Preparedness Probably Precludes Potential Paranoia
Alliteration aside, paranoia is
generally (as in:
other than DSM-IV) defined as:
Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.
What the definition
fails to define, is precisely
who the "others" are. Is it just a certain few others, a specific group of others,
most others or
all others? And, "distrust" is a normal human emotion when not "extreme or irrational". We have probably all met somebody whose mere
presence made us uneasy. There was
something about that person (or group of persons) that just didn't "sit right" with us.
How is "extreme" defined?
ex•tremeɪkˈstrim(adj.; n.)-trem•er, -trem•est
1. (adj.)going well beyond the ordinary or average: extreme measures. (there
are more definitions, but, for the most-part, they are simply slight variations of the same theme)
We could spend hours playing the semantics game and dissecting the English language, so for the purposes of
this post, I'm going to use my own definition: Paranoia:
The unfounded (irrational), over-the-top fear or distrust of a number (X) of others.
Even the truly paranoid frequently have one or more people that they
do trust (in varying degrees). The exception to that would be the "paranoid schizophrenic" (schizophrenia characterized especially by persecutory or grandiose delusions or hallucinations or by delusional jealousy - a psychotic "break with reality"). If one is
prepared for a specific circumstance, or a number (X) of circumstances, that
in their world view have the
potential to bring harm to them and theirs, they are not necessarily paranoid. Personal
perception is everything. Most of us would probably agree that a consuming fear of being abducted by beings from another planet is somewhat more than paranoid... but, that is
our judgment based upon
our world view. A person with impaired judgment has a distorted sense of reality, but it
is their reality, and the possibility of "being abducted by beings from another planet" may be the controlling factor of that reality.
"I love my country, but I don't trust my government", is a phrase we have all heard or seen. It's everywhere! On signs, imprinted on t-shirts and bumper stickers, and if you do a web search for the phrase you will get this response:
That phrase is very popular. Does popularity remove the stigma of it being a paranoid thought? Pretty-much, yep. Although
some would say the
sentiment expressed is representative of an "extreme and irrational fear or distrust of (a specific group of) others". Is there any basis in fact for believing the government to be less than trustworthy? Ask a Native American, Japanese-Americans of the 1940's, or the older Black residents of Tuskegee, Alabama. Look into the deconstruction of Social Security since it's creation as a "Trust Fund"in 1935. It's been downgraded from it's original protected "Trust Fund" status and placed into the General Fund - and thereafter plundered by Congress on at least
4 occasions. It was harder for them to
steal from a Trust Fund.
Keep in mind that the primary function of any government is
control of the masses. The only difference between governments is in how much control, and how that control is exerted. There is certainly a point where individual preparation - for any given event - subjectively becomes over-preparation. In the biblical parable of Noah and the Ark, Noah's neighbors thought Noah was a nut-job... but
Noah didn't have to "doggie-paddle" for 40 days and nights. Those who
aren't prepared to survive, may be missed by those who
are. If somebody in the Twin Towers on 9-10-01, expressed a sense of impending doom, that person would probably - and
may have - been called "paranoid" by his/her co-workers. If one is adequately
prepared, there is no need for
paranoia. Just my thoughts.
Pax...