Every crisis or conflict seems to generate fuel for certain psychological types to engage in something called apocalyptic thinking. This means that events are interpreted based on a world view which claims the imminent collapse/end of society or a large part of the world, or even the entire world itself. Prophets, religious people, anarchists, everyday common people, many are afflicted with apocalypse need.
Is the source of this need really as simple as a general dislike and suffering of society and culture? When one is unable to value oneself with respect to the society/culture in which he finds himself a psychological displacement occurs causing motive for viewing society and culture as “bad” or “eternally corrupt”, in order to protect one’s possibility for contextual self-valuing in the face of one’s experiences of powerlessness.
On the other side we have continuum need, the pressure to feel that things are stable and nothing can drastically change the society/culture. This is a need to feel safe and secure.
Neither approach is very good at viewing the world or the self impartially. Severe objectivity and tearing pathology from oneself is necessary to obtain clear vision, to philosophize.
Actually it’s just pointing the obvious that things stagnate overtime through the entropic process and eventually break down coming to their demise.
For some like myself whose life has been filled with misfortune, despair, agony, and general suffering such a demise for the world is a desireable release from those afflictions and the beginning of a new world where all things once again becomes possible.
Then you also have those people who just love throwing up the false flags at any opportune moment because you know that at any instance, - something can cause so much confusion and chaos that your chances of hitting the ‘worldly’ jackpot become increased at such an exponential rate that it becomes as easy as ‘picking fruit off the vine’ so to speak.
It is all driven by the perception of hope and threat, PHT.
The mind very strongly senses that to not know of its situation concerning threat is very dangerous. The whole point in having a mind is to assess the situation. Thus an internal threat is sensed when the decision concerning possible threat is unknowable. In such a case, the mind presumes a conclusion based on its effort to greatly magnify all evidence so as to make it all more distinguishable. And even though the evidence was in fact only very, very insignificantly in favor of either hope or threat, it draws a conclusion in order to escape in unacceptable position of not being able to discern a threat.
Once the mind has drawn a conclusion by such a means, it then defends that conclusion else risk falling back into a serious threat. This is the ego-defense mandate of the mind. It is a self-defense against itself. It is much like a government that spent billions of dollars to find out whether a common product was in fact a danger and then upon finding that there was only the least possible evidence leaning either in favor or against the product, it concludes. Then it announces to the public that the situation is now resolved, so everyone can go on about their business and have confidence in the new law. But after making such an announcement, the government must then maintain its stand even in the sight of new evidence, else lose “self-confidence” or “confidence in the government”, both of which constitute an even greater threat than the product was ever proposed to be.
So the issue is merely that a conclusion has been formed in the face of the danger of not knowing what to do. Then in an effort to get done what was concluded to do, the conclusion is defended. It doesn’t matter if the conclusion was in favor of action or in favor of inaction;
…(and this concept is being discussed in the Science forum)
