, reciprocal unity between the self and the external world, and a pseudo-unity based on an emptiness or alienation glued together by consumerism. Being in the world is this ontological relationship between our identity extended into and becoming present spatially or dasein.

We need conceptual parallels to magnify our own personal story without unconsciously blocking this potential articulation with self-defence mechanisms. The ambiguity of the prose - just like the ambiguity of the parable that attempts to teach one about morality through a story without actually codifying it specifically - is intended to enable us to subjectively reflect and contrast so that we can actually understand why we feel a certain way.

Only then can we be enabled with the right solutions to make real changes. As mentioned, a person could consciously enjoy the consumerism, have a perfect life, partner, family and everything could be great, but they are deeply miserable and are unable to ascertain why. They instead opt for psychological placebos such as new ageism and mindfulness to try and accept the happiness of the situation, despite the fact that they are crying out through their feelings. To be able to make real changes, one really needs to understand and confront why their actual day-to-day life is bad.

This is the precise problem.

Pseudonym

there is a genuine, reciprocal unity between the self and the external world, and a pseudo-unity based on an emptiness or alienation glued together by consumerism. — TimeLine

I agree, but I don't think anyone particularly wouldn't. The point is this kind of sentiment still leaves open the real question which is how we actually identify the genuine unity. In my experience most people agree that there's something fake about consumer culture and something missing from those that persue it. The trouble is, almost everyone disagrees about what those things actually are.

They instead opt for psychological placebos such as new ageism and mindfulness to try and accept the happiness of the situation, despite the fact that they are crying out through their feelings. — TimeLine

Again, one person's new age mumbo-jumbo is another person's deeply held spiritual belief system. How are we to tell the difference?

I think that authenticity is essential to the sucess of any venture in personal fulfillment, but that too is so difficult to measure.

foo

b

As mentioned, a person could consciously enjoy the consumerism, have a perfect life, partner, family and everything could be great, but they are deeply miserable and are unable to ascertain why. — TimeLine

Respectfully, this is risky territory. How is one consciously enjoying a consumerist life, for instance, and yet deeply miserable? A misery that never becomes conscious is hardly a problem.

On the other hand, I understand that someone can have it all on paper and yet be miserable. But this is real or conscious misery. If they truly have it all on paper, then it will probably be called 'depression.' Of course we don't really have it all if we don't have ourselves in a state that enjoys.

What comes to my mind reading your post is the image of an ambitious person who dutifully gathers what one supposedly gathers to be successful/happy -- and yet is not happy. I'm sure that happens, and it's a good theme. A person can be envied and hang themselves, quietly desperate. Or a person can be looked down on and yet be happier than those who look down on him.

Agustino

Only then can we be enabled with the right solutions to make real changes. As mentioned, a person could consciously enjoy the consumerism, have a perfect life, partner, family and everything could be great, but they are deeply miserable and are unable to ascertain why. — TimeLine

No. This is outright BS. The only reason why consumerism is bad is because it leaves you vulnerable to the loss of the pleasure of consuming, through your susceptibility to loss of health, loss of money, loss of friends, loss of social status, etc. If it didn't leave you vulnerable to those things, or if you could be invulnerable to them, then it wouldn't be bad. But life is so structured, that suffering is an intrinsic aspect of it, and consumerism doesn't help to minimise it.

You seem to try to get Buddhism on your side, but it's actually quite the opposite I believe. I'm not sure how deep your understanding of metaphysics is, but metaphysics is certainly relevant here. You never usually engage in discussions of metaphysics here though.

There is no "hidden" despair as such, because there is nothing to do in life. One is free to either do or not do.

TimeLine

No. This is outright BS. The only reason why consumerism is bad is because it leaves you vulnerable to the loss of the pleasure of consuming, through your susceptibility to loss of health, loss of money, loss of friends, loss of social status, etc. If it didn't leave you vulnerable to those things, or if you could be invulnerable to them, then it wouldn't be bad. But life is so structured, that suffering is an intrinsic aspect of it. — Agustino

When you look at the saying I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me, the rose itself is no longer an object because there is a genuine reciprocal unity. Ultimately, how we identify and perceive the external world and our relatedness to it is determined by the quality of our mental state. Aside from functional requirements, consumerism teaches us to acquire and own objects where we begin to transform and identify the external world as a thing, including values and ideals. A rose is just a thing, a disposable object. Our relationship with others is devoured by a sense of ownership and entitlement, where people market archetypes in order to be advantageously positioned in society thereby making themselves and their own feelings property.

This is the mode of having. It is kind of orientation or relationship between you and the external world, not actual commodities, and a totality in your perceptions and thinking and thus an actual mode of existence. While there is harmony in this social dynamism, the continuity of this acquisition is constant and as such the very essence itself is nothingness since there is no satisfaction. This mode of having is nothing, empty. The mode of being, on the contrary, is to be creative, to be capable of expressing ourselves and find that genuine relatedness to others. This is impossible if our relatedness to others has no substance, is not rooted with feeling but rather viewing others as merely objects that one can acquire and dispose of.

Agustino

When you look at the saying I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me, the rose itself is no longer an object because there is a genuine reciprocal unity. — TimeLine

A beautifully worded statement, but just because it's beautiful doesn't mean it's true. In what sense does the rose "see me"?

This is impossible if our relatedness to others has no substance, is not rooted with feeling but rather viewing others as merely objects that one can acquire and dispose of. — TimeLine

I don't see how consumerism implies that you treat others as objects. The world is as much a forum for action, as it is a place for things. The rose is a thing - how I relate to that thing is a different question from what the rose is.

TimeLine

Respectfully, this is risky territory. How is one consciously enjoying a consumerist life, for instance, and yet deeply miserable? A misery that never becomes conscious is hardly a problem. — foo

This is a good question, Foo, and I have mentioned this in another thread, whereby we have conscious thoughts, learned behaviour taught to us since childhood, the language we acquire and the social requisites that enforce behavioural expectations. Our unconscious, however, is our own personal identity, separate and contains intuitive feelings that we are unable to articulate using language. Have you ever encountered a situation where you felt like something was wrong, but could not put words to explain why you felt that way, perhaps until sometime later? Anxiety and depression is the language of this unconscious feeling telling you that something is wrong, for instance, but that you are unable to understand or explain why you feel that way.

So, consciously, you are told that getting married to a trophy wife, working in a secure job, having two kids and living in the suburbs will bring you happiness. You do what you are told. You find that attractive wife, but she is mindless, you cannot have great conversations with her or laugh with her about similar jokes, but you think she is right for you because she epitomises what you are told to find attractive. You are silently suffering because you are blindly following, but you cannot articulate why because there is a totality in your conscious thoughts as dictated by your environment that you actually think that you are supposed to be happy because that is what you are told will bring you happiness. .

We are told that selling ourselves as objects - to be attractive, powerful, wealthy - is the requisite for this success, that we feel accomplished when we post a photo on Instagram and get likes for it despite the fact that it is completely meaningless. The more likes, the more worthy the object. There is an inherent emptiness in this, a lack of relatedness, or substance that despite the fact that we are dynamic, active, energetic and doing things, all of it is really nothing.

The congratulations that we receive from others who are also experiencing the symptoms of this pathology satisfy us consciously because we think there is some unity in this approval, but deep within we understand the self-deceit or the sacrifice to our own self-hood, but we simply cannot articulate it.

unenlightened

The more likes, the more worthy the object. There is an inherent emptiness in this, a lack of relatedness, or substance that despite the fact that we are dynamic, active, energetic and doing things, all of it is really nothing. — TimeLine

How are these likes different from the rose's looking at you?

I understand the contrast between the mutuality of relationship and the one way relationship of possession, but to the extent that one sells oneself and buys a trophy husband, at least the semblance of mutuality is restored. Can you articulate why it is only the semblance and thus unsatisfying?

Hanover

↪TimeLine

And so respond to your question. What is it that is of real value if not the acquisition of things and fitting perfectly in to societal expectations. If others don't determine your value, and if your proof of self-worth isn't proved by tangible wealth and success, then what is the answer?

Isn't yours the question that drives people to church every Sunday? https://youtu.be/UNcu6g7sXPs

T Clark

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me.

The homo consumens culture, that dynamic ideology where everything becomes an object for consumption including yourself, has symbolically become a cure for our alienation. The narcissistic and selfish qualities inherent to those that believe in this ideology peculiarly stems from a type of hatred for themselves or quiet desperation, an insecurity and lack of self-esteem. — TimeLine

The theme of the impact of consumerism and related ways of life on human culture and morality is one you've discussed quite a few times on the forum. You and I have different ways of thinking about the issue. The idea that people generally live lives of quiet desperation does not match what I see in the world. I acknowledge the damage that looking outside ourselves for answers to questions that can only be answered by looking inward can lead to, but I don't put a moral dimension on it.

I don't remember you discussing this with the added metaphysical dimension before. Maybe you did and I missed it. When I first read the rose quote, I couldn't see what connection it had to the issue. What came to mind was the objectivity/ subjectivity dichotomy, but I didn't see what that had to do with consumerism. Later, as I read the rest of the posts in the discussion, it made sense. I've always thought that the ways of thinking that manifest as consumerism are related to a reductionism which leads us to think of ourselves as separate from the world. I think that is traceable all the way back to the enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Consumerism and science both evolved from a particular metaphysical view of reality.

Doesn't that undermine the moral argument against living an inauthentic life dependent on the opinions of others? How can you hold someone responsible for living out the way of life overwhelmingly promoted by western, and increasingly world, culture. That way of thinking has given us the social and technological world we live in now. It's too late to go back, and I don't think you are suggesting that. I don't have a solution, but the phrase that comes to mind when I think about it is "the only way out is through." There is no way of going back, so how can our culture evolve into something more humane.

Cavacava

↪Hanover

Fromm stated in "Marx's Concept of Man" 1961:

The more man transfers his own powers to the idols, the poorer he himself becomes, and the more dependent on the idols, so that they permit him to redeem a small part of what was originally his. The idols can be a godlike figure, the state, the church, a person, possessions. Idolatry changes its objects; it is by no means to be found only in those forms in which the idol has a so called religious meaning. Idolatry is always the worship of something into which man has put his own creative powers, and to which he now submits, instead of experiencing himself in his creative act.

"...what was originally his" was the unity of existence and essence, which alienation has torn apart. Fromm goes on to state:

For Marx, as for Hegel, the concept of alienation is based on the distinction between existence and essence, on the fact that man's existence is alienated from his essence, that in reality he is not what he potentially is, or, to put it differently, that he is not what he ought to be, and that he ought to be that which he could be.

unenlightened

↪Cavacava

You answer for me, and better than me.

"Ask not what the rose can do for you, ask what you can do for the rose."

Feeding, weeding, pruning, debugging the rose, one has a relationship of care that is entirely different from the performing cut roses available to buy.

Rich

As I always try to stay as concrete as possible, this is what has worked for me:

1) Moderation
2) Engagement
3) Being who I am and not expecting too much of myself
4) Patience
5) Understanding what relationships and friendships means to me
5) Viewing life as a learning experience to express my creativity
6) Developing all aspects of myself: spiritual, emotional, mental, physical
7) Creating a philosophy of life that is practical and useful as a guide

None of this was handed to me and there are no simple solutions. A sailor sets his/her sights and navigates always prepared to change direction and fully aware that while there will be many surprises the navigator has skills and choices that participate in the journey. Life then becomes meaningful no matter what the circumstances may be.

Hanover

↪Cavacava

But none of this is true. It's just some guy saying it. People do in fact feel a sense of meaning by relying upon a higher power, even if that defies a fundamental tenant of Marxist thought. I haven't found Marxists to be the most joyful of folks.

Hanover

↪unenlightened

Of course, but why speak of roses, when truly it is the giving to another person that provides the greatest rewards? Are we just not restating the Golden Rule?

Cavacava

↪Hanover

I haven't found Marxists to be the most joyful of folks.

I think there is a big difference between Marx's social/critical theory and vulgar Marxism as practiced ideology.

praxis

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me. — TimeLine

In a word, anthropomorphic. Maybe on a deeper level, that we appreciate the rose for its beauty and meaning rather than its rational value.

Hanover

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me. — TimeLine

Sounds to me like you're waxing poetic as you gaze into that bouquet you got from your sweetheart on Valentine's Day. Awww.

unenlightened

↪unenlightened Of course, but why speak of roses, when truly it is the giving to another person that provides the greatest rewards? Are we just not restating the Golden Rule? — Hanover

Well I likened roses to the Nation - why speak of the Nation? Patriotism is a vestige of another kind of relation to the world. People are difficult, much harder to relate to than roses.

Hanover

↪Cavacava

Point me in the direction of an authentic Marx practitioner.

At any rate, without making general attacks, I do believe my objection is valid, which is that religious practitioners do find meaning from their practice despite the various Marxist objections you raised, including that acceptance of a higher power is an abdication of one's free will or humanity.

Cavacava

↪Hanover

Try Eric Fromm.

The connection between idolatry and alienation is based on the Old Testament. Fromm is not fighting against God as a religiously meaningful symbol for some, but rather he is fighting against religion as an empty place marker, as a golden calf.

TimeLine

A beautifully worded statement, but just because it's beautiful doesn't mean it's true. In what sense does the rose "see me"? — Agustino

Projection. In the end, the representations we make of objects in the world is a projection that determines the quality of our own mental state.

I don't see how consumerism implies that you treat others as objects. The world is as much a forum for action, as it is a place for things. The rose is a thing - how I relate to that thing is a different question from what the rose is. — Agustino

This is a good point and one I am attempting to ascertain in order to find the necessary psychological conditions that enable transcendence, the fundamental mistakes we make that mediate the wrong perceptual attitude. This dichotomy between the thing in itself and things as they appear to us. We learn from others to perceive that a rose is just a rose and like all other objects, it is disposable and the relation we have with it lacks meaning or feeling and one is alienated and void of any emotional connection. The analogy of consumerism is that society is that machine, this buy and sell, commodity demand and marketing in a social and political system that becomes embedded in our representations that our values themselves become aligned with it.

Our value depends on the success of how well we sell ourselves. It is no longer about the quality of our experiences, but whether our experiences are approved. The mode of having.

TimeLine

How are these likes different from the rose's looking at you?

I understand the contrast between the mutuality of relationship and the one way relationship of possession, but to the extent that one sells oneself and buys a trophy husband, at least the semblance of mutuality is restored. Can you articulate why it is only the semblance and thus unsatisfying? — unenlightened

Kant is unable to give any real explanation of how schema is connected to categories or the conceptual rules that adequately determine this cognitive orientation and since it is the structure of our mental state that is in question as it is reason or our rational faculty that regulates our observations, how we productively associate with the external world is the primary determinant of this relationship. The problem is not the fact that one would want a family and home, but a trophy wife or husband is a form of consumption where one is passively oriented like a commodity without any inner activity.

For instance, being creative is an active orientation that in contrast alleviates boredom, while on the flip-side can also be compensated with destructiveness as an activity or action. What I am attempting to illustrate is this being mode of existence, our capacity to give and to be a part of the world - rather than to take - and our capacity to love, to feel a connection even to simple things like a rose. It is how we project our understanding and has nothing to do with the rose.

TimeLine

And so respond to your question. What is it that is of real value if not the acquisition of things and fitting perfectly in to societal expectations. If others don't determine your value, and if your proof of self-worth isn't proved by tangible wealth and success, then what is the answer? — Hanover

Productive self-experience. The framework that determines our value through others is paradoxically narcissistic, despite a reliance on others, because there is an absence of an active orientation towards being.

Many ideologies are formulated on the same tangible proof that enables mobilisation through this essentially faux suggestion of self-worth.

Sounds to me like you're waxing poetic as you gaze into that bouquet you got from your sweetheart on Valentine's Day. Awww. — Hanover

Be careful. This is not the shoutbox so I would appreciate you responding appropriately or not responding at all.

Agustino

Projection. In the end, the representations we make of objects in the world is a projection that determines the quality of our own mental state. — TimeLine

That is not the rose seeing me, but rather I seeing myself in the rose, through the way I choose to relate to it.

This dichotomy between the thing in itself and things as they appear to us. — TimeLine

The thing-in-itself is not accessible.

Our value depends on the success of how well we sell ourselves. It is no longer about the quality of our experiences, but whether our experiences are approved. The mode of having. — TimeLine

No, that's not true. Some people's value depends on that, because they let it depend on that, since they want the good things in life, but are not aware of Epictetus' dichotomy of control. Some things are in our power, and some things are not. Their mistake isn't with regards to the preferred indifferents - they are preferred for everyone. Their mistake is with regards to the fact that they cannot wield control over success, if that is defined by having your experiences approved. So in choosing to place your value in that, you give up control to others, and hence are vulnerable to be disappointed.

TimeLine

↪Cavacava

↪unenlightened

Exactly, but in this instance think of Foucault and his concept of discourse:

"What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn't only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression"

Society is not empty, it is dynamic and compelling otherwise why else would highly intelligent people be swept away by the tide and very powerful people lack self-esteem. Consumerism enables us to be convinced that we need it, and that without it there is no meaning to our existence and the sensory stimuli that it evokes, the category it places you in that determines your worth, is powerful.

The answer is in our creative pursuits, how we challenge and defy this system by a mode of being rather than a mode of having or of acquisition, the acquisition of values conducive to the paralysis of our own self-worth.

TimeLine

The thing-in-itself is not accessible. — Agustino

I can't accept this.

That is not the rose seeing me, but rather I seeing myself in the rose, through the way I choose to relate to it. — Agustino

Exactly. Ask not what the rose can do for you, ask what you can do for the rose.

In a word, anthropomorphic. Maybe on a deeper level, that we appreciate the rose for its beauty and meaning rather than its rational value. — praxis

The value here is still projected, but we value the rose for something more than just an object; being rational is actually the regulator and therefore how we understand beauty and meaning is dependent on the clarity of our rational faculties. Our moral values and consciousness determines our ability to give love.

I read recently that a couple adopted a child from Thailand and the mother had twins, but they took only one child and never looked back neither did they help the family. To them, adoption was an image, they did not actually care about the child clearly by not caring about the family of the child, they just wanted a token adopted child for social reasons rather than moral.

Agustino

I can't accept this. — TimeLine

It's not about what you can accept. You can't just pull out a term out of Kant's philosophy and completely misunderstand it. The nature of the transcendental aesthetic precludes whatever is empirically real from ever giving us access to things-in-themselves. To claim otherwise is just to misunderstand Kant's metaphysics.

TimeLine

It's not about what you can accept. You can't just pull out a term out of Kant's philosophy and completely misunderstand it. The nature of the transcendental aesthetic precludes whatever is empirically real from ever giving us access to things-in-themselves. To claim otherwise is just to misunderstand Kant's metaphysics. — Agustino

I didn't pull it out, you did and you are the one misunderstanding it.

Being or Having: The Pathology of Normalcy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories