Rejection of Insanity: Impact of Dismissing Unique Ideas

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory)

"If you want Truth don't go to the Church, or the Schoolhouse. Head to the Madhouse, the Truth gleefully lives there" -- John Duran

(Background music)

Beyond the social aspect of human nature, we humans are also very systematic, pattern-following beings. This can be evident in the system of norms that the "global village" has created, from basic etiquette to the legitimization and non-legitimization of holding certain opinions and theories about existence.

Those who do not adhere to the system sufficiently to the liking of those who experience the non-adherer, they will either shame, punish, or condemn them. That is in order to prevent them from being influential enough to shake the pillars of the current social construct in which they operate in.

In contemporary times, while there are indeed some severer punishments in certain parts of the world other than plain shaming, today, with enough counter-support from the construct's followers, anyone is in potential of having their reputation entirely washed down the drain. That's under the condition that someone is to say or do something triggering enough to enrage social constructs, from local communities to nations to the world at large.

Every action you take has the potential to ruin your reputation in the eyes of others, even those who do not know you personally. If your actions are known widely enough, you could be condemned to the dark, undesired sphere of "insanity," either for the long term or permanently.

The darkest, most justified rejection of a person in contemporary times that I know of, is that of Chris Chan, whose absurd Dimensional Merge Theory I have already covered. Based on Chan's actions, there are times where it's well-deserved for one to be forever tarnished (Read at your own discertion).

While there are cases where such condemnation is justified, such as sexual harassment, or anything else that is against the law of any honest democracy, it can easily be used on the internet as a weapon that is not always justified. This is especially true for those who dare to hold different opinions and theories that are far from the norm of at least one or more communities that consume those contemplations.

(My unique inner-murder technique could in theory be regarded as one that is to be condemned, despite the fact that it helped and helps me think more logically and even be free of physical disability (as a post trauma symptom), at the cost of being dead inside).

This is problematic because it could mark the slow decline of democracy in favor of the tyranny of the majority, where only the majority's voice counts beyond the legitimate form of electing a leading representative.

Furthermore, not only could such a form of tyranny replace democratic/pluralistic behavior in many parts of the world through various media, but it could also severely harm the freedom of philosophers, inventors, and any other form of independent thinkers, from being tolerated enough to exist amongst the ideas of the norm.

In such a scenario within a construct, the intellectual elite would be deemed as a minority, and would be condemned to the outskirts of societal relevancy, purely because of their unique, challenging ideas. That territory, AKA "the outskirts", would expand more and more into other social categories, until the tyranny of the majority and its herd mentality will reign supreme.

That's why you must be both prudent, wise and assertive when making your digital footprints. Now, more than ever, it is possible to be condemned on the international scale, merely for speaking out very controversial and/or disturbing truths (see John Duran's quote above, and apply metaphorically).

While I do comment on YouTube every now and then, I do know that it gives content creators the ability to "pin" comments of any user; a function that can be used to shame the commenter for thinking widely differently from the core beliefs of a certain content creator's subscribers/followers/whatever.

This function can be slightly equivalent to the medieval technique of putting heretics in the town square and receiving the mockery and shame of the townspeople.

However, the internet is probably the most democratic media created by humankind (at least its users are, while websites and platforms can be seen as "virtual dictatorships"), and I believe that this state should be preserved within itself, and not be succumbed by the tyranny of the majority. That is because it could eventually erase, or at least significantly decrease, the intellectual freedom of people both out and within the internet.

After all, condemnation to the abstract realm of the "outskirts" would mean that the exploration of certain ideas would be seen as abnormally awful. If not the exchange of certain ideas wouldn't be condemned by law, it would be condemned by norm. And in a sense, the norms can be very anti-democratic by the fact that they take away our personal freedoms in exchange for social stability.

Returning to the first claim of this article: We humans are pattern-following species. That trait has the power to "devolve" the eccentric to the "insane" and thus put them away from relevance and from the ability to participate in the world, like your average human being. There are cases where this is justified, in the case of Chris Chan, and there are cases where it doesn't, in the case of revolutionary intellectuals (AKA, philosophers like Solomon Maimon).

The territory of the "insane", therefore, should be only limited to those with the power and intent to inflict terror and menace on the world -- the Rejection of Insanity that truly deserves to be considered as such. Its slang counterpart should be dismissed as serious in any way.