Chris, ******* for comments, Natalia All mail scanned by NAV ----- Original Message ----- From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Projection makes perception
| > Chris, | > | > Sure hope you read my earlier post to you on the source of projection in | > psychology. | | Convenient excuse for perpetrators -- they don't do it on purpose, it's | merely their subconscious! | *******The topic didn't start out as one of perpetrators being able to use projection as an excuse for their crimes. It was a discussion about the way in which people cast onto others characteristics of what they do not like about themselves--subconsciously! No one was excusing anyone for crimes; it was an exchange about how the process of projection comes about. Because you failed to grasp the concept when you gave the example: "In practice, the individual that uses a projection often does NOT perceive the projected attributes as bad --after all, they are its OWN attributes--, but knows that _others_ (or "the public") perceive these attributes as bad. Consistently, the purpose of the projection is NOT to "expel feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable". "Rather, the purpose is to mislead _third_parties_ about the projecting person's character, making it look better (in comparison) than it is. "I.e. if A is a thief, A accuses B of being a thief in order to divert C's attention from A's theft (C can be "everyone else") -- this does NOT mean (as the posted definition suggested) that A deems theft a bad thing. Actually, A can be very proud of (own) thefts." ******* is no reason to twist things into an entirely different scenario in which you can save face.******* | > By "drug fans", do you mean people involved in the profession of psychology | | Only those who think drugs are part of the solution instead of of the problem. | ****** You are the one who is redesigning the concept of decriminalization. The idea behind it is to avoid ruining the lives of mostly youngsters who could end up in prison for years for what is usually soft drug use, as opposed to dealing, and as a result of their sentence end up damaged for life--because that is usually what happens to youth who are raped by other inmates regularly and also isolated from society. These types of prisoners make up about 25% of inmates, whereas real perpetrators who have raped, killed, peddled kiddy porn, embezelled people of millions, etc. get a slap on the wrist even for repeat crimes, and are released to make room for the pot smokers. The repeat offenders keep offending, but hey, those evil little pot smokers are locked up from themselves****** | | > or people who are in favour of decriminalizing a societal problem? | | Problems can't be decriminalized, only solved or aggravated. | Decriminalizing drugs aggravates the "societal problem" of drug use. | (The problem of drug mugging can be solved with the controlled provision | of drugs in detox programs.) *****Controlled provision applies to hard drugs. The societal problem is not the drug use, the drug use is a manifestation of the societal problem of depression/oppression. Which is why people drink alcohol too. ****** But again, you don't seem to be making recommendations for detox for the majority of earth's citizens such as controlled provision of vodka or beer. Why not, Chris? Do you have more respect for aggression? Or are you worried about societal or peer group rejection by such a stance? Are you really unaware of the spousal assaults that occur as a result of alcohol? It's like 70%! And the rape of children? It is an extremely aggressive drug, that creates killers behind a car wheel, and costs society billions in medical and labour costs. But for some reason, you're unwilling to make that "rational" assessment of the users of that substance which acts upon the same part of the brain as heroin--in other words extremely addictive! ***** | | Murder is a societal problem -- do you want to decriminalize it to solve it? | ******Pot smokers aren't killing people Aggression addicts are. The comparison is pathetically lame. Further, murder is much allowed, by the way, by virtue of legal alcohol use, medicalization and iatrigenic incidents, army enlistment, etc.**** | | > As to Freud, your own extreme fear of drug addiction inspires in you what | > is pegged in psychology as the "All or none" judgment syndrome. | | Nonsensical psycho-babble. Fear is irrational; awareness of real drawbacks | is rational, and this is my attitude towards drugs. ******I wasn't telling you to take drugs, for heaven's sake! I was saying that judging people wholly for a part that you don't like leaves you the loser. Everyone has both likable and dislikable attributes. No one will ever be perfect enough to get top marks in every department. Learning to forgive in others what you most fear about yourself (ie. addiction or naevity) could spare you isolation down the road.****** | | For the record: Criticism of Freud's cocaine peddling is not an exotic | view of mine, but the position of expert organizations and well documented | in the literature. | | ******Experts criticize a great deal of his work for good reason with respect to his theories, and also for his attraction to addiction, but few will argue that he made significant contributions to the field of psychology. But you haven't actually delved into psychology, and are rushing to bring in "help" by citing expert opinions--a telltale sign that your arguments need outside support--yet you are not providing any expert arguments that deny Freud's important place in the field. You're trying to bluff your way out****** | > You select the worst known traits of an individual, and judge the whole | > person accordingly. | | No, I judge by the relevant traits, and Freud's attitude towards cocaine | and his later dishonesty re. the issue is very crucial to his overall | (non-)credibility. Freud was very predator-class and preached the | (mis)use of drugs to facilitate the oppression and rip-off of people, | especially of patients. Dependency-creating, brain-destroying drugs | along with mind-numbing psycho-babble that consistently deflects | attention from the real issues and increases the profits of predators. | | ******The right to be critical of Freud's screw-ups does not give you the right to negate his contributions to the field. A good example of this would be--I used to love Gordon Lightfoot's early work. Then I learned he was a wife beater and likely alcoholic. I was extremely upset to find this out, but could not deny or negate his contributions to music. But by your logic, I must have him removed from existence, and must never sing along to his tunes again (lest I become likened to him) when they come on the radio. I must deny my musical enjoyment because wife-beater/alcoholic is bad. Well, if I did that, I would lose, Chris. If I judged people wholly all the time, no matter that the judgment seems rational enough, I wouldn't have a life because people are life, and we all have our hang-ups. ******* | > That he was deceived by cocaine was ironic, | | It wasn't ironic, it was _typical_ (both of Freud and of cocaine). | | | > but hardly negated his accomplishments. | | It puts his accomplishments into perspective: The weird ideas of a druggy | who is dishonest about himself and towards his friends and patients, even | if it costs their life. | | ******More and more, it sounds like you are casting out, selectively of course, to unload some of the stuff you yourself experienced. As an example, in the army, people sign up for legal murder in the name of defense, then learn that the glory of being a hero requires that one put their life at risk only to endanger or kill innocent others. It's a lot of guilt to carry around, so they go through life searching out usually people who won't resist villification, thereby helping the accuser to unload the guilt and feel better about themselves. The problem is that the guilt for having attacked someone else always comes out in some form that cannot be predicted****** | > I would warrant that you listen to a fair amount of drug-inspired music, | > be it known to you or not. You have enjoyed scores of films, read books | > and played video games--most inspired by soft drugs or alcohol at the | > very least. | | Why do you think I like decadent "culture" ? *****Why are you presuming that it need be decadent? Most artists out there are well known for their consumptions, and that can include classical performers as well. Alcohol is very popular as are beta blockers. But my point was, you wouldn't know, yet still enjoy it.******* | Funny if you believe that the books I read (e.g. now: "The Diet Lie", | debunking the food & drugs industries) have been "drug-inspired". | But you're certainly right that the books you read are drug-inspired. | Sounds like that. *****Now there you go again. Making the accusation based on my support for decriminalization of soft drugs. Therefore all of my life must be one of a drug-cultured limitation (of your mind). I told you before, but you choose to ignore to look superior that I was reading better diet books way before you were born. And I continue to do so. I told you I support your well-intended views on diet change. But because I dare to criticize some aspects of your beliefs--all of my book reading will be deemed by you to be decadent! You are young, obviously, but must you continuously allow your biases to overshadow your strengths in this manner?|****** | It's really preposterous to suggest that drugs enhance the mental | abilities of people. *****I didn't say that drugs were enhancing mental abilities--but you just did! I said that you have been listening to creative works inspired by drug use, and enjoying them despite the fact that most musicians, many book writers, film makers and video game creators love their drugs and booze. But you don't judge them wholly as incompetent, decadent, or unworthy of your time, because your life would suck without the world's 90% drug/alcohol inspired music/culture.You exhibit selection in your biases even within the drug-culture industries I cited in this instance because, let's face it, who would be able to relate to you if you couldn't enjoy any of these at your age?****** This reminds me of that "study" (funded by the | coffee industry) which asserted that coffee improves people's memory | and concentration. Well, this "study" was done with coffee addicts | only, and surprise surprise, their brains only worked with coffee | and badly failed without coffee. Of course the study omitted that | non-addicts' brains work even better, even without coffee. | | What really enhances the mental abilities of people is good nutrition | and drug abstinence from the start (or even before conception..). | No amount of Freudian slips ******What has a Freudian slip got to do with any of this?????******* , psycho-babble and drug-industry PR | can change that. | | | > When you judge people wholly on but one part of them, you cannot know | > them, or ever make peace with them. | | Wrong assumption => wrong conclusion. *******Chris, you're pugnacious as hell, rarely speak but to criticize, and I've yet to hear you compliment anyone.**** | | | > And you lose an opportunity to understand not just them but yourself | > as well. | | I'd suggest you first begin to understand your own idol Freud before you | lecture me on understanding people. ******I didn't say Freud was my idol, you did. And you cannot claim to be able to judge his contributions based on your disdain for his addiction.******* | | | > More the tragedy, this reveals how you harshly regard yourself. | | Harshness toward oneself isn't bad (and only my business) -- what's bad is | double standards and leading people down their peril. ******Harshness towards oneself is indeed a huge concern, and of course it is your business--especially to address it so you don't pass it on to others as you so liberally do, or towards your wife and kids.****** ******Natalia****** | | Chris | | | | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword | "igve". | | | _______________________________________________ | Futurework mailing list | [email protected] | http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
