"Jones (2004) calls it “basal security,” while Herman (1992/1997) refers to “basic trust” but also to a sense of “safety in the world.” Améry (1999) describes an enduring loss of “trust in the world” that he experienced after torture and subsequent incarceration in Auschwitz"
-
Show this thread
-
" “losing trust” involves losing a habitual confidence that more usually permeates all experience, thought, and activity"
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
"we experience a fundamental assault on our right to live, on our personal sense of worth, and further, on our sense that the world (including people) basically supports human life."
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
"Janoff-Bulman (1992, pp. 5–6)...identifies three such beliefs as central to one-place trust: “the world is benevolent;” “the world is meaningful;” and “the self is worthy.”"
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
1. Do you believe these three quoted beliefs are in fact true? 2. If not, do you think it's always evil to attempt to convince people of this fact?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman
I think they are not technically "beliefs". Not truth-apt. They're stances. Rephrase all of them as really meaning "It's worth it to act." As opposed to: being too pessimistic to act, being too nihilistic to act, or being too self-condemnatory to act.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @jd_pressman
Is the world benevolent? Well, of course, bad things happen. But there's a kind of belief-in-a-benevolent-universe that is required to even move a muscle; if you sincerely believed "anything that can go wrong, will", no planned action would be worth engaging in.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @jd_pressman
likewise, in order to move your arm to pick up an object, you must believe in a certain amount of intelligibility in the universe, and you must not be paralyzed by the belief that you don't "deserve" to move your arm.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
This seems like a strange definition of benevolence. The universe merely being *stable*, if not particularly invested in my success wouldn't qualify in my book.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @s_r_constantin
Especially since the stability doesn't actually exclude outcomes like "a meteor hits the earth and kills everybody" or "runaway greenhouse gas emissions literally destroy the biosphere". The traumatic shearing away of one illusion forces trust of deeper principles e.g statistics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Benevolent" as in "not actively trying to destroy me in every way and at every moment." World-ending threats like meteors and global warming are still quite a lot better than things *could* be.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.