[Paleopsych] demons

[Steve Hovland]

I suspect that both sides are guilty of projection.
You cannot assert that Kerry lies without recognizing
that Bush does too.  Assuming that both candidates
embody the true state of the electorate to some degree,
it doesn't say much for us when the truth becomes 
a liability.

Bush clearly demonstrated black and white thinking
when he said that on the matter of Iraq other countries
were either with us or they were the enemy.  His
father demonstrated much more sophistication in
building his coalition for the first war.  

Bush's advisors also do the same thing when they say we
had no choice other than invading Iraq or letting Saddam
run amuck.  Saddam was in fact imprisoned in Baghdad,
with 2/3 of Iraq's territory a no-fly zone and the most of
the remainder under the control of an army he feared.
There were many options that were not exercised.

You also see this on the conservative talk shows.  If
someone from the left suggests that the benefit of
getting rid of Saddam depends upon how much it costs,
the conservative will assert that the cost doesn't matter, 
only the principle.

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net


-----Original Message-----
From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent:	Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM
To:	The new improved paleopsych list
Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] demons

These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects.
Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side 
of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected 
unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of 
all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto 
which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, 
accuses Bush of lying.)

In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the 
acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed 
marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed 
all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the 
Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are 
not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they 
_will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that 
people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better 
when you obey them.

I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. 
My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting 
opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of 
opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes 
them so hateful? 
Lynn Johnson

Steve Hovland wrote:

>Sounds like conservatives :-)
>
>Steve Hovland
>www.stevehovland.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
>Sent:	Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM
>To:	paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>Subject:	[Paleopsych] demons
>
>
>  
>
>>>Borderline personality disorder is a disorder 
>>>      
>>>
>characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism
>called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable
>to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind
>at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking
>to protect themselves from contradictory
>feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<<
>
>--Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off
>aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and
>cannot ignore?
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>  
>
 << File: ATT00000.html >>  << File: ATT00001.txt >>