Causality and Lies
Averting domination by paradigms founded on falsety;
thereby maintaining the rule of Law (specifically that against Use of Trickery)
The focal question is as follows:
is it that lies are symptomatic of mental illness,
is it that mental illness is symptomatic of lies ?
Both of telling and of believing lies upon which actions are based and opinions are formed.
Many people are unable or unwilling to delve into this because it highlights their own assumptive nature and encourages self analysis in which we face that in many cases we are going about things wrong. People do not like to accept they are wrong even when doing so opens the potential to improve the way we do things by consciously choosing to do them right from now on. It requires an adult maturity to analyse oneself from a position of detachment required for such work. We cannot realistically improve the general society and our human condition as a whole unless we do so by improving one individual at a time; the only individual whom it is our deep ability to improve is ourself, this is especially true in given context of the subject matter.
It is normal (to use this word as in 'the accepted recourse of the majority') in todays society to identify that when someone has been labelled as mentally ill, it is therefore more acceptable for that person to lie because it is regarded as a symptom of their mental illness.
I question this assumption and that question is the core principle of this explorative essay. It repeatedly poses itself in my experience of working with: mentally ill people, people who are not mentally ill, people who are mentally ill but hide it sufficiently as to persuade others they are not only sane but an authority, those who are not mentally ill but have been diagnosed as such, often by the sick people who are masquerading as an authority, and people who are questionable and undecided as to the status of their cognitive stability.
There is a cohesion between people of similar mindset falling into the same of these five categories and this cohesion affects the general community acceptance of what is right and what is wrong regarding these matters of opinion. We call these different versions of ethical behavioural response; paradigms.
We can easily see that the mentally ill people masquerading as authorities and re-affirming by unspoken agreement that their own particular paradigm is superior, persuasively affecting the lives and opinions of those around them, of all the categories require more scrutiny and consequentially are subject to more pressure than any other category. Pressure is condusive to mental instability. Such scrutiny is necessary as a safeguard for all members of society.
In laymans terms; those assigned a socially accepted right to label others as mentally stable or unstable are a power base which must not be outside of societies ability to question it. Such positions of authority are the hiding place of abusive individuals and abuse networks for very specific types of psychotic.
Ultimately in most cases a persons behaviour must be analysed over time in a variety of circumstances along with discussions about their thoughts, feelings and instincts; justifications of their behaviours whether it be routine or erratic and discussion about root causes of such behaviours; before it can be truly known which of the categories a person properly belongs. It is of paramount importance that a wide spectrum of perspectives and viewpoints be used for such analysis, because what is right for one person is wrong for another; a belief that one glove fits all in regard to mental health analysis is itself a symptom of a mental disfunction. We have to accept different paradigms exist and develop a flexible ability to switch between them, to avoid totalitarianism.
The purpose of asking the focal question of this essay is to establish a quick and easy functional paradigm by which we all can in practical terms identify the right course of action in any situation where lies, fabrication and manipulation are or might possibly be involved with swaying the outcome of situtaions and peoples opinions about subject matters.
All of this is based on a principle that it is a bad idea to put mentally unstable people in control.
The other, no less important of this question is that to establish a reference point of a functional framework from which to operate with regard approaching mental illness.
If a plant is in the wrong place, cutting off its branches will cause it to grow more branches. The branches are the symptom, not the cause. To remove it, we must dig up its roots. The roots are the cause, not the symptom. Identifying the difference between the root cause and the branching symptoms of any disability or instability is of fundamental importance when treating it.
So, I repeat the core question;
Are lies to be treated as symptomatic of mental illness or as cause of mental illness?
If people believe and act upon lies, does this not mean the falseness has taken hold as the controlling element of a situation which affects other people? Such situation is to be regarded as problematic. We shall explore why that us the case. This is why it is important to establish a solid answer to the question. Strategies must be developed.
Strategy for possibility one - that mental instability causes lies
Strategy for possibility two - that lies cause mental instability
Strategy for possibility three - the potential arisal of grey areas where either both or neither of the above are accurate. This is always case specific. Therefore the strategy developed for dealing with it must also be case specific. There is a diaspora of work to be done in further analysis of this overview.
The following is a real case study example from which information has been drawn pertaining to the thesis.
A policeman attending a junior school to teach child safety on pushbikes, said to the headmaster that the law says children must wear cycle helmets while on their bikes. The headmaster told selected parents about this. One of those parents phoned the police and requested specifically what statute says that children must wear cycle helmets while on their bikes. The police advised the parent that no such law exists, although it is advisory that children wear helmets on pushbikes, which most people agree is common sense.
This situation places the Police as an advisory body into a position where they have contradicted themselves. Three possibilities exist from which specified outcomes arise.
One, the police unknowingly misinformed the headmaster, which means they do not themselves know what the law says and therefore they do not know what they are doing, which means they cannot be trusted. We will call this 'instability causing lies'.
Two, the police knowingly lied to the headmaster, which means despite whether their intent was altruistic or otherwise, they knowingly lie and therefore cannot be trusted. As established above, regardless of position of authority, a known liar cannot be trusted. We will call this 'lies causing instability'.
Three, the police knowingly gave different and contradictory information to different people, for reasons as yet unknown, yet which has a consequence upon society. We will call this 'exploitation' and upon this, we recognise again that the Police cannot be trusted.
In any case it unfortunately results that the Police cannot be trusted.
Whatever your opinion regarding the necessity of the Police might be, we can only go on the facts as given, subjected to logical scrutiny. This is not a personal slant against people doing a difficult job, it is a proper analysis of a real situation which we are using as an example with relation to the subject matter of this essay. It raises the issue of the potential of lies intended as an altruistic form of manipulation (possibility two) rather than as a selfish one (possibility three). This opens up the debate in a new direction although the founding principle remains based on the simple question;
Are lies symptomatic or causative of mental - and here we see this expand into social - instability?
One popular of several attitudes opted by many people assimilating this question is to maintain a paradigm from which no imparted information is to be trusted as fact without sufficient persuasive evidence. This is not the same thing as paranoia although the two things are related; it is intended as a survival response necessary to actively function in a world of manipulative hearsay, wheras paranoia is an inability to function due to either of reality or fantasy. We will call this attitude and its manifest paradigm 'unbelief' to distinguish it from 'disbelief' which is a mental illness wherin reality is denied in favour of fantasy despite actual evidence.
We are collectively building a shared reality experience, in realtime. An astute reader may have identified by now my own personal opinion is that lies can never be a good thing and truth is always preferable. Compared with infinite potential falsehoods, truth is an absolute. As a teacher I encourage you to then question as to whether I am sincere in this, not for my sake but to develop your own cognition and to sharpen your own relationship with truth. It is a simple scientific energy dynamic that we cannot exemplify truth by telling lies. My next question, is a belief that the truth alone is absolute, the same as establishing a totalitarian and superior paradigm?
Copyrite 2015 SnakeAppleTree