Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Nefastos »

Recently there has been quite a lot of talk about conspiracy theories. Like some of our forum readers might have noticed, I am not a big fan of those.

The reason is not that there would not be any kind of truth in them (in perhaps almost single world view, religion & ideology there is some important aspectual truth present), but because at their core is a mindset that is diametrically opposite to the fundamental credo of the Star of Azazel... which I just mentioned. That in every possible ideology there is some important aspectual truth presented.

This means that there is no one group that is always on the side of good, or evil. We can blame no one separated entity: neither Satan, reptilians, nor any other single party should receive the blame of our world's common problems. Things are much more complicated than that, and much of our problems come from our own shortcomings. Conspiracy theories are problematic because of the same reason than fanatical religions: they want to underline the division between the polarities, underline differences, see some group as evil incarnate and other people as victims. Never is the truth so simple. A good starting point from placing the blame is Dostoevsky's "we all are guilty."

But this said, there are many almost symptomatic points of wisdom in many conspiracy theories. They are usually veiled and symbolic, but they are there. If those ideas could be stated simply as world views, without taking any stance whether they are good or evil in themselves, there might be found several thought-provoking ideas in those ideologies.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Soror O
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Soror O »

Nefastos wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:33 pm
A good starting point from placing the blame is Dostoevsky's "we all are guilty."
Oh yes.

I think that conspiracy theories orginate from the collective shadow. They are the collective shadow, reactively magnified. The more open and truthful a society is, the less there is need for any conspiracy theories. Openness and truthfulness are not lukewarm (there it is, the lukewarm, once again) practices - rather they are radical and fiery - even explosive (even more so, if the current of truthfulness has been blocked for a long time - due to ignorance or use of force). I don't want to ridicule these theories, nor I want to believe in them. I want to witness the aspect of truth within them, and then let the surplus stuff evaporate on its own.

Conspiracy theories highlight the fact that social (and societal) reality is - for now - divided. Things such as organized ritual abuse fall into category of conspiracy theories to others. To others such things are every day realities. The truth is far more strange than best fiction, in my opinion.

As long as there is a group that claims to have it figured out more that others have, there will be opposition and the dualistic dance goes on and on. This is not to say that any opinion for example in particular argument is "as good as any other" - rather, any opinion and view is a one angle on this multi-faceted ornament called humanity.
If you want to reborn, let yourself die.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Wyrmfang »

First a terminological point. Sometimes it is argued that some "conspiracy theories" actually prove to be true, and on this basis it could be argued that there is revolutionary though controversial potential in "conspiracy theories". However, a conspiracy theory, in the proper sense of the word, is not only an unlikely but possible proper theory (such as the existence of giant squids, which was long refuted by the majority of scientific community), but it is a theory against which there is an enormous amount of facts and which often proves also to be self-defeating in a closer analysis.

That said, well, I find it hard to find anything good in conspiracy. I can subscribe to something like this:
Nefastos wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:33 pm They are usually veiled and symbolic, but they are there. If those ideas could be stated simply as world views, without taking any stance whether they are good or evil in themselves, there might be found several thought-provoking ideas in those ideologies.
But then again, these virtues could be found in purer form elsewhere. So it is not to say that conspiracy theories are "absolutely evil" but I can´t find anything good from them that would be made possible precisely by them being conspiracy theories.

However, some constructive use can be found. I think conspiracy theories embody many negative characteristics that often accompany esotericism: the refutation of scientific legitimation, arrogance towards "the masses" and that which is "mainstream", a mindset that easily becomes paranoid (sometimes in the clinical sense of the term), conceiving free and bold that which is actually ready-made and intellectually dull, political illiteracy, social sectarianism etc. By analyzing how the logic of conspiracy theories works and what is appealing in them, I believe, we could find means to trace negative traits in esotericism and that way develop it better.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Nefastos »

Ave wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:36 pmThe more open and truthful a society is, the less there is need for any conspiracy theories.

I agree, and would add one extra point: the Foucaltian power struggle starts to seem shadier (for a good reason!) the farther away from an individual that power is. When power is so far that one one has zero possibility to communicate with it, it becomes sinister for a very good reason.

I have always been a fan of Laozi's idea of very small states. I believe that people can only be managed happily when we live in polises (city-states) whose citizens are not counted in millions but in thousands or hundreds. These smaller states can then be considered as units which form larger structures and so on, "as above, so below," but every sphere of being should also be an integrated whole. Because it is nowadays very very far from being an integrated whole, a disintegration follows. Then what there remains are these sinister, shadowy figures which seem to hold all the power behind the scenes. It is very understandable idea, although I am personally convicted that it is also false: those seeming puppet-masters are puppets themselves, and the great human tragedy is that no one really controls this chaos.

And now when "state" has been mentioned, I must underline that this approach is not a political one, since such groups could well be adapted to any kind of a government structure, from empires to anarchy, and all between. It is just an idea of measuring integrity into units which can be understood on the level of their comprising individuals.

I might have mentioned already in the Alchemy thread, but to my joy, writers of the Pattern Language had exactly the same idea. It is just impossible to be fair and perceptive when masses accumulate above certain level. God is in the details, after all.

Wyrmfang wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:54 pmBut then again, these virtues could be found in purer form elsewhere.(...) By analyzing how the logic of conspiracy theories works and what is appealing in them, I believe, we could find means to trace negative traits in esotericism and that way develop it better.

I agree, but remain a bit pessimistic. The reason why conspiracy theories seem more vivid and interesting to many people, as compared to esotericism, is that they are not as intellectual, but appeal also to the collective & subconscious base instincts. And thus it will help very little to purify & purity the esoteric presentation, taking much resources to a minor field of helping: to those intelligent individuals who would be willing to listen to us but for have not yet seen through the fog which is bound to surround the esoteric philosophy to some extent. I think esoteric philosophy is pretty well presented already, to anyone who is actually willing to consider it. The larger problem is that people are more willing to just take the easiest route.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Wyrmfang »

Nefastos wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:59 pm
Wyrmfang wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:54 pmBut then again, these virtues could be found in purer form elsewhere.(...) By analyzing how the logic of conspiracy theories works and what is appealing in them, I believe, we could find means to trace negative traits in esotericism and that way develop it better.

I agree, but remain a bit pessimistic. The reason why conspiracy theories seem more vivid and interesting to many people, as compared to esotericism, is that they are not as intellectual, but appeal also to the collective & subconscious base instincts. And thus it will help very little to purify & purity the esoteric presentation, taking much resources to a minor field of helping: to those intelligent individuals who would be willing to listen to us but for have not yet seen through the fog which is bound to surround the esoteric philosophy to some extent. I think esoteric philosophy is pretty well presented already, to anyone who is actually willing to consider it. The larger problem is that people are more willing to just take the easiest route.
Understood this way, I completely share this pessimism. Many people (including myself for a large part at the age of 17) are drawn to esotericism precisely by those characteristics in it that I conceive as problematic or outright negative. If the only mission was to make esotericism as appealing as possible, the best solution would probably be to enhance the characteristics common with conspiracy theories.

The use of the analysis of conspiracy theories is rather (1) intrapsychic critique, (2) critique within an esoteric community, (3) critique between esoteric communities/individuals. In this order of significance. In my view, esotericism has not been able to respond properly to the scientific, philosophical and societal changes of the 20th century. I don´t even think a system of esoteric philosophy is plausible anymore, but there many interesting threads to follow and develop to the extend that esotericism is still living and legitimate as a mode of thought.
User avatar
Soror O
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Soror O »

Wyrmfang wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:54 pm but it is a theory against which there is an enormous amount of facts
Firstly, outside the context of math, a fact is partly a social construct. Even in “hard” science observations are theory laden – and more over: physically affected by the observer. This constructive (cultural and historical) nature of facts doesn’t make them “false” – rather we are (assuming we are applying the scientific approach to existence) forced to dig in to the process of fact production and fact accumulation. This process is cultural and natural, subjective and objective – and these counterparts doesn’t have to exclude each other. Rather, they should be seen hermeneutically conjoined. Mechanical, Newtonian mindset saw the observer and the object ontologically separated, quantum mind sees it quite differently (and the same, hahahha).

The contributions of science are undeniable. But to think that the scientific method is in itself a holy constant which can keep itself intact even though the cosmos around and within it is constantly changing, is not science to me. Scientific mind observers the observer as much it observes the object. Because one cannot truly know the object without knowing the observer.
Wyrmfang wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:54 pm First a terminological point (...) it is a theory against which there is an enormous amount of facts and which often proves also to be self-defeating in a closer analysis.
However, I find that the concept conspiracy theory is widely used signifying thoughts and theories that are challenging “the official” , the established truth. Such conspiracy theories are for example:

The Kennedy murder being an inside job
The 9/11th being an inside job
The officials hiding proof of extra terrestrial intelligence

So when you speak of "enormous amount of facts", are you confident that the proof and facts regarding things such political assasinations and extra terrestrial phenomena are objectively processed - and then made publically available? Of course the missing evidence doesn't prove x did occur, or did not occur, but I just want to pinpoint that not every occurence gets to accumulate proof because of they are, from the start, made "non existent". This works also the other way around:
We don't have hard base, cumulative evidence that we are all human beings - is a rough, sentimental assumption we collectively share as a fact (because it just seems convenient) :>

Being aware of history of humans, I don't see the contemporary human being so virtuous that he would not play partly as naughty as his predecessors did. Assasinations, false flags, manipulation of the masses were, and are, all well established play tools in politics.

An example of "well meaning"(?) manipulation of the masses would be:

There is a cricis x. The covernment takes actions y and z to overcome the crisis. Media supports the government. The crisis passes, the masses assume that there is a hard base relation between the actions y and z and the passing of the crisis. The establishment gains more power and legitimity. In reality, there were uncountable variables that were behind the outbreak of the crisis and behind the passing of the crisis. However, humans like the feel of being in control, more than anything. That's why they did not take into account of those myriad variables, as they seem to be out of reach, unknown - and therefore non-existent.

Leonard Cohen sang relatably:

"You who must leave everything that you cannot control.
It begins with your family
but soon it comes around to your soul."


What is said above doesn't by any means mean that I'm against the Finnish government and their actions in the covid case. God forbid me to be against anything, and I'm trying my best.
If you want to reborn, let yourself die.
Kavi
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:52 pm

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Kavi »

The way I see it, is that world is full of conspiracies but it would be foolish to claim to speaking with authority about them.
For me conspiracy thinking and paranoia have this absolute certainty about logic how world operates and every claim that is seen as false is because of the conspiracy. "Of course they'd say it like that because.."
Mostly life is a mess and chaotic things happen, the one who claims to find certainty and pattern from that chaos is very hard to convinced about things otherwise. (yet theories are formed from here too, so I don't completely reject the idea)

Some things of course are relatively easy to explain in cynical way, like CIA is working undercover to raise revolt and disorder because it serves national or agency's own interest, but starting to see people's behavior and changes as covert operations is really where things seem excessive.
Theory, at least in scientific research, which has limited capacity to explain things or phenomena is much more potent while theory that explains everything, ending in circular reasoning is really nothing and is very weak.
In politics people die because they step in line of someone's interests, but it doesn't always happen like blueprint. Sometimes nothing happens.

Yet in someone's mind it is logically consistent and they are reasoning everything on their place, the original skepticism turns into blind faith in my opinion.
Sometimes it's rather pathological too which doesn't leave any place for contingency.. Maybe emergents too, although I know that concept rather poorly...

Maybe I have too strict notion about this but because I know how delusional some people might become about radio playing songs about them or sending messages and how hard it is even to refute any of that, it's impossible especially because if having enough broad and vast perception, everything will fall in line and pieces will find its right place. This kind of tyrannical logic has no place for random events.
So it's personal opinion, and of course there are mechanisms that I don't deny, artillery strikes of Mainila peoples or institutions own interests and secrecy exists but all the what ifs coming from individuals without systematism feel bit annoying to me. "But the system and institutions and other people might be in conspiracy too..."

Biggest antagonism and pride might be - what if I am right and they are wrong? If I possess the truth and rest are just ignorant and in sleep? Wake up!
The legitimatiation process of theory is skipped because there is no trust in that because the conspiracy might be so vast.
Someone mentioned the openness of culture and I think that's one thing for sure.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Wyrmfang »

Ave wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:56 pm However, I find that the concept conspiracy theory is widely used signifying thoughts and theories that are challenging “the official” , the established truth.
Apologies if I seem rude, but I have little time right now and I don´t see a need revise my earlier post. I also think this topic does not require a very philosophical approach but is more about what conspiracy theories do in practice. So, just a few short comments.

Social construction means a lot of things in different contexts, but very rarely that something can be decided at will. A good example is math. It is also socially constructed. Show Western school math to African children and they understand very little about it even if they might be able to do the same and even far more complex calculations with different symbolic system. Even if there was a culture with no concept of a wall, the wall is physically the same and they cannot walk through it.

The 20th century quantum and relativity turn does not change how things work in practice. There is no philosophical consensus how to think about quantum indeterminacy (or is it actually indeterminate, or what determinacy/indeterminate means in first place), but quite certainly it does not make the macro level we see and experience (among them the facts in different sciences) any more indeterminate than it was before the quantum turn. Quantum physics is actually quite a lot about mathematical abstract models - even many physicists who are not that philosophical confuse this with philosophical questions about the macro level world.

There is no "the scientific method", and hard sciences is a problematic expression, because it suggests a hierarchy of sciences - something which exists only within certain philosophical presuppositions which are actually dubious. Different sciences have different methods, and they all produce different kinds of facts. Science is not monolithical, it is just an institutional systematization of people exploring things and criticizing earlier exploration, which during time produces stonger and stronger knowledge of those things that are within the reach of sciences.

Facts are never about 100% certainty, but conspiracy theories suggest "alternative facts" which are at least something like 99,99% unlikely to be true. Consequently, a conspiracy theory cannot be distinguished with 100% certainty from a mere very unlikely theory. The concept of conspiracy theory is also sometimes used too lightly, as you mentioned in what I quoted. However, the pejorative concept is valid, I think, for social reasons, which I already took up in the earlier message. They make the appearance of critical thinking by contrasting "alternative" with "established" and "individual" with "masses", but in fact the intellectual resources are solely used to justify something and ignore everything that goes against it (that is, almost everything).
User avatar
Soror O
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Soror O »

Wyrmfang wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:53 pm Apologies if I seem rude, but I have little time right now and I don´t see a need revise my earlier post. I also think this topic does not require a very philosophical approach but is more about what conspiracy theories do in practice.
No worries, I find diffence of though intriguing. It is true that conspiracy theories ought to be examined also in the context of practical value. To me personally, conspiracy theories have very little personal value, because I cannot do anything constructive with the alternative narratives they offer. I know that there is probably all kinds of things going on in the world, but what am I really going to do with that notion in my everyday life? Nothing. I choose to focus on the things that I can have practical effect on. This being said, I have to add that being conscious about something, holding a thing in one's consciousness is also an act. And somehow I find it important to hold such space to alternative narratives also because they have an aspect of truth within. The truth can be wrapped up in silly, and downright stupid and paranoid wrappings but it is still there. So what is the truth, exactly then? It may have little to do with the actual make-up of the theory (the wrappings). Maybe it is a truth about personal and collective hurt. People project their personal pain into the societal parent figure all the time. But this is just one of the explanations.

About the philosophical approach... I feel that there are no subjects that don't require a philosophical approach. But what that "very" stands for, to you? I know that if we'd start talking philosophy the way the big boys talk it, I'd would probably a have zero input to the discussion. That has to do with the fact that my philosophical thinking mixes with mystic subjectivism. This can lead left brain thinkers*1 to go crazy,*2 since I first seem to be able to have a rational discussion and in the next second I'm claiming that we can actually, and practically, walk trough walls. But I'm a harmless fool, if you don't take things too seriously.

*1 Not to claim that you are one, I don't really know you at all, but I have my suspicions. (Nod and wink.) Feel free to profile me...

*2 I'm not implying you're going crazy. This is just something that has happened to me before.
Wyrmfang wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:53 pm A good example is math. It is also socially constructed. Show Western school math to African children and they understand very little about it even if they might be able to do the same and even far more complex calculations with different symbolic system. Even if there was a culture with no concept of a wall, the wall is physically the same and they cannot walk through it.
Yes, the equipments of math are socially constructed but the subject in itself is not (and is). (I'm coming to the wall-part...)

Wyrmfang wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:53 pm The 20th century quantum and relativity turn does not change how things work in practice.
To this I have to disagree. I am all mind over matter... as soon as the collective notion and consiousness about the quantum "structure" of reality reaches the critical "mass", people will be transformed at a cellular level. How many generations will this take, I don't know. But I know that maybe for you this piece of data of mine has non-existent information value, as we cannot observe this object of our examination, measure it objectively, or control it. It is a sheer question of belief and therefore outside the radar of the thinking mind. Does it really have to be this way?

Wyrmfang wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:53 pm Quantum physics is actually quite a lot about mathematical abstract models - even many physicists who are not that philosophical confuse this with philosophical questions about the macro level world.
What I know, a lot of quantum physics makes sense only in the language of math. So do you imply that quantum theory is irrelevant to the macro level world? (Otherwise than in techical applications such as the quantum computer, which still is not more than a lousy computer, what I've heard. Correct me, if I'm wrong.) As a hermetist I have to note that as above so below etc. In my mind, there is very little doubt that the quantum structure - and phenomena - that we can witness in the micro level would not apply in the macro level. But the question is, in what way will it play out and what is the role of (human) consiousness in it.
Wyrmfang wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:53 pm Facts are never about 100% certainty, but conspiracy theories suggest "alternative facts" which are at least something like 99,99% unlikely to be true. Consequently, a conspiracy theory cannot be distinguished with 100% certainty from a mere very unlikely theory. The concept of conspiracy theory is also sometimes used too lightly, as you mentioned in what I quoted. However, the pejorative concept is valid, I think, for social reasons, which I already took up in the earlier message. They make the appearance of critical thinking by contrasting "alternative" with "established" and "individual" with "masses", but in fact the intellectual resources are solely used to justify something and ignore everything that goes against it (that is, almost everything).
Yes, I agree that this is pretty much how the conspiracy theorists operate. I wonder how these theories have been able to make up the appearance of critical thinking? Could it be that there is so little real critical thinking?
If you want to reborn, let yourself die.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories

Post by Wyrmfang »

Ave wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:35 pm And somehow I find it important to hold such space to alternative narratives also because they have an aspect of truth within. The truth can be wrapped up in silly, and downright stupid and paranoid wrappings but it is still there. So what is the truth, exactly then?
I personally think the a big notion of "the truth" is problematic, but there are numerous smaller things that are true. Both empirical facts and other kinds of truths. As Nefastos already pointed out, because conspiracy theories are linked to unconscious, there is sometimes vivid symbolism in them. Besides this, I don´t understand why seek aspects of truth from there where there is the most little possible amount available. I guess that could be some kind of antinomian mystical practice, but that kind of practice would be based precisely on the maximal divergence from truth, not a claim of "forbidden truth".
Ave wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:35 pm To this I have to disagree. I am all mind over matter... as soon as the collective notion and consiousness about the quantum "structure" of reality reaches the critical "mass", people will be transformed at a cellular level. How many generations will this take, I don't know. But I know that maybe for you this piece of data of mine has non-existent information value, as we cannot observe this object of our examination, measure it objectively, or control it. It is a sheer question of belief and therefore outside the radar of the thinking mind. Does it really have to be this way?
It would make no sense to directly oppose this kind of statements. I would only like to first point out that philosophers have debated for thousands of years is spirit, matter, or something else the most fundamental element of being, and what these conceptions actually mean. Sciences have developed largely though of course not entirely independent of these debates. The quantum phenomena are not necessarily spiritual in any mystical sense, they just prove that the Newtonian paradigm (which is not a paradigm of philosophical materialism but a paradigm of measuring the empirically observable nature) is insufficient. Actually, the wide and internally conflictory school of "new materialism" builds among other things on the chaotic and indeterminable nature of quantum phenomena. And if they are spiritual (that is, not material) in some ontological sense, it is different from spiritual in the religious/mystical sense associated the existential meaningfulness of life. That is an entirely different question which links very indirectly at best to the philosophical let alone scientific questions about quantum physics.

What kind of person I am is actually relevant to these themes at least in one way. I would describe myself as a combination of analytical thinking and mystical/artistic experience. To fuse these is what my mission in life is basically, but I once did it too hasty, which had indirect bad practical consequences to the quality of my life. Actually this might explain to some people, why I tend to be somewhat strict in keeping rational/scientific and mystical argumentation initially separate and demanding respect to each in their own virtues.
Ave wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:35 pm What I know, a lot of quantum physics makes sense only in the language of math. So do you imply that quantum theory is irrelevant to the macro level world?


I wouldn´t definitely say it is irrelevant, because it can contribute to ontology, and quantum theories (there are many conflicting ones) have concrete applications on macro level, as you pointed out. But this is very different from claiming that the constitution of macro world has changed because - basically - it was found out that length, mass etc. in it cannot be measured with infinite precision. I have no idea what philosophical conclusions could be drawn from quantum mechanics, but at least it isn´t very straightforward, and - I believe - not all-encompassing.
Ave wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:35 pm I wonder how these theories have been able to make up the appearance of critical thinking? Could it be that there is so little real critical thinking?
The first one is an important question in what I mentioned earlier: using the analysis of conspiracy theories and their appeal, to purify esotericism from "false depth". To the latter: yes I think there is very little actual critical though involved. It seems conspiracy theorists take distance from the established to be a marker of critical ability. In reality, the further we go from the well established, the more fundamentally we need to know all the aspects of the established in order to claim that there is some fundamental mistake only seen by the conspiracy theorists. And it is precisely this calm, neutral, lengthy reasoning /investigation I find lacking in conspiracy theories without exception.
Locked