Stephen Roney's Blog, page 189

Clerihew

 

Thomas Alva Edison

Wouldn't take his medicine.

He gave light to the earth

For whatever that's worth.

--Stephen K. Roney

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Jamie Spears Out?

 This needs to be confirmed, but sounds like good news in the Britney Spears case.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Cuomo Resigns

 

I have no reason to defend a prominent Democrat, but I find Andrew Cuomo’s defense against charges of sexual harassment plausible: that it’s just an Italian thing. Of the eleven accusations, most seem to be unwanted comments, perhaps boorish, but no more. It should not be a crime to be socially awkward. Only three sound like touching with sexual intent, beyond just being Italian and accordingly touchy-feely. One woman says that, during a photo shoot, he touched her buttocks. Another said he “touched her chest.”

It is at least possible that a touch on the buttocks during a photo shoot was inadvertent. Cuomo would have been looking at the camera, not down; did he know what he was touching? And “chest,” as opposed to “breast,” is ambiguous. It might have been somewhere on the rib cage, say, and still not sexual in intent; just a friendly embrace aimed too high.

Leaving one accusation that sounds serious: “groping one of her breasts under her bra by reaching under her blouse.” Not okay, and not plausibly inadvertent.

Yet it is also true that, for any prominent politician, or even prominent figure, there is a built-in incentive to make false charges of sexual impropriety. Except under exceptional circumstances, nobody can prove you’re a liar, so there is no cost. It is a good way to tarnish the reputation of, or perhaps even get rid of, a political rival. And it is a way for woman can draw attention to herself, as someone an important and desirable man found irresistibly attractive. 

Accordingly, I find it more than plausible that one accusation could simply be a lie. 

If it were real, I would expect more than one woman coming forward wiith an accusation of comparable gravity. If someone is genuinely inclined to giving in to sexual temptation so egregiously, it is unlikely they gave in to the temptation only once. Police departments count on this: they can generally recognize an “M.O.” Pedophiles do not stop at one child, and gropers do not stop at one woman.

I suspect the man is innocent.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Pallister Resigns

 

 I am sad to see Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister resign, apparently for saying that Canada and Manitoba were not actually created for the purpose of genocide. I wish he had not caved to the bullies. Had he stood firm, he might have been the leader we need. 

I find it hard to believe the average voter actually buys this critical race theory stuff.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Lady's a Vamp

 

Waterhouse, "Lamia"; an image of the narcissist type

Over the last few weeks, I have been in email correspondence with the mother of a man diagnosed as schizophrenic. She declared that she had cured him. The cure consisted of playing music through headphones into just one ear. She claimed to have helped hundreds in the same way.

Oddly, however, she also spoke of her son as still schizophrenic, of having cured him repeatedly, and of his sometimes cursing her or her husband. It sounds as though the “cure” was temporary and symptomatic. “Cure” may have been an exaggeration.

I’m not sure she has actually demonstrated anything beyond the traditional wisdom that music has charms that calm the savage breast. An observation at least as old as Orpheus and the Bible.

But I think I may have seen here something of the family dynamic that leads to schizophrenia.

Seemingly unaware of the ancient observation about music, the lady was certain she had made a scientific breakthrough on the order of Harvey discovering the circulation of blood—she literally used this comparison. She had demonstrated that schizophrenia, and mental illness generally, was actually a hearing problem. It was caused by a physiological defect in the right ear. As a result of this, the brain becomes unbalanced, out of sync. The right brain becomes dominant over the left. By playing music in only one ear, she had rebalanced the two hemispheres.

This sounded odd; beginning with what looked like a naively literal interpretation of mental illness as being “mentally unbalanced.” I pointed out to her that other than handedness, there was no demonstrated scientific basis for the left-brain, right-brain distinction. She promptly responded that she was not concluding this from anyone else’s work, this is something she had personally discovered.

As we engaged in further discussion, I realized that she conceived no distinction between “mind” and “brain.” When I suggested that the one thing was a physical entity you could hold in your hand, and the other was not, she seemed to simply ignore the point, and went right back to identifying them, without explanation. It was as though she were mentally blocking any contrary suggestion. 

We had a parallel discussion of the distinction between “behavior” and “experience” or “thought.” She consistently referred to all as “behavior.” When I argued the difference, using a computer analogy, it did not seem to register. She did not respond, and continued calling it all behavior. I could not get her to acknowledge the difference between “mental” or “metaphysical” and “physical” either. Nor could she recognize a possible distinction between “physical” and “real.” After being queried on this, with reference to Berkeley, she used the terms interchangeably, as if in defiance: where I had written “physical,” she quoted me as writing “real.” 

This looked semi-intentional. At some level, she understood the distinction, but she refused to acknowledge it.

This seemed to make her a total materialist. Yet, surprisingly, she claimed to be an unchurched Christian, who believed in a soul and an afterlife. 

Then, in another context, she lamented that her husband was currently so depressed he thought he was going to die.

(Odd—why hadn’t she used her listening therapy to cure him? Or had it failed?)

I pointed out, hoping to ease her presumed concern over her husband, that death is not necessarily a bad thing for a Christian. She responded that in his case, he was also expecting “the worst possible outcome”—nonexistence. 

Very odd—claiming to believe in an afterlife, and a Christian afterlife, yet even in the context of a Christian afterlife, the concept of hell does not come to her mind as conceivable. For surely that is worse than nonexistence.

She was superficially perfectly lucid, and congenial, indeed, conspicuously socially skilled. Charming--or, more accurately, manipulative. She could probably have given a casual acquaintance a good impression of herself at a cocktail party.

But whether or not her son was mad, it was clear if one listened carefully, and probed, that in literal terms, she was as mad as a hatter. 

She was an example of what Fleiss called “ambulatory psychosis,” or M. Scott Peck called “ambulatory schizophrenia.” Both are alternate terms for what we call narcissism. And both Fleiss and Peck maintain that this character type in a parent leads to mental illness in a child. As it seems to have done here.

These are people who seem at least reasonably sane to the world around, and respectable, while actually holding delusional views about themselves and the world. They think of themselves as godlike, and will fabricate imaginary narratives to reinforce this impression, both to themselves and others. Yet it is their children, rather than themselves, who turn up at the psychiatrist’s office. They will never go to see a psychiatrist because, of course, they cannot be mentally ill. It must be everyone else. If and as their child, growing up, sees inconsistencies in their claims about themselves and the world, the child is forced into the role of mental illness, of mental problem. For being too sane.

In her own mind, this woman was convinced she was a scientist as great as Harvey. Descartes and Berkeley were obvious idiots compared to her. It emerged, as each of these subjects came up in discussion, that she had significant academic background in English literature, psychology, and philosophy. When the Iowa Writing Workshop came up, it turned out that her husband was a graduate, and her daughter worked for that university. Possibly true, but a pileup of coincidences.

My speculative observations:

The narcissist type—I prefer the term “hubristic,” but as exemplified here--is an absolute materialist, but also believes in an immortal soul. How is this possible? Because they believe that THEY have an immortal soul; but actually, nobody else does. Everyone else is a bundle of unconscious behaviours. 

They must believe they are immortal, being their own gods; but will not accept the possibility of divine punishment. There can be no question of them ever having acted immorally. Others do, of course, but since they are automatons, it is not their fault.

If they cannot plausibly make a boast about themselves, they may boast of association with someone else who is great. Otherwise, everyone else is worthy of scorn. This is the genesis of the co-dependent Echo type of narcissist. While describing all her close relatives as insane, this woman also claimed her father was a great scientist who designed essential parts of the first Canadian nuclear reactor. 

Her first instinct was to run anyone else down, but she would flip to the exact opposite when it seemed useful. This has often been commented on in narcissists: their reaction to everyone is either adulation or devaluation, and most often, in relationships, first the one, in order to entrap, then the other.

I deeply pity her son. She is, as are narcissists generally, a vampire feeding on his substance.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

TB or Not TB, That Is the Question

 

This book documents the high infant mortality rate in Canada’s fairly recent past. “A century ago approximately 1 in 6 babies Canadian babies died by age three. In the tubercular slums of the bigger cities the death rate was worse, 1 in 3.”

This is the simple explanation for those “mass graves” we have been recently hearing about. Tuberculosis was rampant on the reserves.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

News You Have Not Heard

 

Most folks no doubt are utterly unaware, but there has been a major earthquake in ESL (English as a Second Language). It has been going online in the last few years, and the vast market has been China, with its 1.4 billion increasingly prosperous prospects. Apart from COVID, the economies of this approach are obvious: no need to transport teachers halfway across the world, and look after them in China. 

Now, suddenly, the Chinese government has banned overseas tutoring. This is causing the sudden collapse of a huge and rapidly growing industry.

The official reason is that the cost of extracurricular studies was too great on Chinese families, and was discouraging them from having more children. Getting into the best colleges is highly competitive in China.

But then, why go after online teaching in particular? Given that one wants to learn English, this is the cheaper way.

Perhaps the Chinese government does not want Chinese people learning English.

After all, if they are talking daily or weekly with people living in the US, Canada, or UK, strange foreign ideas are liable to rub off. Is it advantageous for the Chinese government if Chinese people have a clear view of life in North America? Is it advantageous that they have good foreign friends?

Not if the government sees things getting worse in China in the near future, either in terms of material prosperity or personal freedoms. And not if China wants to whip up war sentiment.

It seems to me unlikely that the Chinese government will be able to stop the overseas tutoring. Instead, they are probably just forcing Chinese companies out of the market, leaving it to foreign countries that operate beyond their reach.

But the fact that they are trying looks desperate.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Madness and Civilization

 

The 16th Century Dancing Mania

Nietzsche wisely sad that madness, while rare in individuals, is common in groups. Madness is hard to sustain as an individual alone; but if everyone around you is saying the same insane thing, it gets easier.

Having lived in several countries, it seems to me that most nations are collectively mad. South Korea is quite mad. The US may be as mad or madder. The UK, despite seeing themselves as the home of common sense, is barking mad. Germany has a history of going mad, as does the Netherlands, and Japan. China is insane. It is hard to judge, because it is my own country, but I think Canada is maddest of all. 

That is, in each of these countries, a majority of people believe or claim to believe things that are pretty obviously not true. And get agitated if the delusion is challenged. And look for scapegoats.

What country is the sanest? In my experience, the Philippines and Italy. You might object that Italy went mad under Mussolini, but did it? The government went mad, especially later, under the influence of Hitler; it is not clear to me that the average Italian took that government seriously. The Irish in Canada or the US seems saner than the rest of the population; I do not know if the same holds for the Irish in Ireland. The Poles seem sane. I may be missing some entirely sane nations just through lack of experience.

The Arab countries are saner than the US or Canada, at least, but not sane.

It looks as though being Catholic might have something to do with it. On the other hand, this does not seem to have preserved the French, who are batty.

Perhaps one needs to be more than nominally Catholic. France has other influences, and historically flirted with Calvinism. Italy and the Philippines are more thoroughly culturally Catholic, and the Irish or Poles have Catholicism deeply embedded in their national self-image.

It fits with something Chesterton said: once you stop believing in God, you’re liable to believe in anything. The surest protection against madness is a solid and comprehensive religious faith. If solid, Catholicism is comprehensive. More comprehensive than Protestantism or Islam or Buddhism.

It also seems obvious that there is no relationship between sanity and economic development. This stands to reason. The most materialistic nations are likely to be most materially prosperous. But materialism is not a sane view of the world.

I do think there is a relationship between sanity and happiness. Or rather, “happiness” may be too ambiguous here. The link is more between sanity and serenity.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Britney Spears' Dysfunctional Family

 

An interesting, if necessarily highly speculative, analysis.

Britney Spears may be doing many of the abused a great service by bringing the syndrome to public attention.

In other, perhaps related news, Britney revealed in a recept post, since deleted, that she has become Catholic. This reinforces my thesis that the first necessity to escape the effects of a dysfunctional family is to re-ground yourself in transcendent reality. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Pallister's Partial Apostasy

 

Brian Pallister; Globe & Mail

There are continuing calls for Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister to resign for saying, on Canada Day, “The people who came here to this country before it was a country, and since, didn't come here to destroy anything. They came here to build.”

“Those remarks,” the CBC explains, “were quickly characterized by scholars as ahistorical and insensitive.”

Pallister has since apologized. His indigenous affairs minister has resigned, saying “Inappropriate words and actions can be very damaging.” The chosen replacement, himself Metis, almost immediately had to apologize for saying the Indian residential schools were started with good intentions.

Pallister’s comments were not just inoffensive, but conciliatory. He was spreading oil on troubled waters, after a destructive riot on Canada Day, as a leader should. They were also obviously true. Why, after all, would anyone cross an ocean, or cross a country, just to destroy something?

Why the dramatic attack? The modern elite demands extreme ideological conformity, and conformity to statements and concepts that are obviously untrue, precisely because they feel endangered. They have to be sure they can trust anyone in a position of power to protect their joint position. They need this sort of public oath of loyalty.

They are unlikely, over time, to keep getting it; they keep raising the ante. At this point, if people start talking openly about the matter of the residential schools and Canada’s history of indigenous relations, their prior claims of genocide will fall apart. If people start talking openly about human sexuality, their claims about gender will fall apart. At that point, the entire elite gets discredited, and falls.

If they have not by this point, they are inevitably going to overplay their hand. They are in too deep. There is a house of cards here, and the remarkable thing is that it has not collapsed already. 

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the end in the school board meetings in the US, in which many parents are challenging critical race theory in the schools. 

I guess this can go a few different ways: a forward march into totalitarianism to preserve the privilege of the elites; a revolution, in which they are swept out for a more democratic society in the tradition of the French or American revolutions; or first the one, some dreadful holocaust, and then the other.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.