generally delusion is considered to be not a good thing, and even pathological in the more extreme

but I wonder if most delusion are in fact bad, or even pathological by typical standards of pathological, and that common delusions are in fact employed to functionally adjust what qualifies as bad, and pathological, to make more common delusion tolerable, even part of normal, that they are large part of normal, the operating space of normal

I mean the idea of delusion, the normative use of the concept, might serve the purpose of protecting more common delusion

so, I see the environment of normal may in fact maintain what delusions are acceptable, not only acceptable but it may impose some delusions, shared delusions

my point is not to say there is more delusion than our ideas of delusion would apprehend, more it’s the contradiction or paradox in the possibility our concept of delusion is to guard more practical functional delusion, shared delusions

if the idea were right, that common concepts of delusion actually hide the real scope of delusion (obliviate the paradoxical aspects of, by displacement), this would be distorting

It’s a term that can be used by anyone for their own purposes, so inevitably subjective in everyday speech.

But if delusion is used to mean “an interpretation or depiction of the world demonstrably at odds with known facts and/or rational argument”, then what is or is not deserving of the term can usually be sorted out, at least provisionally.

Bubblecar said:

It’s a term that can be used by anyone for their own purposes, so inevitably subjective in everyday speech.

But if delusion is used to mean “an interpretation or depiction of the world demonstrably at odds with known facts and/or rational argument”, then what is or is not deserving of the term can usually be sorted out, at least provisionally.

people are quite selective of known facts, what of they prefer, how they elevate them or otherwise, and of groups they elevate just how known the most known are, there is no egalitarianism of known facts, some are more appealing than other, and some facts are probably quite unhelpful (to hope for example)

not much of life comes into existence with rational argument

I’ve been reading some brain stuff of late. I was particularly interested in Capgras Syndrome when I read about it last night. It’s really fascinating what can happen with miswiring or degenerations.

https://theconversation.com/ever-thought-a-loved-one-was-an-imposter-thats-the-capgras-delusion-78291

buffy said:

I’ve been reading some brain stuff of late. I was particularly interested in Capgras Syndrome when I read about it last night. It’s really fascinating what can happen with miswiring or degenerations.

https://theconversation.com/ever-thought-a-loved-one-was-an-imposter-thats-the-capgras-delusion-78291

read that^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion
now this^

strikes me that a lot of the mental work of believing what something is, is in the work of establishing what it isn’t. All the work of arriving at what something isn’t, isn’t (necessarily) evident in what it is, as perceived

you can in a flash verify what many things aren’t, nearly quick as your eyes focus i’d expect, and as seemingly unconsciously

but consider some persistence of a force of what isn’t, generating an isn’t (dominant isn’t), over other things that would normally push decidedness regard what something is

.