Exogenous cognitive dissonance as an ailment that can be palliated by cannabis sativa as an herbal remedy. (smoke, symptoms)

[danielpalos]

Exogenous cognitive dissonance as an ailment that can be palliated by cannabis sativa as an herbal remedy of medical marijuana.

This essay deals with exogenous or external forms of cognitive dissonance or cognitive dissonance exacerbated by "externalities" to a given individual's system of beliefs; especially, such as institutional forms of applied cognitive dissonance and which may affect persons who may otherwise not have that ailment, but for that form of cognitive dissonance applied and enforced via institutional means. Reefer Madness and our War on Drugs are examples of exogenous cognitive dissonance engendered by institutional means.

It is my purpose to discuss this concept and have it not be excluded as a valid reason for a medical marijuana recommendation since using marijuana is actually more "cognitively sonant" than any form of Prohibition on the part of the general government of the Union; especially, since the repeal of the delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States.

It should also be considered protected under our First Amendment regarding the free practice of forms of "cognitive sonance" which may be indistinguishable from forms of religious beliefs regarding true witness bearing. In other words, simply referring to that specific ailment could also be viewed as a political protest regarding forms of cognitive dissonance on the part of elected representatives claiming morals who are exogenous to ourselves and that may have been elected to public office to "rule over us" by declaring their subscription to religious morals, and any infringement to individual liberty arising from that, exogenous to ourselves, cognitive dissonance when enacting rules of law our in secular and temporal republic, by bearing false witness to our own laws in spite of a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic.

Description

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

Change our behavior.
Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

Dissonance increases with the importance and impact of the decision, along with the difficulty of reversing it. Discomfort about making the wrong choice of car is bigger than when choosing a lamp.

Source: Cognitive Dissonance

I am quoting from Arthur C. Clarke's book entitled 2001: A Space Odyssey for ease of understanding a potential effect of some forms of cognitive dissonance.

Deliberate error was unthinkable. Even the concealment of truth filled him with a sense of imperfection, of wrongness - of what, in a human being, would have been called guilt. For like his makers, Hal had been created innocent; but, all too soon, a snake had entered his electronic Eden.

For the last hundred million miles, he had been brooding over the secret he could not share with Poole and Bowman. He had been living a lie; and the time was fast approaching when his colleagues must learn that he had helped to deceive them.
...
So ran the logic of the planners; but their twin gods of Security and National Interest meant nothing to Hal. He was only aware of the conflict that was slowly destroying his integrity - the conflict between truth, and concealment of truth.
...
He had begun to make mistakes, although, like a neurotic who could not observe his own symptoms, he would have denied it. The link with Earth, over which his performance was continually monitored, had become the voice of a conscience he could no longer fully obey. But that he would deliberately attempt to break that link was something that he would never admit, even to himself.

Yet this was still a relatively minor problem; he might have handled it - as most men handle their own neuroses - if he had not been faced with a crisis that challenged his very existence. He had been threatened with disconnection; he would be deprived of all his inputs, and thrown into an unimaginable state of unconsciousness.

In my opinion, some of our veterans of more relatively recent foreign wars would not have some of the problems they do, if our wars had been more Just instead of simply politically "expedient", even if it required or requires the use of the abomination of hypocrisy (and that form of exogenous cognitive dissonance) to prosecute. Our war in Vietnam is an anecdotal example of greater forms of psychosomatic illnesses that may be attributed to the exogenous and cognitive forms of dissonance employed by institutional means.

To put exogenous cognitive dissonance in the context of our own current political-economy regarding cannabis, here is something to consider; we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic, but no anti-hypocrisy laws against that religious and immoral form of cognitive dissonance and false witness bearing.

Doesn't merely having that specific McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic imply a moral of true witness bearing as a form of allegiance? If it doesn't, then why do we even have that specific phrase in our pledge or which god does that phrase refer to if true witness bearing is not considered a relevant and Age-less form of moral absolutism or ethic? We are no longer in the Iron Age.

According to a Bible, marijuana was intelligently designed on the third day and declared good by a Creator. Why is it then, that "original sinners" are claiming that something declared Good by God, is bad? This is one example of an exogenous form of cognitive dissonance via institutional means that seems to discredit the concept of Intelligent Design. Why is it that some politicians who claim to subscribe to religious forms of morals based on Intelligent Design are willing to discredit the concept of Intelligent Design by declaring that marijuana is bad, contrary to the Scriptures of that "holy" book?

From one perspective, simply using that, potentially seed bearing plant for goodness and not badness, could be considered a form of homage to the Creator. How can any form of the abomination of hypocrisy be any form of homage to a God that abhors that form of false witness bearing?

In my experience, simply getting high from that plant palliates such exogenous forms of cognitive dissonance and provides a form of "cognitive sonance" since, even if a person chooses not to believe in the Creator of our world, it still conforms to our current regime and political-economy regarding Religion and our pledge of allegiance to our own republic. In other words, who is less cognitively dissonant, a pot smoker who doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of a Bible or Intelligent Design but who can still appreciate the concept and be thankful for the mere existence of such a plant; or, any politician who could not get elected on a platform of true witness bearing and who is not required to undergo any inquisition into their religious moral rectitude and who claims to have Faith in God the Creator and Intelligent Designer of that plant, but engages in a War on it and resorts to propaganda in the manner of Reefer Madness which does not conform to a moral of true witness bearing, especially in public acts that can have the effect and (coercive use of) force of law?

Any qualified professionals are welcome to comment and provide an opinion. I would also like a second opinion regarding not excluding this concept and ailment from the list of ailments that can be palliated by marijuana.