These posts explore the themes developed in my monograph, Narcisso-Fascism, which is itself a real-world test of the central concepts of the Biocognitive Model of Mind for psychiatry.
It is surprising to see such effort put into a study of personality disorders, when there is such broad consensus that they don't have a scientific basis. The ICD has done away with them and the DSM will surely follow suit in its next iteration. My work is chiefly with male survivors of childhood sexual abuse involving men of the church, teachers, scoutmasters, etc. As a group they are profoundly mistrustful of people in authority and institutions, they have few relationships and are hypervigilant and, well, paranoid! They soothe themselves with drugs and/or alcohol, which mostly add to their paranoia. A thorough developmental history tells us much of what we need to know about people.
About 2/3rds of the way through, when you mentioned "Creating our own personalities", I wonder if I could hear some remembered laughs from reading 'The Dice Man'? :D
Btw, mathematically, the common phrase used for Descartes doesn't really work. The "I" in the first statement predicates the result - it could be "I Eat, therefore I am", or "I fart, therefore I am". I am doing/being something, therefore I have existence. QED.
Fortunately, the actual insight that Descartes had was a lot subtler than that, I'd mention it if I could recall OTOH right now, lol.
On paranoia, imagine the horror if all those "premodern superstitions", were actually true, and those people witnessing actual reality are being locked up for life without parole, and even tortured mercilessly, for things they genuinely witness and experience?
Descartes used the analogy of a malicious demon doing its utmost to deceive him. It could fool him into believing he was eating when he wasn't, it could conjure up the sense of a bad smell bc that's what demons do, but there is one thing it couldn't do: it couldn't convince him he existed if he didn't, and it couldn't convince him he didn't exist if he was able to ask "Do I exist?" While I am able to ask "Do I exist?" I do. That is the only certainty in life.
Hmmm. That is considerably more prosaic than my memory recalled, and I'd been aware that the Buddhists confidently criticise the "I" through reasoned argument by then, I'm sure.
Thought the only certainties in life were reincarnation and taxes, lmao. ;)
I'll have to look it up again. Although perhaps the surprising depth came from reading on his dualism, which has been misused to promote materialism ever since, though I do not think that was his intent, again, from memory. Darn it, reading ahead. Bloody decaying memory. :/
Excellent relevant article, with humour, and easy to read
It is surprising to see such effort put into a study of personality disorders, when there is such broad consensus that they don't have a scientific basis. The ICD has done away with them and the DSM will surely follow suit in its next iteration. My work is chiefly with male survivors of childhood sexual abuse involving men of the church, teachers, scoutmasters, etc. As a group they are profoundly mistrustful of people in authority and institutions, they have few relationships and are hypervigilant and, well, paranoid! They soothe themselves with drugs and/or alcohol, which mostly add to their paranoia. A thorough developmental history tells us much of what we need to know about people.
About 2/3rds of the way through, when you mentioned "Creating our own personalities", I wonder if I could hear some remembered laughs from reading 'The Dice Man'? :D
Btw, mathematically, the common phrase used for Descartes doesn't really work. The "I" in the first statement predicates the result - it could be "I Eat, therefore I am", or "I fart, therefore I am". I am doing/being something, therefore I have existence. QED.
Fortunately, the actual insight that Descartes had was a lot subtler than that, I'd mention it if I could recall OTOH right now, lol.
On paranoia, imagine the horror if all those "premodern superstitions", were actually true, and those people witnessing actual reality are being locked up for life without parole, and even tortured mercilessly, for things they genuinely witness and experience?
Makes you think, huh.
Descartes used the analogy of a malicious demon doing its utmost to deceive him. It could fool him into believing he was eating when he wasn't, it could conjure up the sense of a bad smell bc that's what demons do, but there is one thing it couldn't do: it couldn't convince him he existed if he didn't, and it couldn't convince him he didn't exist if he was able to ask "Do I exist?" While I am able to ask "Do I exist?" I do. That is the only certainty in life.
Hmmm. That is considerably more prosaic than my memory recalled, and I'd been aware that the Buddhists confidently criticise the "I" through reasoned argument by then, I'm sure.
Thought the only certainties in life were reincarnation and taxes, lmao. ;)
I'll have to look it up again. Although perhaps the surprising depth came from reading on his dualism, which has been misused to promote materialism ever since, though I do not think that was his intent, again, from memory. Darn it, reading ahead. Bloody decaying memory. :/