ZIklag 11.7 - Ad Hominism

Psychological Warfare and the Will to Be

Hard to Stand Firm

Modern discourse, especially across text-based mediums, reveals a battle for control over thought and perception, where words become instruments of psychological influence. The very language used in criticism—like calling someone a “sad individual,” “charlatan,” or “pathetic”—often serves as a strategy of control, undermining the recipient’s identity, asserting power, and diminishing their self-worth. These words don’t just convey meaning; they carry the intent to weaken, to fracture, to elicit doubt. They aim to hijack the mind and, through it, influence the self—a tactic that’s increasingly common in online interactions and social exchanges where words are wielded to shame, silence, and shape identity.

This dynamic reflects the broader issue embedded in modern psychology, or “psych-o-logos”: its fundamental error in reducing the psyche—the soul—to mere mental mechanics. In equating mind with soul, psychology strips the self of its full depth, limiting identity to rational thought and cognitive function. Such reductionism stems, in part, from Descartes’ cogito, ergo sum—“I think, therefore I am”—which framed existence as something validated through thought alone, as if reason were the sole essence of the self. This approach exorcises the spirit, leaving us with a notion of identity that’s fragile, overly intellectualized, and vulnerable to manipulation.

But William James offers a vital alternative in the affirmation “I am me.” With these simple words, James asserts a whole self, one that doesn’t need to justify its existence through thought or reduce itself to mental function. His perspective taps into what could be called an “anti-gnostic” view, emphasizing the importance of bodily experience, emotional reality, and the totality of self as an embodied being in the world. Unlike Descartes’ fragmented, cerebral self, James’ vision of the self is grounded in lived, bodily universality: I am because I am, not merely because I think. This stance rejects the reductionist frame and reconnects identity with the full spectrum of experience—thought, body, intuition, spirit—all integrated in a continuous stream of consciousness.

By reclaiming the self from the mind alone, James provides a powerful antidote to the psychological tactics of control seen in text-based discourse. His approach to identity—rooted in being rather than thinking—offers resilience against the attempts of others to define, diminish, or dissect the self with words. James’ self is embodied, anchored, and whole, able to stand firm in the face of influence that seeks to manipulate it through language. In saying “I am me,” we affirm our completeness, our wholeness beyond thought, beyond judgment, beyond the attempts of others to shape us.

Thus, standing firm against psychological warfare requires more than cleverness or the ability to refute criticism. It calls for an affirmation of the self that embraces all aspects of existence, a self that cannot be unseated by accusations or manipulations. With James’ insight, we reclaim the will to be—not as fragmented minds but as whole beings—rooted in our own experience, unassailable in the integrity of simply being.