What’s the opposite to love?

the complex picture.

[Updated September 26]. A Swedish journalist writes in the review "What's the oppostite to love?" about a book with the title “Our Era’s Fear for Seriousness” that came 1995. In this book of thoughts the author tilted at a spirit of the time refusing to set about the large questions of society and life. To express it simpler: people (or the society in all) refused to discuss any deeper issues the author thought.

And this is still valid, and has become even worse the author thinks as you can read below. And some are wondering where all the intellectual are in debates. Why they are so silent and not reacting. They are only talking and writing about what's opportune?

But talking seriously doesn’t exclude laughter the reviewer thinks. On the contrary, these two parts have to go together. Roy Andersson, the author of the book in the review, wrote his thoughts down in a decade lined with a long neoliberal era and a gigantic retreat to the idea that "alone is strong."

And once again see what Owe Wikström writes about the individualism and the negative effects of individualism. The idea about alone is strong is that a defense mechanism, namely denial of needs, a denial that gives you a false sense of power - and strenght. Which doesn't mean that we don't have (can't have) a natural, genuine strenght.

We were in a deep economical crisis. The gulfs between the classes had started to grow again. The belief in the future was gone with the wind. The humanism was on retreat. The humor that ruled was above all the ironists, the ones making fun of seriousness and engagement. See what Alice Miller writes about irony.

There was an increased contempt for moral values, a contempt that was attacking the fundamental or basic content of the notion solidarity – to see yourself in other people. My addition: but at the same time there exists a new morality. People joked over the notion solidarity, over people who believed in solidarity and were trying to uphold such ideals, people who believed in seeing yourself in other people. How many damaged people do we actually have I can't help wondering, who have to make fun of people who try to be empathic and compassionate? What does this phenomenon say? I have my ideas.

What’s concealed in the wake of this if not a slowly growing belief in the übermensch-ideal (a super-human-being ideal) once again, which means a contempt for weakness. People blowing their trumpets: I can indeed! But this is problematic, because there are also people hiding their light under a bushel. And that's the other side of the coin. The lack of people with a sound selfesteem?

Back to the reviewer again: a contempt for weakness that once upon the time formed the breeding ground for racial biology, Nazism, concentration camps and gas chambers. There are new self-appointed master races in both Sweden and Europe today the reviewer thinks (and yes, that’s actually true, but they look differently than older times’? And see what the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius writes about narcissism).

Now a new edition of this book comes, and Andersson establishes with distress that the content in his book still is valid. No, the development has changed even more to the worse.

The simple black-and-white conception of the world begins to see its chances again.

In those musty mud puddles the extreme right is growing once again.

Profiting on a powerlessness and frustration among many of the exposed people – not least among young unemployed men.

But it’s not the patriots' hate that frightens the reviewer most, but the widespread drowsy indifference in the broad middle class. He thinks that Elie Wiesel is right when he says that

“The opposite of love isn’t hate. The opposite of love is indifference.”

Yes, it was this with the back leaning indifference.

The zombies are attacking…

zombie.

Yesterday I watched “Stars on Ice” on TV, and today I read the article "Zombierna anfaller" ("The zombies are attacking") by the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius, and I have also started to read the book “Stridens skönhet och sorg” (in English something in the style “The fight’s (or battle’s) beauty and sorrow”) by the Swedish historian Peter Englund, with portraits of ordinary people during the WWI built on real accounts and real people - and what I read, and am reading, made me think. You can read parts of the book here (in Swedish).

Boëthius writes (in my a little free amateur translation):

“That journalists are nasty at work doesn’t mean anything? Hey? Yes, they are only playing their roles. What!? The typical case is Alex Schulman, or we can call him ‘Alex Schulman’. Because he doesn’t exist in real life, he says himself. The bullying style is just a funny gimmick.”

Alex Schulman was invited to the Swedish radio apropos bloggers and that he had become unfairly flown on the throat by another Swedish journalist in a debate-program in Swedish TV because of his nasty style as blogger for one of our biggest evening papers.

Now it was revealed that it isn’t the real Schulman that is nasty in the blog, but his fictive self! He has taken the literary and, as one could understand, the heavy burden on his shoulders being the one flying on peoples’ throats.

Boëthius draws parallels to when she and her siblings were children and her brother had a brilliant creation, namely California, whom was identical twin with her brother, but a twin their parents didn’t know of. Sometimes her brother and California changed places, especially when he was up to some mischief. Then it was of course shown that her brother always was innocent.

Boëthius wonders where all those probably million fantasy-mates people had when they were children have disappeared. She wonders if not many of them have gotten jobs on Swedish newspapers (and on papers, and other media, in the world?).

My reflection, spontaneously, over what Boëthius wrote was:

“...not taking on the responsibility for (what you say or do or who you are)!"

And it also struck me that Alice Miller has written about cynicism and irony in one of or both her last two books.

I also reacted quite a lot at the jury members in “Stars on Ice” and what they said to the ones competing during the competition, their style of saying it and the content in what they said. I don’t think what they were saying and how they said it was fun at all. And not entertaining either. And not interesting. They were just nasty! Nasty for the competing people's own good? But they could probably handle it as they were grown ups. But the young people in "Idol"!?? See Bob Scharf on "Reality TV".

I have only read the first 30 pages (of over 600) in the book “The fight’s beauty and sorrow” and my interpretation so far is that people actually didn’t know why that war started. The conflicts underlying it weren’t so big so they hadn’t been insoluble and the war wasn’t unavoidable at all. But there was an excited rhetoric and a high-pitched worked up propaganda, and all this contributed to making the war unavoidable when it was viewed as unavoidable. Many people seemed to go out into the war with high expectations to fight for their country! And people at home said goodbye with flags and music! Many people didn’t seem to really realize how horrible a war actually is!

The American neurologist Jonathan Pincus writes about societal approval unleashing drives in people harmed early in life… See the earlier posting “Evilness and responsibility…” and earlier postings under the label Trent Scaggs.

Alice Miller writes at page 206 in her book “The Body Never Lies”:

“Inability to face up to the sufferings undergone in childhood can be observed both in the form of religious obedience and in cynicism, irony and other forms of self-alienation frequently masquerading as philosophy or literature.”

And at page 139 she writes:

“…feelings (one’s own and those of others), are something to be jeered at [hånad, gjord narr av]. In show business and journalism the art of irony is a well-paid commodity, so it is possible to make a great deal of money with the suppression of one’s feelings. Even if one ultimately risks losing contact with oneself and merely functioning as a mask, an ‘as if’ personality, there are always drugs, alcohol, and other substances to fall back on. Derision pays well, money is no object. /…/

But because these emotions are not genuine, not linked up with the true story of the body, the effect is bound to wear off [avta] after a time. Higher and higher doses are required to fill up the void left by childhood.”

So you need more and more and more until you can face up to the things underlying...

Addictions in parents and other grown up authorities…

summer-view from the middle of Sweden.

[slightly edited and updated June 26]. In the news today they say that many children are worried over parent’s internet dependency (or Internet addiction).

Many children have called Bris, Children’s Rights in Society’s worried over their parents’ Internet habits. A study from 2007 shows what influence Internet has for children’s ill-health.

“They are often filled with shame, anger and sorrow, but also questions about what they shall do.”

Mothers who are caught in Internet-playing many hours a day or fathers porn-surfing (even child porn!!!) and sex-chatting. When children get to know this they get worried and don’t know how to handle it. And Bris-Children’s Right in Society has noticed this. Last year they noticed a striking increase in the number of calls and emails from (exactly) children, not knowing how they shall solve their parent’s problems. According to an investigator at Bris this discovery can be compared with when children discover that their parent’s abuse alcohol, drugs etc. because the set of problems are the same.

“It is as shameful as addiction, and they have to handle it in the same way as other forms of addictions.”

In first hand it is parent’s visits to porn-sites children are reacting most strongly at. Most of the children calling have seen their parent’s visiting porn - and even child porn Internet-sites.

They write in the article that parent’s (and other grown ups, if they are authorities of any kind for young people my addition) ought to wonder what sort of models they are to their children or other children they are authorities for. True I think... We are or can be models in many different respects...

Addition (quickly translated and written): I searched under the label addictions and there was one on “Parasiten – the Parasite…” A swift translation of parts of that blogposting:

This year a book came in Swedish written by a man Fredrik Ljung just above 30. A book about "a drug-addicted in suit", a man newly examined from school of economics and business administration (the most prestigious in Sweden in this case), with a

“well-paid job in the finance-branch, dressed in expensive suits.”

As the author once was.

He and his companion mean they could work high pressuredly and at the same time abuse drugs without anybody noticing it.

They mean that alcohol-problems are still more common in working-life, but drug-problems are increasing (earlier drug-addictions were less common, people used alcohol instead?). These two men are now treating other people with the same problems as they had.

10 % of the employees in average on a work-place have problems with alcohol and drugs they think, and those coming to them are young, just above 30 and they have an already established pill and drug-addiction. Most of them are men, but they think women are much cleverer in hiding their problems (so THAT problem, with drug abuse, is partly hidden).

Alcohol and drug problems are overrepresented in high achieving professions and in circumstances where kick-seeking people search themselves to. Pressure achieving and a feelings of insufficiency make many seeking help in alcohol and tablets, and maybe later also drugs, to handle their live (things that drove them into these works in the first place, and on wrong premises?). Most common are marijuana and amphetamine, but cocaine is also increasing.

Silently (feeling so sad and horrified again rereading this): Hiding ones problems by using drugs of all kinds… Keeping silent of shame? And if you can’t manage things you are no real man (or woman)??? The hypocrisy! Showing a façade. And that about being “a real man" again… Does women want that sort of “real men”??? Or what sort of women want such a man?

The author thinks it is important focusing on the request (demand) for drugs, and to watch so people feel better and don’t have to resort to drug use to make their lives endurable. And this should actually have started early in life, where children ought to feel they are worthy, lovable just as they are etc. Silently: how nice is a life being drugged all the time or a lot of the time actually? Being blunt (avtrubbad) most of or the whole time? Oh, this is so sad.

What is lying at the bottom? From where comes the mania being clever and achieving? The feeling one isn’t good enough if one doesn’t achieve and even achieve enormously? The feeling one has to control oneself, or rather not being weak, but showing a (false) façade of strength?

The author said he had never had any problems getting the tablet-store renewed!! No physicians refused to prescribe new, or more, tablets (he visited 20 doctors and there were never any great problems)! This also made me think… It has been a lot (or at least some) talk about being observant towards this phenomenon, i.e. that people goes to many different physicians to get medicine, especially when it comes to calming medicine, sleeping pills (But thre hasn't been any straight talk about narcotics)… But they have found in research that women and men are treated differently by doctors, and employees at for instance the Social Insurance in Sweden etc. Treated differently because of their gender - AND thus their status in society (quite ironical)?? Women with problems are treated with more contempt and less respect!?

Ljung says he succeeded keeping himself “floating,” as he says, for eight years. He started abusing alcohol systematically when he was 19 years. During these years he changed his whole acquaintance-circle, only associated with criminals (in suits??), he was heavily in debt, had two broken relations behind him and hardly any contact with his parents. In short his life was in a real mess.

Suddenly he realized the truth; he wasn’t the successful and enviable person he had struggled so hard to become.

It stands:

“Henrik is filled with contempt, both against the society and against people in his environment and this permeates [genomsyrar] his strivings in reaching the top, which is a well paid, status-filled job on a bank in London or New York.”

Oh, how fun! And really something to strive for!! Observe the irony! The principal figure in the book is ironical, arrogant, show contempt for weakness, is floating above… The reviewer of the book earlier this year characterized the principal figure with the expressions "hubris" and "self-contempt. "

Yes, what does Miller write about irony for instance? And about addiction?

This really made me think once again…

Addition June 26: Struck me about Jane Fonda's bulimia. Also see "Starving for Attention." She thought that she was so occupied with her eating that she lived like in a glass-bubble, cut off from the environment and not really their for her children (Vanessa and Troy?). And she could slightly imagine how this for them. If I remember right. Sidetrack: but it feels as she is still in denial to a high degree, and have been "taught" forgiveness by therapists...

And I recently also read about Britt Ekland (actually Eklund!!), the Swedish actress, who has problems with osteoporosis, and it struck me this can (must) be because of constant concern about the weight. And she must have done plastic surgery (the lips??) which hasn't been really successful... I have done plastic surgery too, a (really) big (and tough) operation. I was offered another one, but at that time I had accepted how I look and didn't make a second operation... And before this operation the female doctor said she didn't think this operation was necessary, but if I wanted to make it they should make it... Oh, this is a long story...

From bike ride...

photos from the bike ride today, oh, how gray and brown it is.

I just had to write about this, despite hunger, low blood sugar and a dizzy brain because of tiredness and emotions (but reading this posting made me smile, a little angrily too, to be honest?): A Jenny W. wrote in her blog that she gets afraid of the dark (as we say) when she reads what stands at the net, because people are talking about things and sentiments (moods) so one is astounded. Astounded not least for the cocksure (tvärsäkra) stupidity which is ruling there.

She is researcher, in genus something, and wrote about the belief on an objective science, and wonders what that is? Of course there are criteria for research (how one "does it") she writes, but you can’t take for granted (my free interpretation of what she writes) that all researchers shall read and deal with things in a similar way, have the same stance (?) to these criteria (they are different, have different things with them, and this can in the long run be beneficial for science and research my addition). Yes, long ago I read one book, say ONE, in philosophy of science during half-time studies in pedagogy at the University of Uppsala (and this was really abstract, theoretical things, we all thought it was, I sill have that book in my book shelves); I have some memories from this (or from the whole course, where it was a lot of talk about subjectivity and objectivity in research and how to deal with these things as scientist or researcher, as it probably is when one study at the University, but it wasn't quite so in higher Music studies - then at least).

She writes (my very free translation and interpretation):

“Believe me; I have unhealthily close viewed people’s attacks on research I am well acquainted with. People who don’t really know what they are talking about, because they haven’t even read what they are attacking and reacting [so strongly] against or on, not even knowing the basic [fact] terms, things that are so called verifiable. Instead they have walked their way forward like bulldozers in a remarkable confidence in themselves and their capacities, despite these have failed them enormously and in the most obvious manner. But there will always be a relatively high (??) amount of people who don’t even notice this [I don’t know if she means that they themselves don’t notice how they are behaving, or if she means that the environment won’t see these people through in their blind admiration? Or maybe both these things?]. Maybe we all have a dash of this complaint? Take a tour around the net and you will understand that it isn’t more reasonable believing in Santa Claus than believing in evil souls, so to speak.

Oh no, I shouldn’t have surfed today. For me with a solid, sterling bourgeois background this with dissension is something extremely bothersome you know, so now my mind is black and white, because once again I have to confront myself with the worst many people knows: Human beings ARE different, and we see the world differently, and it is very difficult – unfortunately, I feel now and then – getting a victory for ones own perspectives. This doesn’t mean that all is alright, but it means we will never be able to chose a victor in the fight about 'how we see things' shall be interpreted [she discusses something special here, a phenomenon here, but I thought what she writes is something general!! And you can see parallels in other areas of society, and working-life].”

Have we solved the riddle we fought about she wonders?

Or? Oh no, was it this it was about, but the fact that there are a lot of women at the Universities who shouldn’t have been there? OK, the battle will probably continue she thinks.

No, now some food here! What is it called: double toasts with a stew on shellfish and sliced tomatoes between (or the tomato as it is? But warming the tomatoes sets "lyckopen" free? :-) Hmmm... See about healthy eating here, in Swedish!)? And actually a big glass of milk to?? Not beer or tea I think. Oh, I am hungry!!!

PS. And watch Anja's posting today (in Swedish though) "homage à Sue Monk Kidd" on the similar theme as Jenny W. above.

PPS. Yes, I WAS a bit tired when I wrote this!! Have tried to change things in the text. I hope to the better a little??

Parasiten/the Parasite…

Igår recenserades Fredrik Ljungs bok ”Parasiten” av Yukiko Duke i Gomorron Sverige på SVT. Denna bok handlar om en knarkare i kostym, om en ung man just utexaminerad från Handels, med ett välbetalt jobb i finansbranschen, klädd i dyra kostymer.

Ljung och hans kompanjon (som startat ett företag för att hjälpa arbetsplatser och andra företag att hantera drogproblem) menar att de kunde jobba för högtryck och samtidigt missbruka droger utan att någon märkte det.

De menar att alkoholproblem är vanligast men att drogrelaterade problem ökar.

Omkring 10 % av personalen på en arbetsplats har problem med alkohol och droger och de som kommer till dem för behandling är unga, i trettioårsåldern och de har ett (redan) etablerat tablett- eller drogmissburk. De flesta är män, men de tror att kvinnor är duktigare på att dölja sina problem (så det problemet är delvis dolt?).

Alkohol- och drogproblem är överrepresenterat inom högpresterande yrken och i sammanhang där kicksökande människor söker sig. Prestationspress och en känsla av otillräcklighet gör att många tar hjälp av alkohol eller tabletter och så småningom kanske droger för att hantera sina liv. Vanligast är marijuana och amfetamin, men kokain ökar också.

Ljung säger att har man minsta anlag att utveckla beroende så är kokain verkligen rysk roulette, det är enormt beroendeframkallande.

Han tycker att det är viktigt att inrikta sig på efterfrågesidan (efterfrågan på droger??), att förändra attityden till droger och att se till så att människor mår bättre och inte behöver ta till droger för att göra livet uthärdligt (och jag funderar ju också över vad som ligger i botten av detta; varifrån kommer duktighet- och hävdandemanin? Känslan av att inte duga om man inte presterar och presterar enormt).

Ljung hade själv ett tjugotal läkare som han besökte en efter en när tablettförrådet sinade. Det var aldrig några problem att få ut piller. Och han lyckades hålla sig flytande med drogerna i åtta år (började systematiskt dricka när han var 19 år?). Under dessa år bytte han ut hela sin bekantskapskrets, han umgicks bara med kriminella, var tungt skuldsatt, hade förstört två relationer och hade nästan ingen kontakt med sina föräldrar. Han hade också en dom för rattfylleri och jobbet hängde på en skör tråd. Och plötsligt insåg han sanningen; att han inte alls var den framgångsrika och avundsvärda person han så hårt kämpat för att bli.

Två av hans före detta flickvänner gjorde gemensam sak och fick med ganska stort besvär Ljung att söka hjälp…

Det står om boken på den länkade sidan:

"Henrik är full av förakt, både mot samhället i stort och människor i omgivningen och det genomsyrar hans strävan mot toppen, vilket är ett välbetalt, statusfyllt jobb på en bank i London eller New York.

Skildringen av finansvärlden förstärker många av de fördomar som finns och det höga tempot lämnar inte heller mycket utrymme till personporträtt utan handlingen kretsar helt kring Henrik som framställs på ett tämligen okritiskt sätt./.../

...vassa tonfallet och på det lätt ironiska sätt handlingen förs framåt./.../

Nivån balanserar hela tiden på gränsen till det bisarra och osmakliga, säkerligen med en målsättning att provocera, men för det mesta lyckas han hålla sig på rätt sida. Henrik är ingen person som lockar några varma sympatier men jag tycker inte det är något problem i sig, då det snarare känns befriande att utelämnas så uppriktigt."

Ironisk, arrogant, förakt för svaghet, flytande ovanpå... Ja, var har man lärt sig det? Eller är man kanske född med detta? (vilket jag inte tror. Jag tror man är född i i en miljö med dylik syn på människor - och också sig själv som den Ljung skildrar, kanske ytterligare påspäddoch förstärkt av den studie- och jobbmiljö man sedan hamnar).

Yokiko Duke om boken och dess huvudperson: Hybris och självförakt. En ganska läskig människosyn. Och kvinnor är bara till för att penetrera som hon sa.

Om hybris står det i Wikipedia:

"Hybris, det fanns ingen värre synd än detta övermod, som kunde drabba en alltför framgångsrik människa. Hybris var inom grekisk mytologi att vilja efterlikna och/eller överträffa gudarna. Hybris kan då användas som en synonym till storhetsvansinne (eller megalomani) I det antika dramat utmanar ofta hjältarna den rådande rättsuppfattningen och gudarnas. Då begår de hybris och går oftast under. Ett annat ord för hybris är övermod och människan straffas när hon försöker göra sig till gudarnas jämlike. För att få nåd hos gudarna var man tvungen att förstå vad man gjort för fel, känna vördnad, fruktan och medlidande inför gudarna och på så sätt rena sin själ = katharsis."

Ja, och så det där med "clever child"...