Brooker on 9/11 conspiracies

[noel emits]

Oh come on, that's not the point I was making, and you know it's not. I was just expanding on what Vimothy was talking about, namely the comfort some people might draw from belief in a (seemingly) all-powerful agent in the world, even if, paradoxically, it is largely malicious in intent.

Well I hope it's taken in a spirit of good humour. But I think vimothy's point is largely absurd, ridiculous, offensive even! 'Comforting' FFS. It's just cheap pseudo-psychologising nonsense. There might be some people who get a kick out of imagining all sorts of horrendous things going on but to be honest I doubt they are really taking that on board in any deep way - it's just like being into horror films really.

If you want to talk (or even rant and rave) about evidence and empiricism, we could start with the dramatic disparity in the standards to which evidence supporting conspiracy theories and evidence supporting the 'official version' is held, by supporters of the former...

I wasn't ranting and raving, I was making a joke about what you'd said - people wanting to be abused by the devil because they can't face up to living in a godless universe. It's pretty funny.

So the point here is not about evidence and empiricism. We've gone through all that already here. 'Conspiracy theory' is hardly a meaningful term any more* - and it cuts both ways. In fact I'd say it's largely the uncritical supporters of the 'official story', about which they will generally know very little of the 'evidence', or of it's veracity, or any of it really, beyond the basic easily graspable cartoon details, and certainly as a rule don't hold any of it up to much scrutiny, who are overly credulous and lacking in genuine skepticism, but there you go.

Of course you can choose to look at the very worst of the stuff out there about 9/11 or whatever and hold that up as an example of the whole area of discourse, there's a lot of disinformation out there, and the internet is the internet FFS, that's not unique to 9/11 investigations. Yeah there's wacky stuff, but why should that be allowed to become the focus of discussion about something that some people would consider important and worthy of genuine enquiry?

* This is a very interesting historical document that shows how the term 'conspiracy theory' came to be deliberately used by the media, under instruction from the CIA, to attempt to discredit investigations into, in this case, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, specifically criticism of the Warren Commission Report. The whole discourse and argument about 'conspiracy theory' is laid out right there in this document sent to 'CIA Media Assets' and marked 'DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED'. And no I can't say for sure if this is genuine, but it's certainly been cited many times since it was uncovered.

http://192.220.64.45/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

 

[vimothy]

This is carp IMO. For a start it's a false binary and the same kind of broad-stroke thinking as in the article that spawned this thread. It's also essentially getting into a discussion of perception and cosmic ontology which move I think demonstrates clearly the pervasive assumption that if a thing is called 'conspiracy theory' then it must by definition be simply the result of paranoid thinking and therefore to be immediately judged beyond the pale!

Universe as MEANINGLESS STOCHASTIC PROCESS vs MEGA-CONSPIRACY

Yes, it must be one or the other of these EXTREMES, which do you choose?

I think if you were to insist on that as a binary, or even relevant here, which I wouldn't, then you'd have say that both of those things would actually be located on the same negative pole anyway! The world as we generally experience it may reflect aspects of these 'realities' and others, but the truth as ever would be found somewhere in the middle with other axes operating simultaneously.

Perhaps it would be an idea to remind ourselves of what "stochastic" actually means (my emphasis):

A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next state. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, cannot guarantee success. Classical examples of this are medicine: a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way. This makes medicine a stochastic process.​

"Stochastic" is not meant to imply an extreme end of a scale, and indeed, it is perfectly consistant with the definition above to expect and include some forms of conspiracy. The process is "non-deterministic" in that although you may think that there are shadowy groups that rule the world and steer history (or you may not -- it's not important except in that it illuminates different positions), the world is too big, complicated, instransigent, weird, unkown, etc, etc to determine outcomes with any degree of success. Witness the collapse of communism: an idealised state where a central government regulates economic and political life. It didn't work because life is just too damn complicated. How much more so does that relate to international relations? To world history? Witness the failure of Iraq: upthread someone (you?) was reduced to arguing that US failure was (sorry, might have been!) intentional because it somehow furthered the aims of the conspiracy. How the relative success post-'surge' factors in is anyone's guess. Perhaps that too is part of the plan. At the end of the day, it's all conjecture (in the Popperian sense) and so anything and everything can and will be given as evidence of the/a conspiracy.

 

[vimothy]

I don't think all Satanists recognise this, if they did they'd more correctly identify as crypto-Christians, is it not.

Of course there are Satanists and there are Satanists.

Where's Mr Eden?

CoS satanists don't believe in Satan, because Satan is a Christian figure, hence a literal Satanist would believe in God, even if she rejected Him. For CoS types, Satan is a principal, a metaphor, rather than an actual entity. There are some who claim to literally believe in Satan but in my experience they all tend to be under the age of twenty and in crappy Black Metal bands.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Where's Mr Eden?

I think you mean Sloane, not Eden - he's our resident Satanist around this way, or has claimed to be on here.

 

[vimothy]

Further, to suggest that people might only be concerned with the possibility of such horrible goings-on as false flag terrorism or worse because they find it COMFORTING is a rather curious thing to imagine. Of course this would be nothing like the comfort of pre-emptively dismissing anything that doesn't appear to readily fit your preconceptions as evidence of others clinging to grim security blankets! For myself I'd say that sort of stuff is the last thing I'd want to think actually happens.

Is it really that curious? For one thing, it implies that if you overthrow this or that particular group, everything will be better. Well, I think that's bullshit. Institutions are at the centre of everything. All people who get into power want to do is stay there, and so the institutions that dictate their actions have primacy over the individual.

For another thing, I do think that the idea that someone is in charge, however malevolent, is more comforting, more human, more understandable (narrative framework) than the idea that no one knows what the fuck's going on, no one's in charge, everyone's holding on for dear life. I'm thinking of existentialism applied to the political (or even economic, but we've done that already) field: existence is absurd, meaningless, tragic. Is that more comforting than having a grand narrative to rail against? Is it less comforting to think that it's all GWB's fault?

Maybe; maybe not. But it's hardly "absurd, ridiculous, offensive even" to suggest that it is.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it might be COMFORTING to believe oneself MERELY an INSIGNIFICANT part of an IMPLACABLE MECHANISTIC PROCESS devoid of MEANING and therefore relieved of, for one thing, RESPONSIBILITY, because again it's an extreme pole on a false binary and, you know, a cheap shot.

Yeah, but on a molar level, it's not that far from the truth.*

Superstitious SAVAGES! Unable to face up to the STARK TRUTH and APPALLED by the cold light of REASON they must instead abase themselves with DEVIL WORSHIP! Do these FOOLS not know that SCIENCE has explained everything. thus removing all further UNCERTAINTY and need for ENQUIRY? Do they not trust the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of their SENSES which PROVES beyond question the existence of QUARKS and MESONS, thus dispelling forever such outlandish creations as ELVES and FAIRIES?

So tell me noel emits, do you believe the holocaust happened? Why should I believe you?

*EDIT: Though not mechanistic.

 

[vimothy]

I think you mean Sloane, not Eden - he's our resident Satanist around this way, or has claimed to be on here.

I think JE is an aging former TOPY / IOT dude? Could be wrong...

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think JE is an aging former TOPY / IOT dude? Could be wrong...

I remember him talking about it before, I had no idea he was involved. Anyway, Psychic Yoof aren't Satanists as such, are they? Dunno what IOT is, though.

 

[noel emits]

"Stochastic" is not meant to imply an extreme end of a scale, and indeed, it is perfectly consistant with the definition above to expect and include some forms of conspiracy.

It was you that implied a dichotomy between holding that a 'small group controls everything', which is a 'strawman' idea again anyway, and a 'stochastic' reading. But yes it's good to remind ourselves what that means.

The process is "non-deterministic" in that although you may think that there are shadowy groups that rule the world and steer history (or you may not -- it's not important except in that it illuminates different positions), the world is too big, complicated, instransigent, weird, unkown, etc, etc to determine outcomes with any degree of success.

This never stops some groups trying, constantly. Hence, much of history.

Witness the collapse of communism: an idealised state where a central government regulates economic and political life. It didn't work because life is just too damn complicated.

Same as above. And also it was hardly an 'idealised state'! But of course these enterprises are doomed to failure, next...

How much more so does that relate to international relations? To world history? Witness the failure of Iraq: upthread someone (you?) was reduced to arguing that US failure was (sorry, might have been!) intentional because it somehow furthered the aims of the conspiracy.

Not really relevant to the genral discussion this but still, it does for instance benefit some interests for sure, it's worth bearing in mind I suppose. I don't know how intentional or otherwise that would be though. It's not a case of THE CONSPIRACY in this sense really though is it.

How the relative success post-'surge' factors in is anyone's guess. Perhaps that too is part of the plan.

Like you say, not everything can be utterly controlled but people will try and influence events in their interest. Whether it works out or not it causes effects.

At the end of the day, it's all conjecture (in the Popperian sense) and so anything and everything can and will be given as evidence of the/a conspiracy.

And here's the problem. There's this sudden jolting conflation of ideas about conspiracies, or rather what gets labelled as 'conspiracy theories'. You've gone from saying that in a complex global system there will be some forms of 'conspiracy' - to talking about the idea of a massive all controlling CONSPIRACY, and claiming the 'unfalsifiablilty' of that as a basis to argue that there is therefore no such thing as conspiracy at all. And the reason is that because at the word trigger 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' you are jumping to the received idea of the classic CONSPIRACY THEORY, which of course is always utter nonsense. It's really a self-justifying tautology of an argument (i.e. unfalsifiable...). I think what I was saying in my first posts on thread. If you don't get that by now then I think we are probably done.

 

[noel emits]

For CoS types, Satan is a principal, a metaphor, rather than an actual entity.

I know.

 

[vimothy]

 

[Mr. Tea]

For another thing, I do think that the idea that someone is in charge, however malevolent, is more comforting, more human, more understandable (narrative framework) than the idea that no one knows what the fuck's going on, no one's in charge, everyone's holding on for dear life. I'm thinking of existentialism applied to the political (or even economic, but we've done that already) field: existence is absurd, meaningless, tragic. Is that more comforting than having a grand narrative to rail against? Is it less comforting to think that it's all GWB's fault?

You know, this reminds me of something I heard a couple of years ago...my mum was working at the time as a part-time teacher in a prison, which housed some pretty long-term convicts (murderers, rapists, 'career' armed robbers, sort of thing) and apparently no few of them were convinced the Boxing Day earthquake/tsunami in 2004 was caused by the US military detonating nuclear bombs on the floor of the Indian Ocean. Presumably whoever came up with that little gem didn't get as far hypothesising a possible benefit to anyone, beyond simple recreational evil. But I can see that, to a person who (misfortunes of birth and upbringing notwithstanding) has got himself in a shitty situation - eg. twenty years in chokey - through his own personal decisions, the idea that there's this big bad Other* pulling the strings and doing all this horrific stuff must be a comfort of a sort. It's a psychological abdication of responsibility.

*

 

[noel emits]

Is it really that curious? For one thing, it implies that if you overthrow this or that particular group, everything will be better. Well, I think that's bullshit. Institutions are at the centre of everything. All people who get into power want to do is stay there, and so the institutions that dictate their actions have primacy over the individual.

Well again you're working from this idea that you think if it has been called a 'conspiracy theory' then it must be about TOTAL CONTROL BY SOME GUY IN A ROOM SOMEWHERE. It's not, but bad things happen.

And you're saying that something you think is implied by something you think someone else thinks is bullshit. Well OK but it seems to me that it's your bullshit mostly.

For another thing, I do think that the idea that someone is in charge, however malevolent, is more comforting, more human, more understandable (narrative framework) than the idea that no one knows what the fuck's going on, no one's in charge, everyone's holding on for dear life. I'm thinking of existentialism applied to the political (or even economic, but we've done that already) field: existence is absurd, meaningless, tragic. Is that more comforting than having a grand narrative to rail against? Is it less comforting to think that it's all GWB's fault?

And yet again you are talking about SOMEONE BEING IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING. It's not that is it. But OK, you might be able to conceive of that as comforting in your need for an authority figure of some kind.

But it does seem odd to me to try and tell people that discovering, or thinking they have discovered, that things are really bad, is comforting. Especially in conjunction with some your comments above about 'geo-politics as video game' etc.*

So tell me noel emits, do you believe the holocaust happened? Why should I believe you?

What are you talking about. I'm not mocking the idea of evidence or scientific method, I'm mocking that arrogant superior APETHEIST SCIENTIFIC RATIONALIST attitude that can talk solemnly about THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE TRUTH I HAVE COME TO BEAR WITH MY SUPERIOR INTELLECT AND MORAL STRENGTH.

* I will concede though that I might not be, or have been, as familiar with the character of the '9/11 Truth Movement' at large as I had thought, fortunately for me I guess. I mean it is pretty grim to be fair.

 

[noel emits]

What's yer problem. That's why I said there was Satanists and there was Satanists.

The ones who believe in Satan are generally spotty metallers. A bit like existentialists.

 

[vimothy]

Sorry, capital letters give me nose-bleeds.

 

[vimothy]

It was you that implied a dichotomy between holding that a 'small group controls everything', which is a 'strawman' idea again anyway, and a 'stochastic' reading. But yes it's good to remind ourselves what that means.

The thread is called "Brooker on 9/11 conspiracies" -- the 'small group controls everything' model is hardly a straw man. It's a pretty generic idea.

Wiki:

A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories state that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
....
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.​

You're confusing two different things. Groups and individuals take and hold power where and when they can, according to their means, the incentives they face and the institutions that constrain them. Very little is public, therefore in some sense it's all a 'conspiracy'.

Great. But that's not what Brooker is talking about and not what most people mean when they say 'conspiracy theory'. 'Conspiracy theory' generally refers to stuff like the Bilderberg Group rules the world, Mossad commited 9/11 and warned Jews beforehand, Freemasons control the US government, the Holocaust is a lie to pin the blame for WWII on Germany not the Allies, etc. Like Wikipedia says, "conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true."

This never stops some groups trying, constantly. Hence, much of history.

Exactly -- history is history, i.e. a big stinking mess of lust and violence. However, some people (conspiracy theorists -- not you, obviously) still believe that it really is run by ZOG, the Freemasons, the NWO, reptiles, etc, etc.

Same as above. And also it was hardly an 'idealised state'! But of course these enterprises are doomed to failure, next...

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I'm, ahem, not generally a big fan of communism...

Not really relevant to the genral discussion this but still, it does for instance benefit some interests for sure, it's worth bearing in mind I suppose. I don't know how intentional or otherwise that would be though. It's not a case of THE CONSPIRACY in this sense really though is it.

But you brought it up, right?! It formed part of your argument as to why 9/11 might have been a 'conspiracy'/'inside job' (and therefore was (I mean, might have been)) -- not that you are going to use either of those terms, of course -- because it might be in the interests of some to become stuck in an insurgency / er, defeat the insurgency. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, wat, wat, wat?

Like you say, not everything can be utterly controlled but people will try and influence events in their interest. Whether it works out or not it causes effects.

So these shadowy groups that might have wanted to see USA bleeding in Iraq might have been defeated by other elements within the US government / shadow government, who might have suceeded in delineating a better strategy much to the annoyance of the (possibly non-existant) non-CONSPIRACY THEORY conspirators?

And here's the problem. There's this sudden jolting conflation of ideas about conspiracies, or rather what gets labelled as 'conspiracy theories'. You've gone from saying that in a complex global system there will be some forms of 'conspiracy' - to talking about the idea of a massive all controlling CONSPIRACY, and claiming the 'unfalsifiablilty' of that as a basis to argue that there is therefore no such thing as conspiracy at all. And the reason is that because at the word trigger 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' you are jumping to the received idea of the classic CONSPIRACY THEORY, which of course is always utter nonsense. It's really a self-justifying tautology of an argument (i.e. unfalsifiable...). I think what I was saying in my first posts on thread. If you don't get that by now then I think we are probably done.

I think everyone has said that, and so has Charlie Brooker. It's what he was writing about. Yes, it's nonsense. Yes, it's popular. Yes, it obviously ticks some psychological boxes.

 

[noel emits]

'Wiki:'

Well you've been quite selective in your Wiki-ing:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim.
...
Originally it was a neutral term; during the political upheaval of the 1960s the term acquired its current derogatory sense.
...
Throughout human history, political and economic leaders genuinely have been the cause of enormous amounts of death and misery, and they sometimes have engaged in conspiracies while at the same time promoting conspiracy theories about their targets. Hitler and Stalin would be merely the most prominent examples; there have been numerous others. In some cases there have been claims dismissed as conspiracy theories that later proved to have some basis in facts.
...
Despite the speculative nature of many conspiracy theories, mainstream world history contains numerous proven conspiracies
...
The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

Given this popular understanding of the term, it can also be used illegitimately and inappropriately, as a means to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations. The legitimacy of each such usage will therefore be a matter of some controversy.
...
The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the object of a type of conspiracy theory, which argues that those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion
...
When conspiracy theories are offered as official claims (e.g. originating from a governmental authority, such as an intelligence agency) they are not usually considered as conspiracy theories. For example, certain activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee may be considered to have been an official attempt to promote a conspiracy theory, yet its claims are seldom referred to as such.
...
Some theorists, like Charles Pigden argue that the reality of such conspiracies should caution against any casual dismissal of conspiracy theory. Pigden, in his article "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" argues that not only do conspiracies occur but that any educated member of society will believe in at least one of them; we are all, in fact, Conspiracy Theorists.

So conspiracy theory should by no means be understood as simply a pejorative term. And it most certainly does not mean a theory that is by definition 'untrue'. But OK, we can talk about common usage. How did the term come by this 'current derogatory sense'? Was it the deliberate 'derogatising' by the CIA in order to use it to discredit the investigations of political opponents? Gee, that sounds like a conspiracy theory! And who's the guy wikipedia quotes as having laid out those ideas in an early essay 'adapted from a study prepared for the CIA'? Oh yes, 'neoconservative' historian Daniel Pipes. I mean of course, that's all well and good, but it's not really helping the case there is it?

I'll say for the sake of clarity that in my definition, or how I am using the term, 'conspiracy theory' is intended as a neutral description for a 'conspiracy claim', and maybe occasionally in the 'interesting possibility' category.

 

[luka]

vimothy on this thread you;re starting to appear thick and obtuse. thats more mr teas role. leave him to it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

vimothy on this thread you;re starting to appear thick and obtuse. thats more mr teas role. leave him to it.

*flings poo at you*

 

[vimothy]

There's just too much semantic bullshit in this thread to disentangle whilst also doing everything that I'm supposed to be doing at work. Noel, you're conflating various different things in your responses to me: the validity of 'conspiracy theories' understood as a genre; the validity of political 'conspiracy' understood as an explanation for politico-historical phenomenon; the degree to which political conspiracy explains politico-historical phenomenon; the relationship between conspiracy theories (narrative genre) and conspiracies (actual 'fact')... etc.

Yes, conspiracies have happened in the past and will in the future. Big fucking deal. As your 'selective' quotation (er, that's what quoting is, right?) from Wikipedia shows, everything is a conspiracy from the right angle. "We are all, in fact, Conspiracy Theorists." Indeed. Everyone is trying to present a front at almost all times. You're probably a plant from the group who really controls the world, trying to sow anti-CIA counterintelligence. Can't be proved or disproved, just what I choose to believe, just like you choose to believe that US intelligence was involved in 9/11.

And why do people believe in 'conspiracy theories'? Some of them are pretty outlandish, like the Russian neo-Nazi Pamyat's recent (ish) claim that Zionists and Freemasons were behind the Russian revolutions and the resulting democide. There are two conspiracies in that claim: the actual conspiracy that involved state sponsored mass murder (well documented), and the spurious, offensive and speculative notion that Zionists and Freemasons were responsible. Well, it's possible that they were, but were they? Do you think it fulfills a psychological function for Russian neo-Nazis to blame their country's misfortunes on a secreat cabal of Jews and fancy-dress-fetishists?

Why do conspiracy theories exist? They help to plug gaps in peoples' understanding of the world. Eveyone likes a story. You've said that this is ludicrous and offensive even, but it seems pretty mundane and obvious to me. How come the buildings fell straight down, not to the side like you'd expect? Simple, they were rigged with explosives (yeah, but why? doesn't matter, obv). How come the most powerful country in the world got caught out? Simple, it didn't. How come the US went to war with Saddam when they'd been his ally not long previously? Conspiracy. How come the US can overthrow Saddam in a week but can't turn the leccy on? Conspiracy. Everywhere you look, there's a potential conspiracy. And why limit it to just macro scale events? No bus this morning? Blame the conspiracy. you can fill this knowledge gap easily. Just make it up. Does it sound plausible? Then it's probably true. At least, it can't be dismissed.

Narratives are very powerful, viral even (bleugh -- horibble term now). The US is discovering just how powerful in the GWOT, which is in many ways a competition of narratives. It's not what happened that counts, but what people believe happened. (Thank fuck AQ are worse at this than we are. Though AQ could be a clever CIA ruse, of course).

I've lost count of the number of people who've explained to me exactly why it was the Jews or the Americans who were responsible for 9/11. Very few of them had anything approaching a cursory familiarity with the events of the day, the history, engineering, terrorist organisations, the ME, etc, etc, etc. They were convinced that they were right and nothing was going to disabuse them of that notion, because counter-evidence is simply evidence of the conspiracy and therefore not counter-evidence at all. Like the 'surge': Iraq going badly -- it's what they wanted; Iraq going well -- it's also what they wanted!

And yes, some people believe in conspiracies because they have some basis in fact, in that people 'conspire' all the time. And yes, most people believe that conspiracy theories are wacky bullshit because that's what they are, most of the time. To appreciate this properly, one merely has to mentally list conspiracy theories.

And was there a 9/11 conspiracy? I.e., was there US governmental involvement? I think it's pretty clear that there wasn't because of all the reasons I've listed. It's not simply that 'conspiracy theories' are unthinkable, but that most are spurious. There's a film where someone dies and gets to heaven, meets St Peter at the gate and asks "so what was the true religion?" "Moromonism" (or whatever). "What?!" the dude says, "I was sure it was Judaism." "Nope," says St Peter. "Down you go!"

A corporation profiting from the Iraq was doesn't mean that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. But if it was, that would mean that the corporation would have to (at the least) have been able to predict the Iraq War from 9/11. And that would mean not only the support of whatever organisation that commited it (and why?), but also the support of the upper eschelons of the US government, interagency cooperation and the rest. There's a saying "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics." And blah, blah, blah, but it's a good point. I'm not saying that there was no 'conspiracy' (pejorative sense) because it's unthinkable (to an ideologue like me, natch), but because it's not very plausible and nothing you've said has made it seem more so.

vimothy on this thread you;re starting to appear thick and obtuse. thats more mr teas role. leave him to it.

Hey man I have fans to disappoint too.

 

[noel emits]

Noel, you're conflating various different things in your responses to me

No I'm not. You're just wrong in various different ways.

Anyway, I think there should be considered at the centre of all this () the conception of what you might call the 'classic' Grand Conspiracy Theory of tradition. This can of course be understood as something arising out of dark imaginings about the unknown, so it is seen as an essentially psychological phenomenon. But it can also be read as being related to a type of 'enlightenment', or as a response to a kind of 'Samadhi'. That is to say, the perception, albeit skewed and incomplete, or realisation, that the universe as we experience it is in a sense a 'conspiracy' that we all participate in and are subject to. Indra's net, the Glass Bead Game.

So I think it is a bit crass, not to say inaccurate and lacking in scope, to conceive of this as having simply to do with 'fulfilling psychological needs', or as being unqualified 'bunk' by definition. In fact you could say that this attitude itself fulfils a psychological function. i.e. the perceived need to defend a belief structure against that which would challenge comfortable or familiar notions.

Whatever else it / they may be, conspiracy theories are perhaps best understood overall as a kind of art or metaphor. Not only can art and metaphor illuminate and expand understanding of the world in ways that more literal modes may not, sometimes life itself does indeed come to imitate, or at times parody, art. This should not really be so surprising, they do come from the same place after all.