hey, my question was a joke. i think that the idea that there's a psychology specific 
to conservatives (causing their conservatism) is silly. 
Jim

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Ted Winslow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Sent: Sat 8/16/2003 10:53 AM 
        To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Study of Bush's 
psyche touches a nerve
        
        

        ravi wrote:
        
        > Devine, James wrote:
        >> what kind of neurosis -- or psychosis -- do we leftists suffer from?
        >>
        >
        > self-importance? determinism? is that a neurosis?
        
        "Leftists" doesn't point to just one way of thinking, feeling and
        acting does it?  I suspect it's possible to find varying degrees of
        psychopathology among those self-described as leftists.  The
        combination of a feeling of grandiosity with perception of the self as
        fragmented and completely controlled by external forces, for instance,
        is explained in Kleinian psychoanalysis as the product of mechanisms of
        defence against psychotic anxiety.  The combination characterized at
        least two of the founding minds of modernity - Newton and Hume - both
        of whom had psychotic breakdowns.  The "materialism" associated with
        this is attributed (I think mistakenly) to Marx by some leftists.  This
        determinist version of materialism is connected by Marx himself to
        vanguardism.
        
        "The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and
        upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that the
        educator must himself be educated.  This doctrine must, therefore,
        divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society."
        
        Klein, by the way, also provides an account of the strong integrated
        ego relatively free from psychopathology.  She identifies it with an
        idea of "wealth" very like Marx's.
        
        "If in our earliest development we have been able to transfer our
        interest and love from our mother to other people and other sources of
        gratification, then, and only then, are we able in later life to derive
        enjoyment from other sources.  This enables us to compensate for a
        failure or a disappointment in connection with one person by
        establishing a friendly relationship to others, and to accept
        substitutes for things we have been unable to obtain or keep.  If
        frustrated greed, resentment and hatred within us do not disturb the
        relation to the outer world, there are innumerable ways of taking in
        beauty, goodness and love from without.  By doing this we continuously
        add to our happy memories and gradually build up a store of values by
        which we gain a security that cannot easily be shaken, and contentment
        which prevents bitterness of feeling.  Moreover all these satisfactions
        have in addition to the pleasure they afford, the effect of diminishing
        frustrations (or rather the feeling of frustration) past and present,
        back to the earliest and fundamental ones.  The more true satisfaction
        we experience, the less do we resent deprivations, and the less shall
        we be swayed by our greed and hatred.  Then we are actually capable of
        accepting love and goodness from others and of giving love to others;
        and again receiving more in return.  In other words, the essential
        capacity for 'give and take' has been developed in us in a way that
        ensures our own contentment, and contributes to the pleasure, comfort
        or happiness of other people."
        
        Ted
        


Reply via email to