In the realm of Gonzo Theory, an extremely complex multidimensional framework of thought, the historic ideation of hedonistic calculous lurks in the shadows of criminological theory. Today, such a notion is exceptionally relevant, especially in the ego-filled halls of academic. For that matter, the self-centered bastions of government, commerce and industry and every nook and cranny of human habitation. As to that suggestion, discussion is multifaceted. While there are always exceptions to any generalization, the focus here in on human selfishness. From that self-pleasing volition of willfulness, criminality unfolds in conspiracy and practice.
With regard to Gonzo Theory, where one major aspect is classical criminology, the immediate assertion is that of free will. In the timid yet tumultuous torture of psychic revulsion, the emotional reaction is a cavernous gasp of “oh my god”, the curse of free will unleashes the horrors of Pandora’s Box. Screams from many dominions in academia, primarily the schools of “social studies”, echo the vehemence against self-determination. Instead, to favor deterministic domination by “demonic forces”, modern day supernaturalism wears the many disguises of “mental illness”. For that, the pseudosciences pretend to be “scientific”.
In the vast influential reaches of the “social studies” philosophies, including criminology, psychology, sociology and theology, nearly every aspect of American society has been “infected”. At this point in time, it is too late to turn from the arrogance of mental mayhem and transcend to higher planes of reason and rationality. Mainstream society reached the tipping point of persistent and intentional “dumbing down” barely twenty years into the 21st century. Real scientist, as in several prominent astrophysicists, suggested the human species has less than 100 years to work out all the problems humanity creates. Willful choices are freely made and very real.
In consideration of such speculation, several scientists predicted human extinction by the end of the century. Some of them alleged the barbarity, aggression and selfishness of humans to live and work together foments the devolution of a dying species. With that, the realization that the “pursuit of pleasure”, hedonism, for maladaptive and disruptive intentions, colludes to hasten social regression. To that issue, a glance at national politics offers ample evidence of the perpetration of stupid and contentious “polybabble” for the sake of public pandering.
As to the previously mentioned cosmological efforts to study human behavior, spheres of the pseudosciences invite a range of speculation. A good story telling can really mess up a normally quiet day when the subterfuge disagrees with the status quo. The “four horsemen of the intellectual apocalypse”, criminology, psychology, sociology and theology, present conjecture offering both good and not so good possibilities for further analysis. In the not so good range, contrived stupidity often confounds the social spectrum with outright foolishness.
On the other hand, in the probability of the good range, reasonable commentary offers creative speculations as to cause and effect. Within the schemes of the not so good strata, the psychobabble is baffling. Nonetheless, all is vanity and all is allegory for the amative satiation of cracking the ultimate code that explains the human species. By fable, metaphor or even analogy of sorts, the anecdotal nature of contrived consensus is brutally reactionary.
Yet, finding the key to the dungeon of thinking, going through the keyhole into wonderland, the quest reaches an unachievable stalemate. The mission continues. Not for just primal understanding, nor even an elevated enlightenment, but the deep darkness of the black hole in revealing the universal eternity of human consciousness. However, given the devolving state of the human species, across every aspect of society, the regressive tendencies forsake the essential efficacy of intense intellectual ascension. Finding the answers may be futile.
One author for example, writing about cultural masculinity laments the “pussification of America”. As the argument goes, modern America faces a critical dilemma in which men act more like women, with a loss of profound psychosexual identity. Accordingly, if the thesis is reasonable, on or about 1960 and forward, a downward educational trend began which emphasized and promoted male weakness. In an era where the proverbial playing field defaults to the lowest common level, by which there are no winners or losers, self-centeredness flourishes.
In the “pussification” of the American culture, self-gratification replaces self-reliance. Individuation in personal evolution became abhorrent for many, in the fearful collectivist thinking of status quo divisiveness. A condescending sense of entitlement switches places with rugged individualism and learning how to deal with the harsh realities of life. Further, the aforementioned article points to a study related to parental overindulgence and protectiveness to promote unrealistic expectations in their children. As a result, younger generations accept the simplicity of their over-valued sense of pretentious validation. Narcissistic regression festers widely.
As though a fairy tale of imaginative frivolity, festering deep in the folds of organic neural activity, the illusion of “mind” foments every torture one can find. Self-interest is extraordinarily an individual proclivity, forsaking the interests of others for the individuation of egoistic satiation. Yet, there is the cry of the holy adherent proclaiming their reinvention of social justice. In reality though, there is nothing new under all the planets and stars of the universe. To that, lurking just below the surface, the human element knows its own deception. Many will gnash their teeth, rent their attire, anoint with the ash of burnt offerings and wail to the contrary.
For the hard-core, “X-rated”, and cynical criminologist, the superficiality of unscientific conjecture of modern times is quite entertaining. In addition, along with this suspiciousness of typically the classical criminologist, the viewpoint scoffs at the hypocrisy of contemporary sociological speculation. Of this, there seems to be a paradox within the vast “flat earth” realm of the “social studies” arena. Picture for the moment a huge colosseum just for the playful fun. Consider something like a Roman gladiator showground. Upper class elitists love this kind of stuff. They always have and they always will enjoy being spectators for the kill.
Nonetheless, image the competition among the various schools of thought. Entering the arena of portentous expectations, each fights to insist their perspective is the correct one. So, academically speaking, or politically seeking, even socially tweaking, the diversity of philosophical pontification claims the immediacy of definitive explanation. In reality, up against real science, there are no absolute final and complete singularities. Obviously, in this contest not many are skilled in the arts of war, or the tactics of physical combat. No, instead, the various factions, kind of like cults, close ranks around their particular “language”.
That is their weaponry, jargon is the sword, and anecdote is the shield, while the regurgitation of unscientific babble is the spear. Imagine if one had to defend their pretend “science” against the real point of a razor-sharp blade. And so, absent serious challenge and serious questioning, the theoretical hyperbole, across mainstream infotainment, gets away with fraud, fiction and often clever con artistry. So well accepted in a devolving culture, where the average level of literacy is in the realm of middle school, “psychic magicians” can get away with anything.
As the “stadium” of intellectual regression continues, the faux combatants contrive their various psychosocial schemes to perpetuate what might be viewed as a paradox. While some fortune tellers read their crystals balls, there emerges a paradox. Many of the psychics will admonish the confused proselytes to “stop blaming others, or other things” for the necessity to grow up.
That is a curious point to ponder. If, as one article from a famous magazine on “social studies” suggests, a “consumer” should stop blaming externalities his or her poor choices. Responsibility for personal accountability remains a hallmark of at least one school of thought in the vast reaches of the “social studies” arena. In particular, this is in reference to the previous notions of the classical school of criminology. As to that consideration, and by extension or application in a broader spectrum, correlation from externalities of blame is irrelevant to the actual causation of self-determination. Subsequent harm, degradation, invective, torture and so forth, are intentional, premeditated with malice aforethought, for the purposes of personal gain.
In article from 2012, by a mainstream “social studies” researcher, the admonishment to society suggested fessing up to the pursuit of personal pleasure at the expense of others. As people so often do, blaming something or someone else for the purposeful dysfunctions that occur. Self-indulgence, assumption of “victimization” as a perpetrator, or scapegoating others, is part of playing the dangerous game of blaming. Irresponsibility is easily justified as a pattern of rational self-indulgent behavior that serves the interest of the perpetrator.
In a devolving cultural context, a collapsing society, accountability becomes more difficult to achieve. Social media, mainstream infotainment, news media and political processes do not often encourage mature growth and development. Likewise, a profound sense of maturity in the effort needed to become a well-differentiated more enlightened individual is challenging. It is not only a significant affront to the psychic senses to become an ascended personality; such effort defies the imagination at every option. Seemingly, a person is at war within.
Perpetrators of illicit and counterproductive activities seek to avoid answerability. When cornered, they claim all manner of unsubstantiated excusatory conjecture. To minimize culpability, the “anarchistic” thought processes easily conclude that matters of liability are not applicable to him or her in question. The shifting focus becomes convincingly one of a gambit of self-seeking mitigation. Meanwhile, as observers often observe the bias of their observations, pundits usually accept the sleight of hand tactics for “plausible deniability”. Some externality is responsible and not the guilty party who perpetrated the incident in question. People, places and things, in general, are used as the “real causative” factors for the misconduct. In the process of over-generalization and lazy rationalization, a cover story cleverly masquerades for the reality of intentional perpetration. Fictional thinking for self-serving seduction replaced factual reality.
Confusing and counterproductive are the myriad philosophical speculations asserting the specificity of hasty generalizations. Unraveling the mysterious intricacy of human thinking, and subsequent motivations, is akin to making sense out of weather related “spaghetti” models. Yet, that is overly simplistic in the notion that meteorology is probably more predictable than human behavior. Although in response, many behavioral analysists might disagree. In the self-assured arenas of “academic jousting”, and other forms of theoretical “pugilism”, some schools of thought are very defensive. More than a few academicians, particularly those who write textbooks, frequently conclude a sufficiency of anecdotal citations in spite of scientific validation.
With regard to human behavior, and particularly criminality in the study of criminology, theory often collides with the real world of the “criminal justice” practitioner. Outside the safe confines of academia where many theorists conduct their studies, the harsh reality of human conflict presents a deadly contrast. Likewise, the mention of something called “criminal justice” is frequently contentious, confusing and confounding. For instance, politicians sometimes understate, misunderstand and mislead the public and the press on issues related to things like “criminal justice reform”. Similarly, the implications of mentioning something called the “criminal justice system” does not clarify the reality as to how the U.S. systems function.
Since the focus here concerns that which relates to the United States, there is a lot of misperception regarding crime, criminals and criminality in American Society. As to that, in the U.S. there are criminal justice multi-system operating at the federal, state and local levels of government. This presents an additional complexity to analyzing the full scope of criminality and criminology in general. For the police, prosecutors, defenders, probation and corrections officers, and associated first responders, they operate in this real world of human interactivity. For a politician or celebrity pundit pretending to report news stories, there is an assumptive tendency to suggest one size fits all. That is, one system one nation and one easy fix for everything.
However, the realty of the multidimensional intricacy defies quick cure-all simplicity. Counting the federal level, adding states and counties and special jurisdictions, the American “criminal justice system” is vast and diverse. One size does not fit all. With jails, holding facilities, prisons, courthouses, police agencies, etc., unique features culminate at the local levels. There are many organizational features, both public and private, interacting on a daily basis. Therefore, to suggest the notion of a politician’s posture to fix the “criminal justice system” is to proclaim a shallow self-serving and hedonistic need for personal validation. Which system gets fixed?
Aside from the digression, the concept of hedonistic calculus likewise reflects the essential necessity of individual “gain minus risk” assessment. For the “felicity calculus”, previously proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the early 1800’s, espoused an algorithmic notion for calculating pain versus pleasure. As some might assert, sometimes people reverse their view of that which is pleasurable contrasted with painfulness. Of course, the actual measurement of human thinking processes by an observer is highly speculative, theoretically abstract and provisionally subjective. Yet, the philosophical interests are intriguing to the field of criminology.
Nonetheless, assessing costs and benefits of actions relate to the willfulness to engage in, as well as freely commit, an illicit or illegal breach of public civility. Historical investigators within the framework of classical criminology, asserted the standpoint for the potentiality of purposeful and premeditated behaviors. Maximizing pleasurable experiences and avoiding or minimizing the painful ones, reside within the thinker of the pre-calculated eventualities. As anything of value, that which is considered by the individual, to be relevant and subsequently of necessary gain. For this, the rationality of choice is a matter of serious individuation.
While a certain person values a particular perspective, another may have a more diverse viewpoint. Regardless, behaviors are very rational to the proclivities of the instigator involved. Others may find associated behaviors morally repugnant, disturbing, and unethical and so on. Yet, from a counterpoint, the behavior is extraordinarily rational. The notion of “antisocial” behaviors stemming from some mysterious externality of alleged “cause and effect” is not only laughable, but also absurd. Social issues arise as “hope springs eternal” that one school of thought, or another, pretends human behavior is easily quantifiable into simplistic explanations.
Far too long, the “social studies” arena of academia wields too much power of influence over political policymaking. In this pseudoscience realm, certain schools of thought in criminology, psychology, sociology and theology, perpetrate myriad mitigations to excuse illicit behaviors of every category. From the perspective of “demonic possession”, or causative factors doing evil and residing outside the person, perpetration is peculiarly otherworldly. As such, in post-modern America for instance, everyone is a victim and responsibility conveniently rationalized. Regardless though, erroneous conjecture, more prevalent socially than ever, falsifies the underlying motivational factors contingent upon willfully choosing to inflict harm on others. From the “social studies industrial complex”, after the fact, most explanations are not even close.
In the malaise of discontent for a “single bullet” theory to explain everything about human nature, the frustration surfaces in superficial conjectures. For some, preferring unlabored persistent ignorance instead of strenuous critical analysis, mythologies will find refuge in false cause pretentiousness to the reality of scientific authenticity. Ideologies of every kind, absent evidentiary substantiation through skeptical scrutiny, with hidden motives, derail serious investigative discourse. In the social mainstream, the confusion runs deeper than ever. Serious investigative analysis devolves to quick fixes and easy answer, which foster dangerous consequences.
Of such concerns, examples reveal themselves in the divisiveness of modern politics and the subsequent shallowness of public policy debates. Corresponding examples reflect the narrow and divided perspectives in electoral processes, religious interactions and social media, becoming increasingly prone toward debasing selfishness. Regardless, the fundamental notion of motivational persistence is that of freely choosing certain courses of action. From the classical criminological viewpoint, people engage willfully in the con of their self-gratification.
The proliferation of “selfie” oriented personal promotion demonstrates the regressive self-centeredness of each successive generation. From so-called sit-coms to reality shows, or late-night variety shows to cable network talk hosts, there is an abundance of condescending invective. To look better than another, poke fun at institutions, and point out another person’s shortcomings degrades the social mainstream. In the meantime, such derisive antics promulgate bullying negativity that makes one feel good at the expense of others. These are intentional unethical behaviors.
Hedonistic intentions often promote illicit activities, or become the basis for committing crimes that gratifies the perpetrator. Whether the con job is an outlandish television commercial, or the stupid commentary of a politician, it is a matter of probable gain in taking advantage of someone else. The bullied person will likely suffer. For the instigator, when challenged, the “criminal mind-set” quickly embraces easy rationalization in fabricating convenient excuses.
Entire industries willingly promote mitigating “diagnoses, in quickly blaming someone else. Nonetheless, the bottom-line is that people freely pick their courses of action for the self-flagellation of themselves. Speaking in a metaphorical sense, the “self-stroking”, “spanking”, or “psychic flogging”, services the satiation of personal validation. The debauchery of arrogant intemperance hastens the regression of the human species toward its contrived eventual extinction. People are adept at their own deceptions and greedily embrace manipulative gambits of alleged “magical sciences”, as hope springs eternal for mystical salvation from themselves.
 Online news publication publishing science and political commentary; exact citations avoided to protect sources;
 Online blog promoting articles and information regarding cultural issues related to masculinity;
 Online journal article from a traditional human behavior school of thought pursuing psychological assessment;
 World wide web information site dealing with criminological issues;