The Pathological Mind

It will be quite easy for this essay to turn into yet another "complexity vs. the human condition" type post that I am too frequent to post on this site. However, some things are unavoidable when discussing the fundamental aspects of human life. It has become clear to me in the course of my reading in 2023 that humans have a unique aspect of their mentality which presents itself as wholly unique to the individual. All of us, from childhood to seniority, exhibit intrinsically pathological minds. To combat this, we all find systems within which we can exist and formulate the basis of faith. Some, like major religions, are adopted wholesale by vast amounts of people. Yet even in those, the pathologies vary from person to person, and while small sects can form in which people may find their unique pathology somewhat replicated, in large part we can observe a negative feedback loop centering around the nurturing of children in different pathological states of mind.

Generally, I've found that when confronted with the pathology of one's own upbringing, there are three general responses: expression, repression, or rejection. In the first state, one finds themselves falling in line with the state of mind in which they were raised; their values, built so intrinsically within themselves, surface as an amalgamation of influences from their childhood, generally centered around the parental. As such, a child in a Christian household, when confronted with the pathology which coerced their parents into coming into Christianity, will fall into the same line, holding similar values.

In the repression response, another pathology will seek to enter where the previous failed. Consider the same child confronted, perhaps in adolescence or early adulthood, by the pathology behind Christianity. Rather than fall into the same line, they may fall into repression, seemingly "understanding" the disease and seeking to be different from it, yet still allowing it form the basis of the new, perhaps just slightly nuanced, version of the same pathology. They may seek another religion, they may seek to flout some rules of their current religion. If the child we're talking about was raised in an Atheist or Agnostic household, they may find subtleties of religion to introduce into their lives, perhaps denying their origin but unable to be extricated from their pull.

The rejection response quite simply calls everything within the previous pathology false and seeks out a radical new way of life. In doing so, the person may think that they have carved themselves a new path, they may feel as though they exhibit a rebellious strain, hearty against the pull of their nurturing, which they may view as detrimental or painful. In reality, the course they have chosen simply represents another pathology, and in attempting to be so wholly different from their previous influences, they have instead formed something of a "magnetic" response. Putting two magnets together with their "north" sides contradicts nature itself, but in their struggle can there not be found a camaraderie?

So why do I bring this up? In observing the way people have acted around me, and the way I myself act, I've realized that we're all just trying to compensate for our own pathologies. People who have been maligned or mistreated seek out ways to assuage that pain. In doing so, they can adopt coping mechanisms which are psychologically harmful. Rather than divert into the discussion on complexity, the discussion on "nature vs. nurture" takes precedence.

We've already talked about how nurture impacts this intrinsic pathology, and the different responses to being confronted with it. What role does nature take in this? Well, nature can simply be thought of as a collective of nurtures. In essence, that which we think to be nature has a biological core - our genetic code. From where does this genetic code originate? Our parents, and our parent's parents, and so on. All of these people who had their own pathologies, their own responses, and now that information passes to a new generation.

It has already been found that psychology and genetics, and by extent evolution, are interrelated. Responses to stimuli may be passed through from parent to child. Pathologies, to some degree, may also be transmitted as such. However, I don't want to give the deterministic illusion any validation; in my view, external nurturing influence, far beyond the scope of simple parental control, dwarfs the genetic aspect of nature. A child may be born with certain dispositions, but nurture can coach them out of it, for better or for worse. Nonetheless, the importance of one's nature maintains itself as a crucial piece to the puzzle.

I should also mention that people are not locked into one response to their confrontation with nurture. A child may respond with expression, seeking to be just like their parents, their idols. An adolescent may turn to outright rejection and pursuit of an alternative viewpoint. The same person, as an adult, may either revert to expression or find themselves in some form of repression, where their previous denial of their nurturing pathology has turned into a mellow subconscious acceptance which drives a conscious turn to a similar, yet perceptively different, pathology. Of course, the adult could also maintain rejection.

Think about this the next time you have conversations about values with the people around you. In what pathologies have they been raised? They may insist upon you that you follow some of their own philosophy; they may seek high ground where none exists. Try to find out why. Try to determine the origin of their words. I've had that happen a lot recently. Perhaps my own fault, since I've somewhat arrogantly branded myself as one with whom people can converse about values as though I know anything myself. When people used to talk to me about values, whether consciously or as a greasy prelude to some moral judgement, I would immediately take the contradictory path, perhaps to stir discussion, perhaps because I'm a little annoying in that way, but now I simply find it interesting when someone lets something slip about what they believe. I try, with academic detachment and only a modicum of genuine intrigue, to see beyond the veil. If I find their view to be particularly inflammatory, I try to see why I may find such a thing offensive, and why they would say such an apparently offensive thing. What I've found boils down to one simple statement: we're all just trying to cope with ourselves.