A not dysfunctional relation...

After watching a Swedish TV-programme: How would a not dysfunctional relation be? How would a relation be where you don’t try to fill early unfulfilled and thus perverted needs, neither in the other person nor in yourself? Where you don’t use the other person? Where you are two equal persons really?

How many people are driven by a need, or even lust, for revenge? And what has such drives caused in the world?

Click on the arrow in the box down to the right to get the English text.

Freedom, autonomy, arrogance, cynicism, xenophobia, societal approval, and needs...

[Slightly edited in the evening and a little February 24, seeking, searching the words]. Quickly some notes thrown down.

On my walk this morning I thought on the notion “freedom”… What is this about? What should it be about?

I also thought on the notion autonomy, and further on arrogance and cynicism.

Miller has written about autonomy, for instance in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” (in my translation from the Swedish edition):

“A patient with ‘antennas’ for the unconscious in the therapist will immediately react on this [the therapist's needs of another, weaker person’s childish dependency on him/her]. He will quickly ‘feel’ autonomous and behave in this way if he notices [on a conscious or unconscious way] that it is important for the therapist getting autonomous patients with a secure behavior quickly. But this ‘autonomy’ ends up in depression [sooner or later], because it isn’t genuine.”

I think she is right. Many (all) patients seeking help are used to filling other persons' (parents', caregivers' and their substitutes') needs. Actually the patient isn't to blame for being stuck in depression. But many patients tend to blame themselves, blaming themselves for being failures, impossible.

Miller also writes about manipulative measures concerning depressive patients, and the vicious circle of contempt showing in too many helpers too...

She also writes,about autonomy (in the same book):

“The difficulties to experience and develop own genuine feelings results in a permanent bond that makes a demarcation [liberation] impossible./…/ …the child hasn’t gotten the opportunity to develop an own security.”

And this is often met with contempt for weakness, not empathy or understanding/enlightenment about the roots to this state. Too often also from so called helpers, such as therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists. And thus the person in question is stuck in shame and becomes even more tied up, even more unfree.

Contempt for weakness and instilling shame.

I also thought about needs, bottomless needs, originating in the child’s unfulfilled early needs. And those needs can never become filled afterwards, but you can acknowledge and recognize them and maybe grieve them and then be capable of filling you adult needs… Instead of the childhood needs. Trying to fill our childhood needs always causes problems, bigger or smaller.

It’s important that you don’t belittle or minimize what happened though, or rather this is even crucial for recovery to occur.

What we see (and have seen through history) are needs (for power and wealth) need that are never fulfilled, expressed in different ways, more or less violent. Persons never getting satisfied. And this is nothing we are born with is my true conviction, but has a reason.

Miller also writes about directing our anger (and other feelings) at scapegoats (symbols, symbolically dealing with early things), something that will never liberate us. Only of we direct those feelings at the true and original causes we will become liberated. Which doesn't say that any of this is easy, unfortunately. So if we could prevent this...

Yes, it’s this with xenophobia too… See for instance the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus and fascism (“Hitler and Hatred”), and about societal approval… See earlier posting on Pincus on terrorism. And also see earlier postings under the label bigotry.

George W. Bush - and other phenomena in the world…

[Slightly updated January 18]. Some loud thinking, inspired by things I read and have read recently...

A leader writer in the leader "Goodbye to Bush" this morning about George W. Bush and his last speech as president (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“Yesterday George W. Bush held his retirement speech as president.

It was short, vigorous and – as superficial and petrified as always.

His eight years in the White House has made him to one of USA’s less popular presidents ever, the country’s reputation abroad is worse than ever, he leaves more ongoing wars after himself and on top a budget deficit that in itself has transferred power to financiers in Asia. But he is stuck to the conviction that the policy has been successful and the proof of that is that USA since September 11 has managed to fight terror attacks.

In his speech his fundamentalist revival Christianity revived: good and evil stand against each other in this world and no compromises are possible.

How was Bush possible? That’s the ten-thousand-crown-question, a question the historians will pose once. How could he win a second period as president? USA regressed during the 21st Century, a great deal of the population sank into a right Christian and neoconservative slough that made them incapable of understanding themselves, their country, their time/era.

Maybe Bush became the president that came to administer an American empire that at last passed zenith?

Now he retires. The world can start anew again.”

Can it? Does it? Hopefully it does.

In a local newspaper it was a review, ”The shopping culture rules our lives”, today of Zygmunt Bauman’s book “Consuming Life.”

From the review (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“You are first and foremost consumer – everything else is of subordinate meaning. Each human being is valued first an foremost for his ability to buy and for his creditworthiness./…/

What happens to the humanity and our abilities when we are reduced to shopping creatures only?/…/

According to Bauman even we human beings are above all [above everything else; not really seen as human beings with feelings and emotions and a lot of other needs!? All needs are reduced to hat of consuming?] transformed into goods or merchandises. /…/ In this information era being invisible is like being dead [does it have to be? If you had been seenby your first caregivers?].

The dream of becoming famous attracts more and more people today. The central motif is being seen in all our medias./…/

The own self is in the center of attention./../

This hyper fast chase on kicks is called development and modernity when it in reality is about rapidly arisen consumption of narcissism and of general gossip./…/

Constantly we have to become convinced that our cars, kitchen fixtures, clothes, accessories have to become changed of different reasons. In the shopping culture the drive to throw things away is as powerful and necessary as to shop. Can we find an explanation to why so many people don’t feel well in this consumption society? Why do so many people have to eat antidepressants? Yes, in parts because this shopping culture needs clear feelings of lack of satisfaction and lack of something substantial./…/

The flight from ourselves enriches other people. /…/ We have to be on an ongoing chase for ideal ideas about our lives. Everything can become changed to something better./…/

Another gloomy consequence is a selfish society and people standing completely indifferent for notions like solidarity and human beings equal values. If a human being merely is valued as merchandise the whole idea of brotherly philosophy falls. The step from a collective society and collective responsibility to an individual and privatized societal system changes the human beings’ attitudes and ability to engage in other people.

The neoliberalism gave the shopping culture free scope more than twenty years ago. This has also in a very thorough way changed human beings attitudes, habits and opinions.”

Why are we valued so much, and sometimes only, for our outer appearance? Why aren’t we seen as living human beings and why don’t we see ourselves as living human beings, with feelings, needs, emotions etc. Or how do we see our feelings, needs, emotions? And why do we see them as we do?

Why is the own self in the center as it is? Is it a sound self centeredness? What is unsound? And from where does this self centeredness come? What would a sound development lead to?

What is real development, what would real development be? Both in the society as in individuals?

What are we lacking and what needs do we try to satisfy in different ways? Some not with consumption either!

But in other ways. Maybe sometimes very subtle and disguised…

Can true, genuine respect for individuals exist in a/the collective? If not why?

Bauman thinks that a mixed economy protects people from the capitalism’s varieties. He speaks about social rights [another Swedish leader writer wrote recently about "Forgotten rights"!!], a feeling of belonging and human solidarity. Simply a more equal society. And of course this includes new goals for politics concerning the climate, with a much more “sober” and planned consumption. He also writes about the individualisation of problems that in their bottom actually are collective [see paragraph 6 in this linked Wikipedia-article]! My comment: Yes, indivuals are blamed for problems that actually aren't their personal. But at the same time other people, preferably in power, escape their responsibilities. Quite ironically: and they are also given freedom from responsibility (liability) from the people and not least other people in power.

Yes, what are we striving for and why?

I think the roots lies in our first twenty years in life…

The roots for violence are not unknown, no.

Why do we have the leaders we have? Why are those persons seeking power?

See the following articles and essays: “Bush isn’t a Moron, He’s a Cunning Sociopath” by Bev Conover, “D.C. Shrink Diagnosis Bush as a Paranoid, Sadistic Megalomaniac”, “George W. Bush’s projection dislocation of self” by Terence O'Leary, “See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics” Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker, “So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?” by psychologist Oliver James, “The Madness of George W. Bush – A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis” by Paul Levy.

A rotten system - or fortune…

videos with Paul Krugman.

What is fortune actually?

That money and ownership more and more lands in fewer and fewer hands is built into the economical system a person wrote in a Swedish paper today. What he wrote triggered this posting. And it was quite fun to add videos with Paul Krugman, whom I have read with lots of joy! :-) And I got quite happy he got the Nobel Prize!

A writer means that financial speculation is opposed to the market economy, which has to be built on real production of things people need (see about perverted needs, denial of needs).

Today 500 multinational groups of companies and their vice presidents are steering the world economy (the need for power? A need that never will become filled. This is about bottomless, unlimited needs). They decide over investments, patents, production, and distribution and so on. To a too high degree.

When companies become giants they become anonymous. Which makes space for individual directors or vice presidents to act unethically without (any) social responsibility. Thus the economical system leaves the field open for greediness and have-desires.

Fortune is lycka, levnadslott, förmögenhet in Swedish.

Macho ideals and the state of the world…

Jonathan Cook.

Gordon Gekko.

Patrick Bateman.

More voices in Sweden about the current states of affairs in the world:

One writer, Maria-Pia Boëthius, writes: An economical tribunal ought to become established. Not for imposing a penalty, but for making clear for the people around the world what has happened and who carry the guilt actually.

Such a tribunal should be sent directly over the web and in the public service channels all over the world. What we than got to know wouldn’t be dependent on the Medias’ reports and filtering of news because the Medias – the big – are also guilty to what has happened!

No of these bubbles would have been possible without the Medias’ eager cooperation and collaboration. But when the responsibility is to become claimed the medias always try to run away, only for to become the money-world’s obedient weapon in the next bubble.

The truth is that the media earn great money on that these bubbles are built, with the help of advertisement, PR and trademark building. The media and its owners have all interests in puffing the consumption up, because they seldom live on our direct buying but on the advertisements and the trademarkings’s (the making of trade marks) distorted message.

See about the British journalist Jonathan Cook here and here.

And read about ”The Intellectual Cleansing” part one and two here (Part one with the title “Keeping the Media Safe For Big Business”). Quotation from that site on what Media Lens is:

“Media Lens is our response to the unwillingness, or inability, of the mainstream media to tell the truth about the real causes and extent of many of the problems facing us, such as human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change.”

The world needs an unbiased tribunal where even the Medias’ have to answer for their actions she thinks.

Another writer writes about our short sight needs and a sick system, something our politicians haven’t wanted to accept, and they haven't wanted to accept that they are responsible for a lot of what’s happening either. If we don’t see, hear… we have no responsibility? Yes, that about being in denial...

This writer writes about more and more advanced financial instruments in the financial world and thinks a financial system ought to see so the resources there are in the world are where they are needed. That all people ought to get their basic needs met. All financial institutions ought to account for what they do in this respect.

The earth has limited resources. All financial institutions ought to account for how they reduce the consumption of resources and leave space for other species to live.

All systems need time for reflection (thoughtfulness), even the financial systems. But the ones working in this system wants oscillations (?) because they earn money on differences. And are driven by mania??

But the instruments shouldn’t be there for the instruments' sake! Creativity ought to become encouraged too. Regular controls of the financial instruments so they don’t loose their transparency are needed.

A great part of this crisis is due to the fact that the politicians, put there to regulate these markets, in fact don’t understand those instruments.

We need to find a system where all people can live. We should need to steer the society in a transparent, fair and ecological direction.

A third writer (Martin Halldén in the Swedish magazine ETC) writes that it’s a sick man’s ideal behind the crisis! And I think that's really true! A CEO (VD in Swedish) for an investment company said a couple of years ago something in the style that:

“Buying house shares is like buying women. You don’t want to buy a cheap whore if you can buy an expensive whore.”

But this statement isn’t strange the writer thinks. Because in the financial world a sick man’s ideal rules he means. And has even contributed to the global financial crisis. Young men with Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman as models are competing about taking extreme risks and the climate in those circles favours lack of consideration - and has quite musty values.

Stockbrokers are mostly men working on workplaces dominated by men, and the financial market has become a reserve for young, aggressive men (yes, what are they playing out and what do their actions cause and have they caused?).

It is this sick macho culture that has created the decisions we now see the results of – when the stock markets now are falling all over the world.

Read Barbara Ehrenreich on Positive Thinking!!

The Swedish journalist Jan Guillou also wrote the other day about Blackwater and “Murder as Business Idea – Jan Guillou on the privatisation of the war – and Blackwater’s notorious mercenary soldiers.”

On a bike ride I came to think once again about what the American neurologist Jonathan Pincus writes about societal approval. And that's exactly what we see, societal approval and scapegoating. Here the politicians and media use scapegoats (unemployed, people on sick pay etc., claiming they are misusing the system) to put the blame on to steer the society in a direction they wouldn't have been able to steer it in otherwise (or not so quickly, without this it would have taken even more time than it has actually taken), and they have become accepted targets for people's needs to act all sorts of things out (probably childhood experiences in the bottom)!!! I react a lot towards this.