<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><?xml:namespace prefix
= o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Hi Lynn,</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>>What is it about the Left that makes them so
hateful? </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><BR>Here's the beginning (draft)
of a piece I'm writing called "An Evolutionary Mind." At present
it's 20+ pages and needs much editing...and I've edited it for this message as
well... But I think it tries to get at some of what you're wondering
about...</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">(Also, another answer which seems
fairly obvious--though not that fabulous--is that they're the underdogs.
When you're losing or defeated you can be angry (masculine version ) or
depressed (feminine version). Both feelings motivate people toward
action...</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Etc...)</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></FONT></o:p></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3>Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3>Alice</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN></B> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG>An Evolutionary
Mind</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3><STRONG>Of Two Minds <o:p></o:p></STRONG></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>Not that
long ago, for about a year, I dated a cute, left-wing economist off-and-on
(though mostly off). We found each other attractive and exotic and perhaps even
fascinating, but we didn’t get along or get each other one bit. It was a
frustrating and futile experiment in the chemistry and mathematics of pairing
with someone so different in every way—even our horoscopes said we were
disastrous for each other. (That a pretty smart girl like me would even mention
the word horoscope in a piece for public consumption would probably make him
cringe and clear his throat a few times.) But in the process of going toward
something so foreign and at once attractive and repellant, I solidified my
worldview that there really are two different kinds of minds.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>Recently,
the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York Times</I> ran an article
titled “The Political Brain.” The piece suggested that the liberal mind and
the conservative mind are quite different and that this difference is related to
the differences in the way their limbic systems (in particular, the amygdala)
respond to particular stimuli—particularly suffering and violence. The author
made clear to point out that it was difficult to parse if liberals were born
with more sensitive/reactive amygdalae or if their experiences, etc., shaped the
patterns of response; and that indeed it was probably a little of both, as these
things often are.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>Of
course, in the game ‘the nature/nurture debate,’ where anyone over the age of 13
knows the answer is: “it’s both,” you are really being asked <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">To which side do you lean</I> or, perhaps <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">which side do you</I> <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">defend</I>? And in this game my answer is
nature. (Though I consider myself an interactionist; and am informed by an
epigenetic adaptionist model.)<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>I <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">will</I> defend an innatist position though
(while maintaining that the environment has shaped adaptations and hardwiring
and that we’re influenced by the environment). Why? Because I feel it is
true—that much is innate in us—and because others feel it is true, and because
there is some scientific evidence that it is true (e.g., behavioral genetics).
Perhaps I’m an innate underdoggist with a sensitive amygdale! Because, although
being on the nature side these days may seem fashionable to some, in fact, it
hasn’t been fashionable for most of my reading, thinking, and writing years.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>The
economist on the other hand (or brain) is a social constructionist—big on Freud
(and Marx) and early childhood experiences as forming personality traits and
very big on the narrative— he attributed my sympathy with innatist/essentialist
models to a rebellion against my parents. Yet, I’m an older sibling, and
there’s empirical evidence to suggest that older siblings tend to conform,
somewhat, to their parents' beliefs. That was the case with me. It felt awful to
feel ‘the truth’ and to go ‘against’ their social constructionist view of
things. It took a very long time to individuate. A much better explanation (to
me) is that I have a kind of brain that pushes me in that direction.
There’s no question to me that the male/female; left brain/right brain;
western/eastern dichotomy is a valuable one for trying to understand our
differences. It may even be better than scanning amygdalae.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">Here’s the thing: It’s a
phenomenological certainty that the economist and I can’t see any other way but
the way we do; and indeed, our explanations for things have everything to do
with our cognitive style. You see, I can't help think the way I do because
of something deep and essential and real—my brain. And this thought
</SPAN><EM><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'; mso-bidi-font-family: Tunga">in
itself </SPAN></EM><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">I believe
comes from my essential nature/brain. I literally cannot get out of it. And he
cannot get out of the way he sees the way he does, due to his brain/nature. I am
right-brain dominant, female and lean towards an Eastern/collectivist worldview…
I think I’m also old-brainy and he’s new- brainy. (We can call it the Dionysian
mind.) This all seems obvious to me. But he'd probably call it a story, a
tall-tale or fiction. He’d say, nice narrative, </SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix =
st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
/><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">Alice</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">! when perhaps this difference lies in
our blood and brains. Or genes. Or souls. Or maybe I just have access to
something that he doesn’t always have; or doesn't want to have. It's hard
to know. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">The economist is a neophile. His mind,
plastic and flexible, is attracted to new things—even shiny things—from his need
to see the latest hippest film, to his postmodern apartment and trendy
metrosexual style. Me on the other hand, I’m attracted to </SPAN><EM><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'; mso-bidi-font-family: Tunga">old</SPAN></EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"> things. My house is old and so are the
things I put it in it. I liked vintage clothes 20 years ago and now I wear
retro-versions since such clothes exist now, I’m a grown-up, and they fit
better. When he goes back in time to understand the world and humans, he goes
back hundreds and thousands of years and studies men and systems; whereas when I
search for answers I go back 30, 000 to 300 million years, and study our distant
primate relatives and even microbes.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>How does a new, left-brain
dominant mind work? (We can call it the Apollinian mind.) The culture at this
very moment in time says that (for a female) having a bit of a tummy (as opposed
to very flat or muscley) is nice, and so this is what he likes now. But when it
didn’t—just a few summers ago—he didn’t. There are some men who have a
hair-trigger sensitivity to culture’s ebbs and flows and laws and fashions—while
some men listen to something much more deep and primal; who listen to the
‘nature’ within. (Again, I’m not sure if it’s a question of listening to the
depth within, or a question of having it there to listen to or
not.)<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></SPAN></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>In social
psychology there is something called attribution theory—dispositional
attribution versus situational attribution. A dispositional attribution
(inference) is when a person identifies or attributes someone’s behavior to the
person’s disposition, nature, personality. A situational attribution (inference)
is when a person identifies or attributes someone’s behavior to the person’s
situation/environment. The tendency for people to attribute a particular
behavior or trait to one’s essential nature and not to the situation, more
often, and therefore, more often erroneously, is what is known as
“correspondence bias” and more specifically “the fundamental attribution error”
(Ross, 1977). Most thinking people are aware of the fundamental attribution
error. The right-wing typically is identified with this kind of less reasoned,
more automatic attribution; the left typically with more reasoned and fairer
situational attributions. There is no social psychological term (as of yet, and
probably there never will be) for the tendency for folks who are hyper-sensitive
to the fundamental attribution error or who have a tendency to make situational
attributions more often than dispositional ones; their number are so few. (One
again wonders if this dichotomy, this difference in attribution style can be
located somewhere…in the brains or genes…Actually, <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">I </I>wonder. My economist
wouldn’t.)<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>When I
think about it, my mind is oodles and oodles more fluid and boundary-less, and
uncontrolling and feminine and eastern, and artistic and nonjudgmental and
non-labely, and okay, a little bit more nutty than Mr. economist's. When I think
of the people I know who are social constructionists, these are people who are
very masculine, logical, judgmental, critical, controlling, rigid, etc. Why is
this so? It doesn’t make sense! Especially since the EP (evolutionary
psychology) model is innatist and positivist and male, whereas the social
constructionist model is relational and female. Maybe there is something to his
thing about rebellion! Maybe we adopt these views as reaction formations?
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN></B> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3>Evolutionary Defense<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>A
reaction formation is a kind of defense mechanism which protects one’s
self-concept. The classic example is of the homophobe who is a latent
homosexual. Although Tom feels Id-y homosexual longing and desire (having
something to do with nature and nurture, no doubt, though probably more to do
with nature), he also feels a strong Super-ego-y injunction against homosexual
behavior (having something to do with nature and nurture, no doubt, though
probably more to do with nurture).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>So how does Tom, with his strong moral judge/Super-ego defend himself
from acting on these Id-y impulses that do not jibe with his self-concept? He
reacts against them most fiercely. And he does so because he knows about the
foot-in-the-door phenomenon. He knows that once you open the door a little to
something, you are just a few more steps from acting on something. So the door
must be completely shut; the smallest opening, the barest light shining through,
and it’s all over. He would love and get in a bed with a man; Tom would be a gay
man. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT size=3>I suggest
the same thing happens with fierce social constructionists. So, the question is,
does the economist cling to his social constructionist view because his real
view frightens him? He is very decent and has a highly developed moral sense and
conscience. Perhaps he doesn’t like what or the way he thinks naturally, and so
he pushes it away and goes in the complete opposite direction because he doesn’t
feel comfortable with himself and he doesn’t like the real, implicit, deep-down
views he holds because they flow from the way his male, left brain works:
judging, labeling, boxing in, always truly committing the fundamental
attribution error at an automatic, unconscious level. I, on the other hand,
don’t do this by nature. I feel open to stuff, and don’t generally feel the need
to cover up how I feel about people, etc. I feel comfortable with myself and my
true feelings and views about people, etc. And so I feel free and easy to be
open to all kinds of information.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'"><FONT
size=3>Information that suggests things are innate or hardwired is very
threatening to people whose minds naturally have heuristics and algorithms which
are male and compartmentalized. My openness to knowledge—and often what is
considered ‘dangerous knowledge’ is treated by aggressive male social
constructionists as, indeed, dangerous. But it’s as if the ideas really don’t
matter that much, but that what matters is their (the social constructionists’)
domination in the ideology war. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=3>----- Original Message -----
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ljohnson@solution-consulting.com
href="mailto:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com">Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] demons</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>These comments betray a misunderstanding of the
subjects.<BR>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.)<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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?
<BR>Lynn Johnson<BR><BR>Steve Hovland wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Sounds like conservatives :-)
Steve Hovland
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</A>
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Christopher [<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com">SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com</A>]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM
To: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
Subject: [Paleopsych] demons
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Borderline personality disorder is a disorder
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><!---->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.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail">http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail</A>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsy</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ljohnson@solution-consulting.com
href="mailto:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com">Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] demons</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>These comments betray a misunderstanding of the
subjects.<BR>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.)<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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?
<BR>Lynn Johnson<BR><BR>Steve Hovland wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Sounds like conservatives :-)
Steve Hovland
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</A>
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Christopher [<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com">SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com</A>]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM
To: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
Subject: [Paleopsych] demons
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Borderline personality disorder is a disorder
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><!---->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.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail">http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail</A>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>