At 21:52 09/01/2011 -0800, Sandwichman wrote:
Except the DSM definition went much farther than ordinary human frailty.
Yes.
Incidentally, Keith, the "youngest and most [conventionally] beautiful
woman" is not necessarily the most gratifying -- either long term or
immediately.
Yes.
But to return to the original extract it's not the "corporatisation" which
has legitimized narcissism but just part of the necessary swings that take
place in our cultural fashions from time to time. Rather, it is our
individualization which has brought "corporatisation" about -- why the
Momma-and-Poppa stores have given way to the ultra-individualized items in
the supermarkets.
Unfortunately, what remains behind cultural fashions is not only our
individualism but job protectionism. This has been unchanging through
civilized history. This is why, in my opinion, unless the most radical
changes take place in education and governmental support of professional
closed shops in the advanced countries, then the elite (which I define as
the wealthiest 25% of the population these days) will continue to draw away
from the masses. Now that genetics is the big growth area in science, and
likely to be developed as a consumer service (for better health and
children), this could even lead to significant genetic separation. This is
big danger which very few are thinking about at present.
Keith
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Keith Hudson
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
I don't think that narcissism (or egotism, vanity, conceit, selfishness)
are socially deviant. They are part and parcel of human nature. We may be
social mammals but we are also individuals underneath. A male, given the
opportunity will have sex with the youngest and most beautiful woman he
can find. A woman, looking for a parental partner will choose the most
economically secure man she can conveniently find. Neither gives a great
deal of thought to the longer tomorrow, only to their immediate needs.
Narcissism , egotism, vanity, conceit, selfishness, among other "sins"
were abstractions used as control devices by male religion organizers, not
to mention the very real sufferings they've imposed on others throughout
history.
Keith
At 17:31 09/01/2011 -0800, Mike Gurstein wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of marc garrett
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:36 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
Subject: [NetBehaviour] Narcissism normalised.
Narcissism normalised.
"Recently a NYTimes (<http://is.gd/i3Cj9>http://is.gd/i3Cj9) article
announced that
narcissism is being deleted from the tomb for psychiatric disorders.
Narcissism will not appear in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (due out in 2013, and known as
DSM-5). What happens when what was once morally objectionable behaviour
( egotism, vanity, conceit, selfishness) is no longer a 'legitimate'
social deviance? Is narcissism now so deeply embedded in the collective
psyche that it is now 'normal'? Is this the ultimate end of the
neo-liberal exhalation of the individual, celebrity culture, a century's
worth of advertising and the corporatisation of everyday life?"
<http://ecolabs.posterous.com/narcissism-normalized>http://ecolabs.posterous.com/narcissism-normalized
_________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/01/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
