Emotional manipulation, emotional incest...

[Updated July 10]. Emotional incest is more common than we believe Pia Mellody thinks.

I have just read ”The Confrontation” from the book ”The Way of All Flesh” by Samuel Butler and got some spontaneous thoughts.

This text is about a mother being spokesman for her husband to their child.

I can recognize this I think:

“He loves you anyway!”

Which means the mother thinks (knows) that even if he is screaming and yelling, has problems showing his love, he loves his kids. For the first: why can't he say this to his kids directly himself (shouldnt' he be able as a grown up, and if he isn't; why isn't he)? Is it the mother's (wife's) duty to talk for her husband, the children's father?

“He doesn't think you love him!”

What does a statement like this cause in the child? Deep guilt feelings maybe?

I also came to think about passing confidences on... About absolutely having to know the child's inmost; that he child isn't allowed to hide anything to its mother. And what does Miller say about this? What this means and causes for this person not least later in his/her grownup life? For instance that you have to hide things for yourself!?

And I think all this is expressions of violation of boundaries. Not respecting boundaries or integrity in another person. And this sort of boundary and integrity violations are even worse when a child is exposed to it, than when an adult is exposed to them, even though a grown up can have big difficulties handling them. The child has no escape or alternative than to stay in the relation. An adult usually have even I it doesn't feel so (depending on her/his early and successive history).

And the child would most likely not get support for complaints about such things, and got even fewer when this book was written more than hundred years ago. Because you shall honor your father and mother.

Today it's more possible to refuse to answer questions than it was back then (and when later generations grew up). But still children opposing and refusing their parents things feel a lot of guilt and badness. It's easier to submit.

And all those demands from the mother (and father) are about fulfilling the mother's (parents') unfulfilled and denied needs.

But – a grown up has alternatives, unless she/he isn't entirely paralyzed by help and powerlessness (feelings) stemming from her/his childhood. And - you can't blame that grown up for those feelings and inabilities (contempt for weakness).

Miller writes:

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue." (in my amateur translation from Swedish).

See also what Kirkengen for instance has written about revictimization.

To deal with this you ought to get help with the underlying, early things... But too often you don't get this help (from so called helpers). Maybe the sort of help that is offered usually can last short term... But not long term!??

But I also think that you shall be really careful with Primal and regression therapy. In wrong hands it can be dangerous...

Addition July 10: Read about "Butler's unhappy youth" by a person in modern time critisiszing what Butler did, a person who in general seem to be quite moralizing!!! Surprisingly moralizing. And neocomservative. Ideal for neoliberal currents and their propaganda!?

Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)

Neo authoritarianism and self centeredness…

There are a couple of themes I am thinking on…

Our bosses and how they are acting. How our female, and highest boss, is acting.

The self-centredness today.

My quiet thoughts: Not mentioning the purpose is quite authoritarian. We are treated in tis way in both small and bigger things. Told what to do with no information of why. We are supposed to just accept, i.e. not really call things in question. We have no right to know. We are treated as if as if we are no thinking people? We shall just do. Obey and keep quiet.

Our female boss doesn’t even seem to think on this. Explaining why we shall do this and that or change things to something else doesn’t seem to exist in her repertoire of thoughts or behaviors? No, it plainly doesn’t seem to exist (how was she as parent?). Why this lack? Was she born like this? Her genes? Innate traits in all of us? Or?

A sidetrack: how is this model for us when we deal with our students? Do we expect the same obedience from our students? That they shall just swallow what we tell them to do?

I can’t help wondering how she was brought up.

It’s the same neoauthoritarian (and neoconservative) tendencies in the whole society. It’s those models (good and bad) bosses have from the highest bosses in this society and the most authoritarian leaders are elected too? Obey and keep quiet. Don’t question any state of affairs or at least not certain state of affairs (i.e. what the power says, but “weak” people you can use as scapegoats). And, yes, amazingly few people seem to question this. How have we been raised?

I searched on an earlier posting on those themes and found a posting where Arthur Silber has written:

“The wish for unquestioning, unresisting obedience is coming true in America, more and more each day.”

And this made me think even further on something else I had read on he psychohistory list, in an essay about teaching children obedience (in school, the authoritarianism) and found what I was looking for in the essay “Freedom of Speech”:

“US state power over its citizens has been steadily increasing since the civil war, yet children are trained in schools to be blind to this fact. The US media and University system has heavily groomed the adult population to look to the national government to solve all their problems, even problems of basic emotions like fears and anxieties. The efficacy of this indoctrination into passivity can clearly be seen in lack of outrage over the recent destruction of the US legal system.

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the same vote that over turned a speedy trial by jury also legalized torture. This is an action to frighten the population into unquestioning obedience. It is the next logical step for absolute state power after torturing people outside of the US. This vote purposely says to the US people 'when government people say jump, you say ‘how high’ or you will probably get tortured and raped just like the Iraqi's.’ The unsaid but obvious threat is the classic psychological assault of bullies, abusers and organized criminals everywhere.

However, the big secret for slave states is that it doesn't matter what you say or do, you will get impoverished, imprisoned, tortured and killed at some point no matter what. By speaking out we have absolutely nothing to lose and our very lives to gain.”

Societal approval...

Another theme is something a blogger (and leader writer) here wrote in a blogposting. She was going to take part in a café talking about

“I, I, I. What about ‘We’ then? - How to create a ‘We’ in a self centred era.”

What would a sound selfishness be about? Or should we use another vocabulary? Is the word 'selfishness' appropriate? Because it’s rather a question of sound protection of oneself? How do we achieve such a sound protection of ourselves?

By (truly) respecting our kids boundaries? By not violating them? How many of us are really capable of doing this?

Earlier postings on texts by Helle Klein. See for instance "In the individualism’s era..."

Freedom...

statue of liberty or frihetsgudinnan in Swedish.

I have had the notion freedom in my back head for a long time… What is actual freedom?

Is it to take care of your old parents with the promise to inherit their house when they are dead? Is that freedom?

What sort of freedom do we need? Or what sorts of freedom do we endeavor for?

What is sound and a freedom we are entitled to? And what is unsound, destructive?

Struck me: has this with autonomy to do? Is it autonomy we are endeavoring for?

Is it about respect for our boundaries? Boundaries that were violated early in life?

What is what?

Silent reflections...

Yes, it’s strange: children need regulations and restrictions. Because of their inherited traits and drives??

But adult people don’t need any regulations or restrictions? Or some DO need, but others don’t!?? It depends. On what actually (quite ironically)? On what power you have? How much money you have? And who has the power and money in this world?

If we were capable of showing children true, genuine respect, then…?

Now we have to use other means!? Threats, manipulation, regulations, limit setting etc.

There are boundaries and boundaries.

We treat our children differently, because they have different needs we say!? Girls (already the very small, yes, the small baby) have certain needs, boys (small boys, already the small baby-boy) others we claim (what are those claims actually about?). (And) what do we actually know about those needs or what are those ideas actually mirroring? Are those ideas a protection against a too painful truth? And an excuse for how we behave, how we actually feel, that we don't feel the same for the different individuals? The solution to that is to admit that we feel differently, it's just like that it is!!?

A female cousin actually admitted recently that girls and boys are valued differently! Boys are a little more worth... She doesn't have any brothers, as I have, only a (2 year older) sister. Admitted that her mother values boys and girls differently. She had namely just met my two brothers and was so charmed by them! It felt to me that she would never say anything like this about the female part of the "family"!!! How cute, charmy, nice etc. a female part was... But do I as grown up need such a confirmation? And if I do, why?

But both boys and girls are probably badly treated, anyway... In different and the same ways... But this causes problems later, bigger or smaller (was this also a/the reason for treating the small child badly, so she/he didn't think...??? Thinking she/he was something worth, worth being loved, worth treated good, respected,valued).

The dad not seeing his daughter, treating her as she didn’t exist and wasn't worth a nickel, as she was stupid, very little knowing. Treating her with contempt. Contempt for weakness, for insecurity… Treating her like she was shit.

The mother beating her small (and later also not so small) son… Beating HIS self-confidence out of him in a certain way.

What can we do about this later, when those two are grown up? Who has to think of who? Who has to do something about this? Who has the responsibility for making something, changing things? Only the woman? Or only the man? Or should the work come from them both actually? Don’t both of them have responsibility for trying to change the state of affairs?

Struggling on my own with everything, all different things... With differing results... Really.

Astrid Lindgren about becoming spanked as a child…

Astrid Lindgren 16 years.

[Updated August 31, and slightly edited in the first part]. I have been on a course in the parts of Sweden where Astrid Lindgren was born, and found a book containing Astrid’s description of her childhood home, and thus also childhood, written to her nieces.

Astrid and her one year older brother Gunnar (dead already 1974 only 68 years) bought their childhood home together, and 1987 Astrid gave her part to her brother’s daughters Gunvor, Barbro and Eivor (of whom Barbro is mother to the author Karin Alvtegen, her home site).

Astrid and Gunnar also had two younger sisters, all siblings were married, but one sister never got any children I think. So Astrid had one heir and one heiress (a son and a daughter) but gave her part of the childhood home to her nieces nevertheless, of some reason.

I will try to translate what Lindgren writes later, so this posting will become updated this weekend hopefully.

I just want to remind eventual readers about Lindgren’s speech 1978 “Never violence.”

Earlier postings under the label “Astrid Lindgren.”

Addition August 31: In the book referred to above Astrid described how her childhood home at Näs looked like, and how it was furnished and she also describes some scenes from back then.

In the second part of the book she comes to the sofa in the living-room (what we called “sal”), a sofa which stands at the same place as it did when she was a child. On this sofa she and her brother got spanked the first time she writes.

The reason for this spanking was that she and her brother Gunnar had gone to “the murmuring ditch” (porlande dike) where Gunnar quickly climbed the stones, and Astrid of course followed him, with the result that she fell down between two stones in it. Gunnar ran home and told their maid Signe who went to the parsonage (prästård), where their mother was, something Astrid always thought was very stupid. Because their mother came fetching her two kids.

First she spanked Gunnar with the birch (riset), which Astrid thought was very funny to watch she writes, and then Astrid, something she didn’t think was fun at all,

“…when I for the first time in my life got spanked”

as she writes.

She didn’t become spanked again until she turned five or six when she had decided to move to the loo, from home (so at the first occasion described above she must have been smaller!!), because she had been unfairly treated of some reason (for what and how she had forgotten by then? She only rememered that she had been unfairly treated).

She was convinced that all should come running asking her to move home for God’s sake, but, no, they didn’t.

She bore being at the loo for five minutes, she thinks, and during this time her mom had taken the opportunity to offer sweets to the other people or kids. This was more than Astrid could stand, so when her mom came passing Astrid kicked with her foot, of course so she didn’t kick her mom, she only kicked at her mom as a sort of demonstration. But she shouldn’t have done that, because then she got spanked for the second time in her life as she writes.

The third and last time was when she and her younger sister Stina had been invited to a Mia (cousin?) in a nearby village. They had gone there on foot. Mom had said that they should be home by 7 that evening.

However, it was “unnaturally fun” at Mia’s. And Astrid had albuminuria (äggvita) and felt that she hadn’t the strength walking home. Their aunt Hardine (mother's younger sister) then said:

“I think you can stay, I take that on me!”

She took the responsibility on her. At this time there was no phone in this village, and they trusted aunt Hardine and stayed. But at 9 o’clock in the evening "their Pelle" (the farm-hand?) came and fetched them, and when they came home their mother met them at the yard saying:

“Is it seven o’clock?”

and walked further and fetched a birch with which Stina and Astrid got spanked, not on the sofa, but on their room one stair up. Astrid recalls this because

“…the birch laid frayed (trasigt) on the fireplace the next morning, where it was discovered by Signe (the maid) who said: ‘I think you are too big to get spanked!’”

The girls thought so too as Astrid writes. Astrid continues that

“That spanking I apprehend as abuse, although it probably was scarcely perceptible [wasn’t it??] because the birch was of such a bad quality that it got broken immediately [did it actually?? Or was the spanking so severe? So Astrid had to deny what she had been exposed to, including how extremely humiliating it had been?].”

So how rosy was this childhood actually? But Astrid and her siblings had witnesses around them? And the strictness wasn’t total?

Love and communication…

from a very nice walk in a stream bed...

In one of our evening papers they wrote about love, sex, and partnership a couple of days ago…

I quote from it: A cut off communication can be difficult taking up again. But it is possible, even if it demands both patience and understanding.

Things that happened here made me reflect on the topic “understanding” and forgiveness on a walk late this afternoon… I was quite upset walking in the woods. Thought on where I want to give it, of free will because a person is so important, and where I don’t really want to give it, because I am not really free to choose and have never been free choosing, but forced to understand and forgive and think on!!! Do I at last have this right? In the age I am!! Horrible it is like this! That I am still not really, really sure? Or am I, a bit more?

Lack of lust can have many bottoms, often a combination of both outer and inner factors which influences us.

Long term stress, anxiety and lack of sleep can create an undefined depression. A low self-esteem and inner demands can be reasons.

The basic, fundamental rules for communication are honesty, respect and sensitiveness for hearing. From both parts I want to add (seen to my parents’ marriage, where there wasn’t balance in that respect!!).

When you want to bring something up/about with your partner, try to start from your self, your thoughts, emotions and needs.

Describe what you appreciate and what you feel good by.

• Remember/don’t forget: to talk, laughter - and sex.
• Show consideration and solicitude. Do something that is good for your partner. A showed consideration makes a big difference and it doesn’t always have to be something magnificent to have effect. Rather small expressions of love each day than one big half a year.
• Give each other time: both you and your partner need space and time for recovery and for resting. That’s beneficial for the lust. In everyday life you can take responsibility for different days when it comes to household things. Let one evening be your own, where you yourself decide what you want to do. If you want to sleep, do exercise, meet friends or just be.
• Touch is life important. Upgrade everyday petting/necking! A kiss, a caress and a warm hand are things which gives us power and energy. It awakens desire and lust and all our senses. Everything doesn’t have to lead to sex necessarily, but being reminded about the partnership and that longing exists is beneficial.

• Be glad over the differences. You and your partner are different. Remaking (?) each other (trying to make the other person to somebody else) is nothing to aim at. Allow the differences and see them as an inspiring source to development. However, some conflicts are important clearing out. Then do this with great respect for yourself and the one you love. You ought to have the sight directed at finding a new balance in feeling well together.

Phenomena in the society today...

I read a blogposting yesterday by a woman, Jenny W. (in her thirties I think, and married to a white man with whom she has a small son? So she isn't very old and is also married to or living with a white man!) which triggered this blogposting and many thoughts - and emotions. A blogposting with the heading (my amateur-translation) “Mohohohahah… Why (I have such difficulties with) white guys?”

She starts it with (my quick amateur-translation):

”OK, the freak-society IS here. I.e., the society where you laugh at other peoples’ ill health and sufferings, or with other words everything the Jackass-programmes have shown a longer time.

In the Jackass-programmes [I haven’t seen them, and didn’t know about them earlier. Their home-site?] young white men with impregnable [ointaliga] bodies have chopped, cut, burnt and tormented themselves in a sort of reality-slapstick/gladiator-plays-TV, which have been unassailable [oantastliga, not allowed to question] because the young men have themselves chosen to expose themselves for this. But the indisputable development of events [odiskutabel händelseutveckling] which lies in the pipeline for these sorts of programme-ideas are though a grave pushing of boundaries, where pain and bodily injuries are made to humour, which then imperceptibly [omärkligt] but implacably [obönhörligt] are made 'funny' in circumstances where people have chosen not to get hurt. But, hehe, isn’t it quite fun hey… Look when that CP-guy is sort of tripping over [snavar]… hehe, it’s mean, but, sorry folks, that’s who I am.”

This Jenny has read about the reactions to the hacking of a home-site of epileptics in USA in (young men’s) blogs here. A hacking which has caused epileptic attacks in some users and attacks of laughter in others (I didn’t know about this earlier either, which certainly is no loss actually!!). She suspects that what has been entirely destroyed (my free interpretation) in these young white men’s world order is the distinction between what one can laugh at and what one allow oneself to laugh at.

I am thinking of a lot of other phenomena in society.

Contempt for weakness…

What are they laughing at actually? Are they laughing off what they themselves have had to stand? But this is no excuse at all for their later behaviour.

And people are scorned, scoffed at for writing as they are writing, even if they aren't harming anyone and not forcing anyone to read what they have written…

Humiliation-TV...

See Bob Scharf’s essay on Reality-TV from the psychohistory-list.

And our current government has fired the highest boss for the Swedish Public Employment Service or AMS in Swedish Bo Bylund all of a sudden. With no real motivation. Quite authoritarian. The critic is hard from the trade-union’s part it stands in the paper today.

“An incredibly bad personnel-politics”

they say. And a woman in the trade-union wants an investigation/inquest of the conditions for the employment for governments’ offices, how they look, and how one do when the employees (highest up?) become “liquidated”.

Yes, what sort of tendencies are there in society today? Many boundaries are pushed everywhere? And quite authoritarian behaviours are allowed (not least in politicians, knowing "our best" for "Our own good" see Mller's "For Your Own Good - Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence", in our current government not least, but also in our former prime-minister Göran Persson. Yes, where are the roots lying)?

See a female leader-writer about the affair with Bo Bylund in the leader "Arbetsförmedlingen söker ny chef" this morning.

Additional thoughts: what sort of models are our politicians? Quite arrogantly (mis)using their power?

The leader-writer in the link above ends her leader with thinking that the (political) opposition has a great responsibility in creating an offensive opposition-politics in this case (how unemployed are treated, and the demands on them as they have become and are here today) and be clear in how the safety-systems shall look in the future. I agree.

But as it looks now we have to get used to that the right are demolishing and pulling down more and more of the Sweden which is known in the world (??): security/safety for all.

No, I didn’t vote for the current government (and I will never vote for these parties)…

Read: “Why People Don’t Trust Free Markets. The new science of evolutionary economics offers an explanation for capitalism scepticism” by Michael Shermer (also see here about him). It ends as follows:

“The strongest reason for skepticism of capitalism, however, is a myth commonly found in objections to both the theory of evolution and free market economics, and that is that they are based on the presumption that animals and humans are inherently selfish, and that the economy is like Tennyson’s memorable description of nature: ‘red in tooth and claw.’ After Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer immortalized natural selection in the phrase 'survival of the fittest,' one of the most misleading descriptions in the history of science and one that has been embraced by social Darwinists ever since, applying it inappropriately to racial theory, national politics, and economic doctrines. Even Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley, reinforced what he called this ‘gladiatorial’ view of life in a series of essays, describing nature ‘whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day.’

If biological evolution in nature, and market capitalism in society, were really founded on and sustained by nothing more than a winner-take-all strategy, life on earth would have been snuffed out hundreds of millions of years ago and market capitalism would have collapsed centuries ago. This is, in fact, why WorldCom and Enron type disasters still make headlines. If they didn’t — if such corporate catastrophes caused by egregious ethical lapses were so common that they were not even worth covering on the nightly news — free market capitalism would implode. Instead it thrives, but just as eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, so too must it be for free markets, since both are inextricably bound together.”

It stands for instance about Shermer at the Swedish site of wikipedia:

"Shermer har skrivit flera böcker som försöker förklara den allestädes närvarande tron på irrationella eller obevisade fenomen. 'Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time' handlar om flera udda idéer och grupper, inklusive kulter /.../. Han har ägnat hela böcker åt förintelseförnekelse ('Denying History,' skriven tillsammans med Alex Grobman), och tron på Gud ('How We Believe')."

Some silent reflections...

What is sound, healthy, justified, constructive anger?

Thinking further on a tour to look for a new TV, but there were so many people in the store so I left…

On the bike (it was really cold, blowing through my woolen duffel-coat/coat, through the very marrow of my bones, my body, soul and heart should need being warmed it felt??):

Are we after all born evil? And antisocial? Paranoiac? Psychopathic? Stepping over boundaries? How do we handle this evilness, paranoia, lack of feeling for boundaries etc. then? How do parents and environment handle what adults and children are born with? Are we all born with this? Is there any hope for mankind then? Or are some of us born with this and others not? Some are better people than others by nature? Who is what? And who are capable of judging about this?

And if we are born with these bad sides do we have responsibility for expressions of these sides or not? Is that person granted discharge for his/her behaviour?

Or is early abuse so difficult or maybe even impossible to cure sometimes, so… What would that imply? Could we avoid incurable harm, shall we do that?

How have we seen on these tings so far? Has this changed? Has treatment improved? Shall some not be allowed to reproducing, radically? And who shall be allowed reproducing? Who are actually reproducing? Those which would be the best parents, who has the “best genes” etc.? (maybe it’s a luck I have no children, quite ironical??)

A male cousin of mine has been reacting on “unnecessary talk”:

”What is that to talk about? If one doesn’t have more important things to talk about… (then one can keep quiet)!”

The strange thing (or not) is that this person is fairly good himself in talking… As his dad was… And as another brother of his is… I don’t use to react, but here I do… And that about the content and importance in what is said… Politely and as the well-mannered girl I am raised to listening though.

And how is it actually in this world? Who are talking, the most intelligent and who have most to say? About what are those raising their voices talking? And how much? Who are keeping quiet? Who and what are we seeing through our fingers with and who/what not? Who do we judge and who not? Do we treat all with the same respect? Are all allowed the same things? O not and why is that?

Yes, it ought to be as van Dyke said:

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."

Or, some should really keep quiet? Be really ashamed? Have blushing cheeks?

About the card:

"En glad påsk. Hand i hand framåt. Uppå grönklädd stråt. Vandra vi så kärligt. Uti månens sken. Med en vän så vän. Är ju lifvet härligt."
Avstämplat Odengatan Stockholm 31/3 1907. Porto 5 öre.
Sänt till Fröken Alma Almgren, 29 Roslagsgatan 29, Ingeniör Söderberge. Här (Stockholm).

Translated it would be (I THINK!!):

"A Happy Easter. Hand in hand forward. Upon a green path. We wander so loving(ly?). In the moon-light. With a friend so fair and graceful. Life is lovely you know."

Is it always?

From a Charles to an Alma, March 31, 1907.

Multiple relationships...

From the site “Ethics” at “Debunking primal Therapy” it stands about “Multiple Relationships”:

“(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship...risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.”

More about multiple relationships here and here.

See my online library.