On the Nature of Conspiracy.
Posted: 04 August 2013 01:20 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

The word “conspiracy” is conspiratorial itself in contemporary usage. I don’t condemn one proposing the use of the word as something they describe as some group of people who collectively agree to some behavior(s) that are hidden and possibly deceptive and derogatory to some other group. But the way it is used more commonly is by those who want to diminish another person or groups claims by associating them with being ironically conspiratorial themselves, assuming the intent of those people have a means to deceive others by faulty reasoning.
  First, it implies that these people have an intent to impose something upon others for which they themselves do not actively believe applies to themselves. While this can be true, the act of one accusing another of holding conspiracy theories suggests that there is something substantially wrong with those proposing such ideas without justifying why they believe this to be true.
  Secondly, it seems to be stating that (a) they themselves are immune to conspiring, or (b) that no (such) conspiracies are even possible to exist. In (a), the act of accusing one of holding a conspiracy theory is itself conspiratorial because it is used as a rhetorical device, an open hand-shake to others who agree, to dismiss another person or groups words by default; it is deceptive (or hidden) in that its use is pure innuendo meaning to communicate something they don’t want to hold accountability to something directly burdening them to defend. In (b), if no conspiracies are assumed possible, then it should require that person to provide the justification of the infallible nature of the groups those (accused) ‘conspiracy’ theorists argue against. It tends to suggest that some groups of people who are targeted for such accusation are themselves perfect and infallible to deception and harm.

Any group of two or more people are capable of conspiring. As animals. we have no more superior moral compass as we do any inferior ones. The act of favoring any one or more individuals over another, is itself a sufficient nature of conspiracy which cannot be avoided. In this way, all humans are conspiratorial, for instance, in its act of domination over all other animals, or… nature itself, for that matter. Conspiracies of any kind are potentially real and do exist. The very nature of a conspiracy has intended purposes to either deceive or hide concern to communicate openly to outsiders. While some conspirators recognize their intentions, others, and usually most, do not necessarily even recognize that they are conspiring. An individual bystander witness to a crime in a crowded street conspires to their own particular in-activeness to participate by falsely assuming others will. They certainly wouldn’t blame themselves for doing anything wrong at the time.

I think that accusing another of holding a conspiracy theory, therefore, is unproductive, unnecessary, and likely an abusive reaction. On the other hand, one who accuses another group of conspiracy, is not making any necessary irrational claim. Whether their particular arguments provide sufficient justification or not also doesn’t alter the possibility that such conspiracies do or do not exist either. Conspiracy theories are most often understood by those who entertain them to lack complete certainty and have absolute credibility issues due to the very nature of conspiracy itself. The best we can do is to allow them to speak freely and encourage them, as we should ourselves, to not act in ways based on those theories to harm others, but use it as an invitation for open dialogue to solve problems.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile