Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Reflections on the Origins of our Malaise...Part II
Nautikos
"The West is left with only two options – to kill
them or be killed."
So what's to argue or debate about? The world has had to do that before in history, and this time I don't believe for a moment we have to kill all Muslims, we do have to maintain intestinal fortitude to kill off those of them that can't think of anything else but killing. Hell, Japan had an attitude problem like that once and it took an A bomb to re-educate that way of thinking. I believe that the 'evil' side of Islam can be conquered just as the evil side of anything else can be conquered. Actually I can't see the difference between drug dealers and bad people in religions.
posted by
WileyJohn
on May 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM
| link to this | reply
You would be a very interesting person to get into a deep conversation with! I could go on and on about this sort of thing....come to think of it; I go on and on about most things....! Intrigueing post, my friend.
posted by
Darson
on April 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM
| link to this | reply
A very solid explanation of the differences.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on April 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Dear Naut. I thank you for responding in such length to my comment. I enjoy your posts tremendously and learn lots from them. This time though I have to disagree with some of your statements...
The meaning of Psychoanalytic as per the Merriam Webster dictionary is: "employing psychoanalysis or its principles and techniques". One of the main differences between Psychoanalysis and regular therapy is that the latter one is like a conversation between the Psychologist and the patient. Psychoanalytic therapy began with the therapist, which in that case would be called an analyst, sitting and the patient lying (see I remember :-) down on the now famous "couch" and facing away from him. The reason for these changes in positions was simple... the patient was not to look into the analyst face so that there would be no confusion as whether the analyst had feelings toward him... either of friendship and empathy or dislike and judgement. By achieving a level of unattachment, the patient could then more freely reveal thoughts to the analyst that otherwise he might have been ashamed or reluctant to share and the analyst in turn could render his opinion without his own feelings being involved. Now a days Psychoanalysis is prevalent in most therapy sessions and the patient does not mind looking into the therapist face ( I guess we are more unashamed or if you will more daring) SO, when you said " Psychoanalytic paradigm" I naturally assumed that Bruckner was a Psychologist, I am sorry about that, but even if he wasn't, his use of the word itself in his work denotes that, as the word's definition points out, there is a relation to psychoanalysis in that work and therefore to psychology in some way in Bruckner's methods. Now as for your assertion that "psychoanalytic theory is as far removed from psychology, as generally understood and practiced, as archeology is from plumbing" ( though very funny, loll) I think is not accurate either... all the terms used by Bruckner denote a close relation to Psychology...to pick one, guilt is guilt whether personal or collective and the same could be argued for the reasons for that guilt. When Jung spoke of the collective unconscious he did so as belonging to the unconscious mind... and I quote Wikipedia Encyclopedia to use a readily available source: "Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the Collective Unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species". Now Psychology is nothing if not and I again quote Merriam Webster : "the science of mind and behavior - the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group - the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity" so if Bruckner spoke of the behavior of us humans and used the word " psychoanalytic" Well ... I leave the conclusion of all these to your inimitable powers of deduction for I am no match for them. In any case, I am sorry I pegged Bruckner wrongly.
About my muslim friend, I saw him recently. He told me his Mullah said, when he asked him about what we were talking about, that translations of the Koran were many and sometimes were done by people that were not true believers. These "infidels" allowed their personal thoughts to color the words of the Prophet. He also told him Mohammed was a saintly man and everything he said was to be obeyed and followed. He blah blah blah some more and then prohibited my friend to associate with me :-) But he did not listen and therefore I still call him my friend
Thanks again for sharing so much with us ... xoxoxo
posted by
Sinome
on April 28, 2010 at 6:07 PM
| link to this | reply
This is all another way of talking about something
that I learned to talk about in terms of core beliefs. I have written on it before, and will again soon, when I have time to reread this and reponder the statement I am making here. I also learned about core beliefs in terms of individual psychology, and the 'parts' model... which also very neatly fits collective consciousness, the mindset of a culture, for instance.
The core beliefs model is, in fact, a therapeutic model: it is about effective 'fixing.'
posted by
Ciel
on April 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Amazing in the big picture our thoughts are not just our own! Frightening in an eerie way. Shelly
posted by
sam444
on April 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply