In my last post I explored epistemic closure on the group level, using the observations from the former Czechoslovakian writer, artist, actor, and politician, Vaclav Havel. Today I’d like to focus on the personal dimension of this closed-mindedness. Havel used the term “post-totalitarian state” to describe a state which operates under a subtle totalitarian state-of-mind which purports to be completely open and honest, i.e. “free.” In this “Brave New World” prison, there is the surface belief of freedom but only because the bars which constitute the prison are so subtly imposed that they are not obvious to most. In this “benign” police state, the gears, wheels, and pulleys that orchestrate the bondage are so well-hidden beneath the surface they are not noticed, consisting in ideological subtleties that can only be seen by those who have the capacity for self-reflection.
The individual dimension of this epistemic closure operates in accordance with the collective version described last time. Individuals imprisoned in this, “empty world of self-relatedness,” are encapsulated in their own premises which are not subject to review because there is no “self” consciousness available to conduct such a review. The onset of such “self” consciousness would constitute a “splinter in the brain” which would be so catastrophic that internal, unacknowledged (i.e. “unconscious”) defenses would immediately intervene and rely on bromides such as the currently popular, “Fake News.”
But this “imprisonment” I’m describing is not necessarily as sinister as I’m making it appear. Any identity seeks to maintain itself, to cohere, which means it has a certain core that borders on the sacrosanct. In fact, “sacred” can describe this core as it is the very essence of our being and if this “essence” is not poisoned it will help us maintain a sense of integrity even in the face of conflict. But if real “integrity” is present then conflict is welcome as exposure to different view points facilitates the flourishing, or “unfolding,” of an identity, allowing it to contribute meaningfully to the context in which it lives. When this core is “poisoned,” however, any different viewpoint invokes that fear of “splintering” and leads to the creation of a false world in which any threats are minimized or prohibited. In the extreme, the result is psychosis in which one’s private prison has become so confining that reference to any feedback from the external world has been cut off and one is left with the aforementioned, “empty world of self-relatedness.”
literary lew 
Hi Lew. In the third to last sentence, I think you have an “is” that throws off the meaning…but I may be reading it wrong. And substantively, this is great. I have tried to maintain a friendship with a midlife couple who have circumscribed type of “psychosis” or cult-membership as extreme Preppers, who have various reasons the world is going to cave in…Planet X, H. Clinton as President, and other such evils raging on the perimeters of their existence. I don’t fully understand how people who seem perfectly normal, skilled, kind human beings can enter into such delusion…
LikeLike
Thank you, and simple problems like the use of “is” can certainly change change the meaning of the sentence. I can remember Bill Clinton putting this matter on the table! I edited the post; please check and see if I addressed the matter and if not let me know. Both of us know this is a “trivial” semantic matter but these “trivial” matters do “matter” and I appreciate your feedback. I’m feeling increasing freedom in this literary enterprise of mine and I certainly need the feedback of astute souls like yourself. Btw, I’ve toyed with my own “conversations with God” for several years and am going to trot out this conversation in the future. You have been an inspiration. Bless you with your friends. This “psychosis” tempts all of us and I’ve had friends who have imbibed of its toxic nectar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really love what you are saying. Yes, this “psychosis” tempts all of us. The thing that has kept me going is this awareness that the inner core is sacred. John Main’s spiritual letters are a joy to mull over. One chapter in ‘Monastery Without Walls’ is called, “Continuous Conversion”. He says, “..in the monk we also see an ordinary, weak human being. His or her ordinariness is an essential part of the monastic witness.” He goes on however, to say “For St Benedict, the monastic life was a continuous conversion, not a mere change of social status. The ground on which this conversion is realized is the heart of the monk, his most simple and most absolute level of being. And so, his ongoing conversion should lead him into ever deeper authenticity. More and more he should not merely believe what he says but be what he believes. The essential conversion is not concerned with externals because it is not a change from one form to another but from form to essence. The monk’s conversion of heart is a conversion from idea to reality.” Really, we have a lot of hope.
LikeLike
Hello Lew, “Self-deception is the root of evil”. Do you agree?
LikeLike
Timely response for me. Was setting here mulling this very issue. I think self-deception is just a core dimension of being a human…and that is all we can ever be…but it is possible to let the notion dawn upon us, “Oh, we don’t really want to see the “Truth,” only what is fitting with our preconceptions. Though this is humbling, it is salvivic—for, we only, “see through a glass darkly.” Thanks for response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like your response but would like to say that some person may be more self-deceived and some less so . Difference in degree perhaps?
LikeLike
Hi lew, Do you have any self-deceptions? If so, do you know what these are?
LikeLike