Law School Discussion

INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL

Re: Narcissism
« Reply #340 on: November 09, 2008, 04:56:18 PM »

FYI, a visionary may well be a narcissist! Some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth, with exclusive self-love possibly not being as abnormal as previously thought. Narcissism is the libidinal compliment to the egoism of the instinct of self-preservation, or more simply, the desire and energy that drives our instinct to survive. Freud, who coined the term, observes in "Totem and Taboo" that children and primitive people exhibit what he calls "magical thinking". An example of magical thinking would be believing that you can have an effect on reality by wishing or willpower. This demonstrates a belief in the self as powerful and able to change external realities, which Freud believed was part of normal human development (primary narcissism). Secondary narcissism is a pathological condition which occurs when the libido withdraws from objects outside of the self. Freud further claimed that it is an extreme form of the narcissism that is part of all of us.

To care for someone is to convert ego-libido into object-libido by giving some self-love to another person, which leaves less ego-libido available for primary narcissism and protecting and nurturing the self. When that affection is returned so is the libido, thus restoring primary narcissism and self worth. Any failure to achieve, or disruption of, this balance causes psychological disturbances. In such a case primary narcissism can only be restored by withdrawing object-libido (also called, object-love), to replenish ego-libido. According to Freud, as a child grows, and his ego develops, he is constantly giving of his self-love to people and objects, the first of which is usually his mother. This diminished self-love should be replenished by the affection and caring returned to him.



There are two types of narcissists: the somatic narcissist and the cerebral narcissist. The somatic type relies on his body and sexuality as Sources of Narcissistic Supply (NS). The cerebral narcissist uses his intellect, his intelligence and his professional achievements to obtain the same. Narcissists are either predominantly cerebral or overwhelmingly somatic. In other words, they either generate their N supply by using their bodies or by flaunting their minds. The somatic narcissist flashes his sexual conquests, parades his possessions, puts his muscles on ostentatious display, brags about his physical aesthetics or sexual prowess or exploits, is often a health freak and a hypochondriac. The cerebral narcissist is a know-it-all, haughty and intelligent "computer". He uses his awesome intellect, or knowledge (real or pretended) to secure adoration, adulation and admiration. To him, his body and its maintenance are a burden and a distraction. Both types are autoerotic (psychosexually in love with themselves, with their bodies or with their brains). Both types prefer masturbation to adult, mature, interactive, multi-dimensional and emotion-laden sex.

The cerebral narcissist is often celibate (even when he has a girlfriend or a spouse). He prefers pornography and sexual auto-stimulation to the real thing. The cerebral narcissist is sometimes a latent (hidden, not yet outed) homosexual. The somatic narcissist uses other people's bodies to masturbate. Sex with him – pyrotechnics and acrobatics aside – is likely to be an impersonal and emotionally alienating and draining experience. The partner is often treated as an object, an extension of the somatic narcissist, a toy, a warm and pulsating vibrator. It is a mistake to assume type-constancy. In other words, all narcissists are both cerebral and somatic. In each narcissist, one of the types is dominant. So, the narcissist is either largely cerebral – or dominantly somatic. But the other, recessive (manifested less frequently) type, is there. It is lurking, waiting to erupt.

While many psychologists would call narcissism a disorder, this trait can be quite beneficial for top bosses, and it's certainly less pathological than psychopathy. The narcissistic CEO can be portrayed as a grandiose egotist who is on a mission to help humanity in the abstract even though he's often insensitive to the real people around him. Apple's Steve Jobs, General Electric's Jack Welch, Intel's Andy Grove, Microsoft's Bill Gates, and Southwest Airlines' Herb Kelleher are counted as "productive narcissists," or PNs. Narcissists are visionaries who attract hordes of followers, which can make them excel as innovators, but they're poor listeners and they can be awfully touchy about criticism. These people don't have much empathy. When Bill Gates tells someone, 'That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard,' or Steve Jobs calls someone a bozo, they're not concerned about people's feelings. They see other people as a means toward their ends. But they do have a sense of changing the world -- in their eyes, improving the world. They build their own view of what the world should be and get others recruited to their vision. However, productive narcissists can become "drunk with power" and turn destructive.

Sexual narcissism is the erotic preoccupation with oneself as a sexual being: a desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself. The singer Madonna and Paris Hilton have displayed sexual narcissism.


A way in which we may approach the study of narcissism is by observing the erotic life of human beings, with its many kinds of differentiation in man and woman. Just as object-libido at first concealed ego-libido from our observation, so too in connection with the object-choice of infants (and of growing children) what we first noticed was that they derived their sexual objects from their experiences of satisfaction. The first autoerotic sexual satisfactions are experienced in connection with the vital functions which serve the purpose of self-preservation. The sexual instincts are at the outset attached to the satisfaction of the ego-instincts; only later do they become independent of these, and even then we have an indication of that original attachment in the fact that the persons who are concerned with a child's feeding, care and protection become his earliest sexual objects: that is to say, in the first place his mother or a substitute for her. Side by side, however, with this type and source of object-choice, which may be called the 'anaclitic' or 'attachment' type, psychoanalytical research has revealed a second type. We have discovered, especially clearly in people whose libidinal development has suffered some disturbance, such as perverts and homosexuals, that in their later choice of love-objects they have taken as a model not their mother but their own selves. They are plainly seeking themselves as a love-object, and exhibiting a type of object-choice which must be termed 'narcissistic'. In this observation we have the strongest of the reasons which have led us to adapt the hypothesis of narcissism.

We have, however, not concluded that human beings are divided into two sharply differentiated groups, according as their object-choice conforms to the anaclitic or to the narcissistic type; we assume rather that both kinds of object-choice are open to each individual, though he may show a preference for one or the other. We say that a human being has originally two sexual objects -- himself and the woman who nurses him -- and in doing so we are postulating a primary narcissism in everyone, which may in some cases manifest itself in a dominating fashion in his object-choice.

A person may love: --

(1) According to the narcissistic type:
     (a) what he himself is (i.e. himself),
     (b) what he himself was,
     (c) what he himself would like to be,
     (d) someone who was once part of himself,

(2) According to the anaclitic (attachment) type:
     (a) the woman who feeds him
     (b) the man who protects him

and the succession of substitutes who take their place.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #341 on: November 11, 2008, 10:24:08 AM »

All psychology ultimately stems from Freudian assumptions about the psyche, so Farrell's book would be one shattering the glass dome we live in, the dome built of Freudian constructs that, some people argue, would forever eliminate meaningful human interaction by reducing all actions and all discourse to the mere product of latent desires. Much more than just another Freud-bashing book, some consider it a systematic dismantling of the fantasy world -- built by a cocaine addict named Sigmund Freud -- in which many of us choose to spend our lives. Since the term paranoid is so loaded with stigma, the question leaps to mind immediately: Is this new book scholarship or slander? We thought we had heard it all, from the current crop of baiters and bashers, about the evil man Freud. But get ready for this one: according to Farrell, Freud was paranoid. John Farrell makes the case that even Freud's self-mockery is suspect, the work of a corrosive modernist outlook. Freud, Farrell declares, was paranoid -- just like Don Quixote, one of his favorite fictional characters, and Daniel Paul Schreber, a modern-day paranoiac whom Freud celebrated as "wonderful." Like all paranoiacs, Freud had delusions of grandeur and persecution fantasies and was committed to a belief that nothing in the world is ever what it appears to be.


Freud's approach to paranoia, as to psychopathology in general, brought to it a perspective that is simultaneously dynamic, topographical, genetic, and economic. It is dynamic in that Freud regards paranoia as deriving from a form of psychic activity, namely projection; topographical because this projection, initially connected with incestuous fantasies and later with homosexuality, is based on unconscious impulses; and genetic because the seduction experiences that stimulate these incestuous or homosexual impulses occur at an early stage. Finally, this perspective is also economic in that paranoia, like every other symptom, is an "attempt at reconstruction" directed at protecting the subject from more acute problems. Freud took an interest in paranoia from the outset of his work, comparing it with other forms of psycho-pathology. His analysis (Freud, 1911c [1910]) of Daniel Paul Schreber's "Memoirs of My Nervous Illness," which contains the essence of his theories on the subject, nevertheless poses a few problems.

The connection between paranoia and homosexuality emerged late in Freud's work. Initially, if homosexual elements were present at all, they were overlooked and it was incestuous relationships or fantasies that were emphasized. In fact, the connection between homosexuality and paranoia seems to have resulted from some collaborative work by Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, and Sándor Ferenczi. Furthermore, the analysis of homosexuality based on the Memoirs differs from the analysis based on Leonardo da Vinci's childhood memory. Whereas the former involves a romantic fixation on someone of a different sex from the subject, the latter is entirely focused on his relations with someone of the same sex. What Schreber reveals of the progress of his "nervous illness" demonstrates few of the characteristics of paranoia, or even paraphrenia or paranoid dementia. In fact, he describes the natural and spontaneous development of a psychosis, throughout its progression and in all its forms, without any substantial medical intervention. Instigated by a moment of hypochondria that rapidly turns into a catatonic breakdown, this progression leads him into a paraphrenic phase that gives way to paranoia before concluding in a transvestite perversion with strong hysterical components, which is followed by a rather successful professional reintegration.

Freud incorporates within paranoia the classic forms of delusions of persecution, erotomania, jealous delusions, and megalomania, but he overlooks querulousness and discursive mania. The formulas that Freud puts forward for understanding repression and the return of the repressed in paranoia are problematic in spite of their value. He suggests that a single formula — "I (a man) I love him" is denied in 4 ways:

  • "I do not love him — I hate him," which is transformed by projection into, "He hates (persecutes) me," giving rise to delusions of persecution;
  • "I do not love him — I love her." As a result of projection, this becomes: "I observe that she loves me," which leads to erotomania;
  • "It is not I who love the man [or woman] — she [or he] loves him [or her]," which characterizes jealous delusions;
  • "I do not love at allI do not love any one," which becomes "I love only myself."

Karl Abraham made some variations to these formulae to deal with manic-depressive psychoses. He grafted the essence of formula (a), that is, the inversion of the affect combined with projection, on to formula (d). The formula "I do not love anyone" that Freud proposes is only one of the possible consequences of "I do not love at all"; the other obvious consequence is "I do not love at all — I hate," or even "I hate the whole world," a fantasy that can appear in conjunction with "I love only myself." Schreber's delusion of grandeur in fact portrays a world that has been completely destroyed. Freud explains this fantasy purely in terms of libidinal decathexis but the need for libido to be cathected does not necessarily mean that this concerns the ego. The libido can disperse, with "I hate the whole world" being extended into "including myself." Schreber attempted suicide and asked to be killed. Finally, formula (d) can also appear in another form in delusions of grandeur: "I do not love anyone — I love the whole world," which is expressed in the delusions of mystics concerning the salvation of humanity and the transformation of the world, which also appear in the Memoirs. There is a further equation of this: "I love the whole world, but the world hates me," which is expressed in paranoid masochism, when hatred presents itself as the guarantee of a supreme love.

The application of the formula for delusions of persecution (a) to the formula for jealous delusions (c) concerns the subject's feeling of persecution by the couple of whom he is jealous. The complete formula here is: "It is not I who love the man and the woman — it is they who love each other. I hate them"; and, by projection, "it is they who hate me," who despise me and so on. The formula (b) applied to formula (c) produces "It is not I who love the man and the woman — it is they who love me," a fantasy that is not unusual in erotic delusions, particularly in the form that leads to the "ménage ŕ trois," whether preceding or following the jealousy, the pleasurable aspect of which barely conceals the anxiety. Daniel Lagache pioneered the study of the connection between erotomania and jealousy, as well as the study of ideas of homosexual infidelity in jealousy. There is also the application of formula (a) to formula (b) and vice versa, as elaborated by Luiz Eduardo Prado de Oliveira. In the first case, the formula for homosexual erotomanic delusion appears as: "I (a man) love him (a man)" and by projection: "I do not love him — he loves me," a fantasy that emerges clearly in Schreber's Memoirs and in clinical practice. In the second case, there is a close connection both between jealousy and erotomania and between erotic delusions and feelings of persecution. If these formulae are then applied to each other: "I love her (a woman). No, I hate her," and by projection, "I observe that she hates me," the woman appears as the man's persecutor, just as the man can appear as the woman's persecutor. These observations, entirely based on the wide range of phenomena in clinical practice, are an extension of the foundation constituted by Freud's work.

These developments as a whole illustrate the heuristic innovativeness of Freud's and they encompass a much broader spectrum of possibilities in the clinical field. Freud's for understanding paranoia also gave rise to the concept of foreclosure, developed by Lacan as a result of an error in the early French translations and initially accepted as an adequate basis alone for understanding the psychoses. At very early stage, Freud drew a distinction between three variations of repression: repression concerning affect alone; repression concerning mental representation alone; or, finally, in the most extreme case, concerning both affect and mental representations, in which all the processes occur outside the ego. In his early studies on paranoia, each of these forms of repression found an outlet in projection. In his Schreber study, Freud uses the term Verwerfung (foreclosure or repudiation) to characterize the third form of repression. Freud's first translators into French had simply — and incorrectly — retained the term "projection" Lacan, seeing this as a flagrant mistranslation and connecting it with his work on the symbolic law, introduced the term "foreclosure" (forclusion) in its place. In an everyday linguistic system such as Freud used, the term would have been better translated into French by the concept of "rejet" or "refus" ("rejection" or "refusal"), which is more closely reflected in the alternative English term repudiation. The correction of this translation error at the origin of the concept of foreclosure has certainly indicated a difficulty concerning the formation of psychoses and today this term is as widely accepted as the term "projective identification" which originates from Tausk's writings.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #342 on: November 11, 2008, 12:18:44 PM »

Freud's approach to paranoia, as to psychopathology in general, brought to it a perspective that is simultaneously dynamic, topographical, genetic, and economic. It is dynamic in that Freud regards paranoia as deriving from a form of psychic activity, namely projection; topographical because this projection, initially connected with incestuous fantasies and later with homosexuality, is based on unconscious impulses; and genetic because the seduction experiences that stimulate these incestuous or homosexual impulses occur at an early stage. Finally, this perspective is also economic in that paranoia, like every other symptom, is an "attempt at reconstruction" directed at protecting the subject from more acute problems. Freud took an interest in paranoia from the outset of his work, comparing it with other forms of psycho-pathology. His analysis (Freud, 1911c [1910]) of Daniel Paul Schreber's "Memoirs of My Nervous Illness," which contains the essence of his theories on the subject, nevertheless poses a few problems.

The connection between paranoia and homosexuality emerged late in Freud's work. Initially, if homosexual elements were present at all, they were overlooked and it was incestuous relationships or fantasies that were emphasized. In fact, the connection between homosexuality and paranoia seems to have resulted from some collaborative work by Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, and Sándor Ferenczi. Furthermore, the analysis of homosexuality based on the Memoirs differs from the analysis based on Leonardo da Vinci's childhood memory. Whereas the former involves a romantic fixation on someone of a different sex from the subject, the latter is entirely focused on his relations with someone of the same sex. What Schreber reveals of the progress of his "nervous illness" demonstrates few of the characteristics of paranoia, or even paraphrenia or paranoid dementia. In fact, he describes the natural and spontaneous development of a psychosis, throughout its progression and in all its forms, without any substantial medical intervention. Instigated by a moment of hypochondria that rapidly turns into a catatonic breakdown, this progression leads him into a paraphrenic phase that gives way to paranoia before concluding in a transvestite perversion with strong hysterical components, which is followed by a rather successful professional reintegration.

Freud incorporates within paranoia the classic forms of delusions of persecution, erotomania, jealous delusions, and megalomania, but he overlooks querulousness and discursive mania. The formulas that Freud puts forward for understanding repression and the return of the repressed in paranoia are problematic in spite of their value. He suggests that a single formula — "I (a man) I love him" is denied in 4 ways:

  • "I do not love him — I hate him," which is transformed by projection into, "He hates (persecutes) me," giving rise to delusions of persecution;
  • "I do not love him — I love her." As a result of projection, this becomes: "I observe that she loves me," which leads to erotomania;
  • "It is not I who love the man [or woman] — she [or he] loves him [or her]," which characterizes jealous delusions;
  • "I do not love at allI do not love any one," which becomes "I love only myself."

Karl Abraham made some variations to these formulae to deal with manic-depressive psychoses. He grafted the essence of formula (a), that is, the inversion of the affect combined with projection, on to formula (d). The formula "I do not love anyone" that Freud proposes is only one of the possible consequences of "I do not love at all"; the other obvious consequence is "I do not love at all — I hate," or even "I hate the whole world," a fantasy that can appear in conjunction with "I love only myself." Schreber's delusion of grandeur in fact portrays a world that has been completely destroyed. Freud explains this fantasy purely in terms of libidinal decathexis but the need for libido to be cathected does not necessarily mean that this concerns the ego. The libido can disperse, with "I hate the whole world" being extended into "including myself." Schreber attempted suicide and asked to be killed. Finally, formula (d) can also appear in another form in delusions of grandeur: "I do not love anyone — I love the whole world," which is expressed in the delusions of mystics concerning the salvation of humanity and the transformation of the world, which also appear in the Memoirs. There is a further equation of this: "I love the whole world, but the world hates me," which is expressed in paranoid masochism, when hatred presents itself as the guarantee of a supreme love.


ceco, the diagnosis of paranoid personality structure implies to many people a serious disturbance in mental health. This type of organization, however, exists on a continuum of severity from psychotic to normal. It may be that "healthier" paranoid people are rarer than "sicker" ones, but someone can have a paranoid character at any level of ego strength, identity integration, reality testing, and object relations. A paranoid person has to be in fairly deep trouble before he or she seeks (or is brought for) psychological help; paranoid people are not disposed to trust stangers. People with normal-level paranoid characters often seek out political roles, where their disposition to oppose themselves to forces they see as evil or threatening can find ready expression. Many reporters covering the 1992 American presidential elections ascribed paranoid characteristics to Ross Perot, but even some of these amateur diagnosticians probably voted for him on basis of realistic competence. J. Edgar Hoover was another high-functioning public figure who appears to have had a strong paranoid element in his personality. At the other end of the developmental continuum, some serial murderers who killed their victims out of the conviction that the victims were trying to murder him, and Charles Manson of the California "hippie" cult, exemplify the destructiveness of projection gone mad; that is, paranoia operating without the moderating effects of more mature ego processes and without a solid grounding in reality.

Because they see the sources of their suffering as outside themselves, paranoid people in the more disturbed range are likely to be more dangerous to others than to themselves. They are much less suicidal than equally disturbed depressives, although they have been known to kill themselves to preempt someone's else (imagined) imminent destruction of them. The angry, threatening qualities of many paranoid people have prompted speculations that one contrubutant to a paranoid orientation is a high degree of innate aggression or irritability. Affectively, paranoid people struggle not only with anger, resentment, vindictiveness and the other more hostile feelings, they also suffer overwhelmingly from fear. A combination of fear and shame? The downward-left eye movements common in paranoid people (the "shifty" quality that even non-professionals notice) are physically a compromise between the horizontal-left direction specific to the affect of pure fear and the straight-down direction of uncontaminated shame. Even the most grandiose paranoid person lives with the terror of harm from others and monitors each human interaction with extreme vigilance.  

As for shame, that affect is as great a menace to paranoid people as to narcissistic ones, but the danger is experienced quite differently by each type of person. Narcissistic people, even of the most arrogant variety, are subject to conscious feelings of shame if they are unmasked in certain ways. Their energies go into efforts to impress others so that the devalued self will not be exposed to them. Paranoid people, contrastingly, use denial and projection so powerfully that no sense of shame remains accessible within the self. The energies of the paranoid person are therefore spent on foiling the effects of those who are seen as bent on shaming and humiliating them. Also like narcissistic people, paranoid individuals are very vulnerable to envy. Unlike them, they handle it projectively. Resentment and jealousy, occasionally of delusional proportions, darken their lives. Sometimes these attitudes are directly projected, taking the form of the conviction that "others are out to get me because of the things about me that they envy"; more often they are ancillary to the denial and projection of other affects and impulses, as when a paranoid man, oblivious to his own normal phantasies of infidelity, becomes convinced his wife is dangerously attracted to others. Frequently involved in this kind of jealousy is an unconscious yearning for closeness with a person of the same sex. Because paranoid people confuse such longings with erotic homosexuality, an orientation that frightens them, the wishes are abhorred and denied. These desires for care from a person of the same gender then resurface as the conviction that it is, for example, one's girlfriend rather than oneself who wants to be more intimate with a mutual male friend.

Finally, paranoid people are profoundly burdened with guilt, a feeling that is acknowledged and projected in the same way that shame is. Some reasons for their deep sense of badness will be suggested: their unbearable burden of unconscious guilt is a feature that makes them so hard to help: they live in terror that when the therapist really gets to know them, he or she will be shocked by all their sins and depravities, and will reject them or punish them for their crimes.

Re:
« Reply #343 on: November 11, 2008, 01:15:22 PM »
By definition, projection dominates the psychology of the paranoid person. Depending on the patinet's ego strength and degree of stress, it may be a psychotic, borderline, or neurotic level of projection. In a frankly psychotic person, upsetting parts of self are projected and fully believed to be "out there," no matter how crazy the projections may seem to others. The paranoid schizophrenic who believes that homosexual Bulgarian agents have poisoned his water is projecting his aggression, his wish for same-sex closeness, his ethnocentrism, and his fantasies of power. He does not find ways of making his beliefs fit with conventional notions of reality; he may be quite convinced that he is the only one in the world who sees the threat. Because reality testing is by definition not lost in people at a borderline level of personality organization, paranoid patients in the borderline range project in such a way that those on whom disowned attitudes are projected are subtly provoked to feel those attitudes. This is projective identification: The person tries to get rid of certain feelings, yet retains empathy with them and needs to reassure the self that they are realistic. The borderline paranoid person works to make his or her projections "fit" the projective target. Thus the woman who disowns her hatred and envy announces to her therapist in an antagonistic manner that she can tell that the therapist is jealous of her accomplishments; interpretations given in a sympathetic spirit are reinterpreted by the client as evidence of envy-driven wishes to undermine and control, and soon the therapist, worn down by being steadily misunderstood, is hating the patient and envying her freedom to vent her spleen. In paranoid people at the neurotic level, internal issues are projected in a potentially ego-alien way. That is, the patient projects yet has some observing part of the self that eventually will be capable, in the context of a reliable relationship, of acknowledging the externalized contents of the mind as projection.

The need of the paranoid person to handle upsetting feelings projectively entails the use of an unusual degree of denial and its close relative, reaction formation. All human beings project; indeed, the universal disposition toward projection is the basis for transference, the process that makes analytic therapy possible. But paranoid people do it in the context of such a great need to disavow upsetting attitudes that it feels like a whole different process from projective operations in which denial is not so integral.

The main polarity in the self-representations of paranoid people is an impotent, humiliated, and despised image of self versus an omnipotent, vindicated, triumphant one. A tension between two images suffuses their subjective world. Cruelly, neither position affords any solace: A terror of abuse and contempt goes with the weak side of the polarity, while the strong side brings with it the inevitable side effect of psychological power, a crushing guilt. The weak side of this polarity is the degree of fear with which paranoid people chronically live. They never feel fully safe and spend an inordinate amount of their emotional energy scanning the environment for dangers. The grandiose side is evident in their self-referential stance: Everything that happens has something to do with them personally. The megalomania of paranoid people, whether unconscious or overt, burderns them with unbearable guilt. If I am omnipotent, then all kinds of terrible things are my fault. The intimate connection between guilt and paranoia can be intuitively comprehended by any of us who have felt culpable and then worried about being exposed and punished.

A complex and pervasive issue for many paranoid people is the combination of sexual identity confusion, longings for same-sex closeness, and associated preoccupations with homosexuality. A connection between paranoia and homosexual preoccupations has been frequently noted by clinicians and has been confirmed by some empirical studies. Paranoid people, even the minority of them who have acted on homoerotic feelings, may regard the idea of same-sex attraction as upsetting to a degree that is scarcely imaginable to the non-paranoid. As the brief triumph of Nazism demonstrates, when paranoid trends are shared by a whole culture or subculture, the most horrific possibilities arise. The paranoid preoccupation with homosexuality has sometimes been explained as reflecting "unconscious homosexual impulses." This locution is misleading, in that it is not usually genital urges that stimulate homophobia; it is loneliness and the wish for a soulmate. Because as children we were comfortable with peers of the same sex before we became comfortable with opposite-sex peers, and because people of the same sex are more like us than people of the opposite sex, when we are withdrawn from everyone, we are attracted to someone of the same sex. Unfortunately, the patient becomes aware of this attraction, misinterprets it as homosexuality, and this sets off the defenses. In other words, at the core of the self-experience of paranoid poeple is a profound emotional isolation and need for a "consensual validation" from a "chum."

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #344 on: November 12, 2008, 11:15:26 AM »

All psychology ultimately stems from Freudian assumptions about the psyche, so Farrell's book would be one shattering the glass dome we live in, the dome built of Freudian constructs that, some people argue, would forever eliminate meaningful human interaction by reducing all actions and all discourse to the mere product of latent desires. Much more than just another Freud-bashing book, some consider it a systematic dismantling of the fantasy world -- built by a cocaine addict named Sigmund Freud -- in which many of us choose to spend our lives. Since the term paranoid is so loaded with stigma, the question leaps to mind immediately: Is this new book scholarship or slander? We thought we had heard it all, from the current crop of baiters and bashers, about the evil man Freud. But get ready for this one: according to Farrell, Freud was paranoid. John Farrell makes the case that even Freud's self-mockery is suspect, the work of a corrosive modernist outlook. Freud, Farrell declares, was paranoid -- just like Don Quixote, one of his favorite fictional characters, and Daniel Paul Schreber, a modern-day paranoiac whom Freud celebrated as "wonderful." Like all paranoiacs, Freud had delusions of grandeur and persecution fantasies and was committed to a belief that nothing in the world is ever what it appears to be.


Freud's remarks on and off the platform provoked misunderstandings that generated controversy. Among other things, Freud was accused of advocating parricide, and of predicting that Negroes would eventually control the U.S. The parricide rumor grew out of a joke. President Hall had asked Freud's advice on what could be done for a sick male friend whose problem was an overly strict father, and Freud had replied, "Why, kill his father." The prediction about Negroes dominating the U.S. had also been a joke. Freud had told his follower Marie Bonaparte that in a few thousand years the white race might be extinct, to be replaced by the black race, and then he added lightly, "America is already threatened by the black race. And it serves her right. A country without even wild strawberries!"

It was at Clark University, one morning during breakfast, that Freud confided to Jung how much he was disconcerted by American women, admitting they gave him erotic dreams.
- "I haven't been able to sleep since I came to America," said Freud. "I continue to dream of prostitutes."
- "Well, why don't you do something about it?" asked Jung. Freud shrank back in horror.
- "But I'm a married man!" he exclaimed.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #345 on: November 12, 2008, 01:59:50 PM »

It is believed that Mussolini never killed anyone with his own hand -- he did command others to kill people, but he did not do anybody himself; Hitler, on the other hand, is known to have killed with his own hand.


[...] Thus the supporter of fascism or Stalinism escapes from freedom into a new idolatry in which Mussolini, a cowardly braggart, became a symbol for maleness and courage. Hitler, a maniac of destruction, was praised as the builder of a new Germany. [...]


What was the genesis of Hitler's evil? Many theories are given ranging from:

- born with one testicle
- testicle and/or part of penis bitten off by a goat
- overindulgent mother
- abused child with low self-esteem
- abusive father whose family secret was he had been sired by a Jew
- mother died in 1907 from cancer unsuccessfully treated by Jewish doctor
- syphilis
- syphilis caused by Jewish prostitute
- bad parenting
- Jewish suspect
- mental illness
- physical illness


Some historians have written that Hitler had been a male prostitute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912 and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914. Seward, e.g., says Hitler was listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records. Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called "der Schoen Adolf" (the handsome Adolf) and that later his looks were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Ro[e]hm's circle of wealthy gay friends. The endless competition to prove one's "seriousness" in relation to others is, in essence, a zero-sum game predicated on violence, intimidation and humiliation. Do not fall prey to that notion that you can only inhabit the manhood 'I' in the act of addressing someone as 'You who are less than me.'"



Now you and I know gay people. Some of us even have gay friends. But who do you know that is NOT gay is surrounded exclusively by gay men?

  • Hitler's Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach was bisexual and a pedophile;
  • Hitler's private attorney, Reich Legal Director, was homosexual;
  • Minister of Justice, an adamant fag basher Hans Frank was a homosexual (typical);
  • Hitler's adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was bisexual;
  • Walter Funk, Reich Minister of Economics and Hitler's personal financial advisor has frequently been called a "notorious" homosexual;
  • Hitler's second in command Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag;
  • Rudoph Hess, the handsome Hess, nicknamed "Miss Emma" was gay;
  • All of his personal bodyguards were gay;
  • Even his chauffeur was gay.

Hitler quit school at age 16 and in 1909 moved to Vienna, where he twice took and failed the Art Academy's entrance examination. Shortly after his move, August Kubizek, a young man from his hometown, joined him and they lived together for four months. Intensely jealous, Hitler wrote Kubizek, "I cannot endure it when you consort and converse with other young people." For the next several years, Hitler drifted aimlessly. Despite immense Nazi efforts to erase as much of his past as possible (by destroying his massive police records, for example) it is known that he spent 5 months at a men's hostel known as "a hub of homosexual activity." In May 1913, he moved with another young man to Munich (said to be "a regular El Dorado for homosexuals") and, in September 1914, joined the Bavarian army. He spent the war years as a behind-the-lines messenger, enjoying a long and active sexual relationship with another runner, Ernst Schmidt. At war's end, Hitler returned to Munich and more homosexual activities. He met at that time Capt. Ernst Roehm, a well-connected army officer who soon offered him his first job — as a political spy for the army within a newly organized workers' party.

Hitler's rise largely was due to the two brilliant homosexuals who mentored and tutored him: Roehm, a notorious pederast and a contemporary, and Dietrich Eckart, 21 years his senior. Roehm, a career staff officer during the war, had access to both secret army funds and to military and right-wing groups such as the ultranationalist, anti-Semitic and homoerotic Freikorps — the fiercely anticommunist terrorist squads that sprang up, especially in eastern Germany, in response to the political chaos of the early Weimar Republic. Eckart was a fiercely anti-Semitic journalist and playwright who taught Hitler political tactics and introduced him to Munich and Berlin society, as well as to other wealthy people throughout the country.

Most of the top ranking SS from the very beginning were also homosexual. Ernst Roehm, whom Hitler was a protégé, created the Nazi party on the idea of being proud so called ultra-masculine, male supremacist pedophiles. When you cast a net with that kind of bait what kind of fish do you think you are going to catch? In fact, they actually thought because of their homosexuality they were ultra-masculine because they didn't need women for anything, including sex and companionship. The idea was that because they had no personal need for women, homosexual men were superior to even heterosexual men. They believed that homosexual men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented the elite strata of human society. Naturally, to support their argument they drew much of their pride from the accomplishments of the Greeks, quite possibly the gayest civilization ever to walk to earth.

Heinrich Himmler even complained "Does it not constitute a danger to the Nazi movement if it can be said that Nazi leaders are chosen for sexual reasons?" Apparently Himmler was not complaining so much about all the rampant faggotry around him but just being a homosexual seemed to be the only qualifying factor as to who got promoted in the SS. You might ask, as I did, "Where the @ # ! * did all of these homosexuals come from?" I think that is a fair question. What I found out was that in the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as "the German vice" across Europe because they had so many of them. Here is a fact you can run home and tell your friends -- Germany was actually the birthplace of the gay rights movement. No lie. But back to the Nazi. Ernst Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops reportedly had units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, where almost all the men, without exception, were homosexuals. In fact, the favorite meeting place where some of the earliest formative meetings of the Nazi Party had been held was a "gay" bar in Munich called the Bratwurstglockl where Ernst Roehm kept a table reserved for himself. At the Bratwurstglockl, Roehm and associates - Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst, Ernst's partner Captain Rohrbein, Captain Petersdorf, Count Ernst Helldorf and the rest - would meet to plan and strategize. These were the men who orchestrated the Nazi campaign of intimidation and terror. All of them were homosexuals.

So how do we know Hitler was gay? Besides the fact that Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records, that he had been a male prostitute in Vienna from 1907 to 1912, beside the fact that Eva Braun, his "mistress" wrote that Hitler believed "physical contact with me would be to him a contamination of the mission," besides these ... Well, how do you ever really know someone is gay unless you catch them hanging out with Kevin Spacey? So why did Hitler come down so hard on homosexuals, locking many in jail and even tossing some of them in ovens while he was incinerating Jews? Historians say that he didn't. I mean, yeah, he did publicly clamp down on homosexuals but it wasn't practiced across the board, historians say it was just an excuse to go after people who he saw as enemies of the Nazi Party. And do yourself a favor and don't let the friendly neighborhood Aryan down the street tell you since Hitler, had sex with at least 4 women, one of them being his own niece, Hitler wasn't gay. For all we know Hitler only had sex with 4 women. Hitler loved to be pissed and * & ^ % on, and used the get off beating the darn out of his women which may have been the reason that all 4 of the women that he had sex with tried to kill themselves, with two of them succeeding. Think of it like this -- if you were to pick up a flyer off the street about an organization built on the belief in the innate superiority of a cocksucker, if when you walk into the room where this meeting is being held and you see a room full of dudes sitting around and then say to yourself "this must be the place" ... are you not gay?

Re:
« Reply #346 on: November 12, 2008, 02:51:39 PM »

By definition, projection dominates the psychology of the paranoid person. Depending on the patinet's ego strength and degree of stress, it may be a psychotic, borderline, or neurotic level of projection. In a frankly psychotic person, upsetting parts of self are projected and fully believed to be "out there," no matter how crazy the projections may seem to others. The paranoid schizophrenic who believes that homosexual Bulgarian agents have poisoned his water is projecting his aggression, his wish for same-sex closeness, his ethnocentrism, and his fantasies of power. He does not find ways of making his beliefs fit with conventional notions of reality; he may be quite convinced that he is the only one in the world who sees the threat. Because reality testing is by definition not lost in people at a borderline level of personality organization, paranoid patients in the borderline range project in such a way that those on whom disowned attitudes are projected are subtly provoked to feel those attitudes. This is projective identification: The person tries to get rid of certain feelings, yet retains empathy with them and needs to reassure the self that they are realistic. The borderline paranoid person works to make his or her projections "fit" the projective target. Thus the woman who disowns her hatred and envy announces to her therapist in an antagonistic manner that she can tell that the therapist is jealous of her accomplishments; interpretations given in a sympathetic spirit are reinterpreted by the client as evidence of envy-driven wishes to undermine and control, and soon the therapist, worn down by being steadily misunderstood, is hating the patient and envying her freedom to vent her spleen. In paranoid people at the neurotic level, internal issues are projected in a potentially ego-alien way. That is, the patient projects yet has some observing part of the self that eventually will be capable, in the context of a reliable relationship, of acknowledging the externalized contents of the mind as projection.

The need of the paranoid person to handle upsetting feelings projectively entails the use of an unusual degree of denial and its close relative, reaction formation. All human beings project; indeed, the universal disposition toward projection is the basis for transference, the process that makes analytic therapy possible. But paranoid people do it in the context of such a great need to disavow upsetting attitudes that it feels like a whole different process from projective operations in which denial is not so integral. 


Speaking of defence mechanism, I would mention these other ones, as being particularly interesting:

Rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief/decision/action/lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defence mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question. This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt). Rationalization is one of the defense mechanisms proposed by Sigmund Freud, which were later developed further by his daughter Anna Freud.

Intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress. It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event. Intellectualization is often accomplished through rationalization; rather than accepting reality, one may explain it away to remove one's self. Intellectualization is one of Freud's original defense mechanisms. Freud believed that memories have both conscious and unconscious aspects, and that intellectualization allows for the conscious analysis of an event in a way that does not provoke anxiety. Suppose George has been brought up by a strict father, and he feels hurt and angry as a result. Although George may have deep feelings of hatred towards his father, when he talks about his childhood, George may say: "Yes, my father was a rather firm person, I suppose I do feel some antipathy towards him even now." George intellectualizes; he chooses rational and emotionally cool words to describe experiences which are usually emotional and very painful. Intellectualization is a form of Isolation, according to which you remain aware of the descriptive details of an event but lose connection with the feelings about the event itself; for example, describing a murder with graphic details with no emotional response.

Reaction Formation is converting unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites; behavior that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels; taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety. This defence can work effectively for coping in the short term, but will eventually break down.

Displacement shifts sexual/aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening. For example, a mother may yell at her child because she is angry with her husband.

Repression is the process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness; seemingly unexplainable naivety, memory lapse or lack of awareness of one's own situation and condition; the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent.

Regression When insecure, fearful of rejection, or faced with a challenge that stimulates unconscious guilt or fear, people may become helpless and childlike in an attempt to fend off trouble by disarming potential rejecters and abusers. Anna Freud called this defense mechanism regression, suggesting that people act out behaviors from the stage of psychosexual development in which they are fixated. For example, an individual fixated at an earlier developmental stage might cry or sulk upon hearing unpleasant news. Behaviors associated with regression can vary greatly depending upon which stage the person is fixated at: an individual fixated at the oral stage might begin eating or smoking excessively, or might become very verbally aggressive. A fixation at the anal stage might result in excessive tidiness or messiness.

Dissociation. Examples include the phenomenon that 19th-century French psychiatrists labeled la belle indifférence, a kind of strange minimization of the gravity of a situation or symptom; fausse reconnaissance, the conviction of remembering something that did not happen; pseudologia fantastica, the tendency to tell outrageous untruths while seeming, at least during the telling, to believe them; fugue states; body memories of traumatic events not recalled cognitively, etc.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #347 on: November 13, 2008, 01:30:42 PM »

Displacement shifts sexual/aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening. For example, a mother may yell at her child because she is angry with her husband.



http://www.lmn.tv/movies/details.php?id=MOVE+1652

Kevin Coe, born Frederick Harlan Coe on Feb. 2, 1947, is a convicted rapist from Spokane, Washington, often referred to in the news media as the "South Hill Rapist". He has been in custody since conviction in 1981. Starting on September 15, 2008 the State of Washington held a "civil commitment" trial before a jury wherein it argued that he should be declared a sexually violent predator and confined indefinitely; jury selection began that day, and testimony commenced September 29. As of May, 2008, he is still a suspect in dozens of rapes. His notoriety is due to much more than the fact of his statuses as a suspect and convict. The number of victims he has been suspected of having raped is unusually large; his convictions received an unusual amount of attention from appeals courts; his mother was convicted for hiring a hit man against her son's judge and prosecutor after the initial convictions; and the bizarre relationship between Coe and his mother became the subject of a nonfiction book by the widely read writer on crime, Jack Olsen. "Sins of the Mother" is the title of the movie depicting the story.




Dale Midkiff plays the role of Kevin Coe

In 1981 Coe, a radio announcer by profession, gained regional renown when he was arrested as the suspect in up to 43 rapes which had been perpetrated in Spokane between 1978 and 1981. Many of the rapes involved an extreme level of physical injury to the victims, and the police suspected them to be the work of a single offender, who came to be dubbed the "South Hill rapist". It was suggested that Kevin was mad at his mother for treating him like dirt, and that he was displacing his anger towards her onto his victims, the women he raped and hurt.

The Nuclear Family vs. The Band
« Reply #348 on: November 16, 2008, 12:54:03 PM »

So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band. The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.


And that's the central issue, I think: domination, authoritarianism.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #349 on: November 17, 2008, 10:43:12 AM »

Here it is a placenta delivery (well, it features the baby's delivery as well, but right after that part you can see the placenta being taken out)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-yd8qBexzgF4/cesarean_section_part2


My cousin gave birth to her child by means of a caesarean section -- the baby was in a podalic presentation/sitting (3-4% of all deliveries with one baby). And with the internal podalic version a lost art today, her only option was the caesarean.