Oregon Massacre And Relationality

a reply to: Talorc

Except I don't buy that. I don't feel taunted. I know what I'm worth, but then I've tested myself and know what I can achieve in almost all aspects. I have a true sense of my own worth relative to others.

I'm not wealthy or famous, but I have a hunch I have a stronger, more complete sense of self than many of those so-called idols we get taunted with.

Celebrity is just that. And many of the idols of today are simply famous for marketing themselves and no other reason. Explain to me what Kim Kardashian's notable achievements are. I'll wait. But people hang on her ever post and selfie as though she were the Dalai Lama.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not idols in the sense of celebrities, but rather a more general thing. The word can apply to objects and ideas, like the little statuettes people used to worship.

Buy it or not, these shootings are the result of fantasy and idolatry being confused with reality. I feel pretty sure of it. Whether or not you feel fine has no bearing on why these fellows decide to go out and kill people.

There are these obsessions with very specific archetypes and aspirations. Most of them are bad and have no real merit. Most of them are unattainable. All of them seem to give off an artificial vibe, like some guy in a corporate office contrived the social tiers and stereotypes that play out before your eyes in day to day life. The last post I wrote was vague and more of a rant on my part, but you must know what I mean.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Celebrity is just that. And many of the idols of today are simply famous for marketing themselves and no other reason. Explain to me what Kim Kardashian's notable achievements are. I'll wait. But people hang on her ever post and selfie as though she were the Dalai Lama.

I think there is often an omission of the awareness of what is fame and what is infamy. It is celebrity without effort, although I am sure Ms Kardashian puts a lot of effort into maintaining her infamy it is not an accomplishment for which she is lauded, rather she has accomplished infamy through prostituting her lifestyle and making that an aspirational model. To each their own, she's making a good living for herself and her family...and it seems Barnum's estimations were low as their success is supported by millions. Don't ask me how or why, it boggles my mind, but she is a mindless sweetie, from what I have seen, not much to actually hate...so I presume she has good management.

OP, interesting perspective and excellent writing (as ever).

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

No sorry. We may all have our breaking point, but at which point does that excuse deciding that your break justified taking as many with you as you can? Time was that those who broke simply took care of themselves and left the rest of us to wonder why. Now they take themselves and as many others as possible grabbing at notoriety. And, God help us, we give it to them.

There is no cliché at all in that.

I think that maybe I must have been unclear. I was not thinking about 'snapping' where a person like you or me would all of a sudden snap and go off killing folk. More to the gist of OPs ideas, that human development is not a case of right and wrong, this or that or black and white. That we all, from early childhood on, are faced with basically 'coinflip' options on which way we will go in our development. That the majority of those coinflips are not determined by 'choice' but rather determined by previous reactionary coinflips based on coinflips on coinflips.
And none of that has much to do with free will or moral values that most of us cherish so highly.

Where as even though you or I might have undergone any number of familial, cultural or social struggles, somehow, someway one of those 'coinflips in our lives where and when we had little idea of how important it would be later in our lives. Somehow these people who go 'off' are not really 'off' by their own internal standards, only 'off' by our collectively accepted morals, which, due to one or more of those coinfilps, those unconscious developmental points they have not come to share with the rest of us.

I have not really read up on this particular event and person. Everytime there is one of these mass shootings though, I find myself thinking about the way I found my culture influenced me to be so focused on the individual will, that I learned to ignore and cut myself off from the signals that are less than conscious - in others, and myself. They are not what counts. The body language expresses desires and needs, but if the awareness of the individual does not acknowledge and "own" them, it is useless to respond to them.

So I learned to ignore that part of the communication. (the metacommunication)

A few weeks ago I was struck by this when my grandaughter (who is four years old) got out the pool. It was time to eat, I wanted her out, everyone else was getting out, but she was not happy about ending the pool play session and started crying and complaining. I was holding a towel, and offering to wrap her up in it, and she was refusing saying she didn't want to.

I did what I usually did with my kids - they had a right to choose. Okay. You don't want to be wrapped up in the towel and dried? Fine. No problem. *shrug* Your choice. I was often of the POV that (if the potantial consequences aren't too risky) that they'll learn there are consequences to their choices, and it will teach them to think carefully before choosing this way.

My husband finally said, under his breath "She does want it, she's cold. Wrap her up."
I realized that even while she cried and said no, she was inching closer and closer to me, shivering - all her body language was saying, I want, I need, your comfort and warmth and embrace. The wierd thing was, on a certain level, I was aware of that, but was putting it aside to focus on the verbal communication.

This provoked thought in me for days - not only how I will tend to ignore the non-verbal communication, but can become detached from my own - I say I am fine, but don't feel so inside and my body probably expresses that. But my mind can get so wrapped up in it's judgement that I SHOULD feel fine, that even I believe I am fine.
Luckily, I have a mate who is the opposite of I and tends to pay more attention to the body language than the words, and he actually brings my awareness to my own internal states.

What I am trying to illustrate with that anecdote, is the problem of focus upon individual will and conscious awareness as the most valuable part of who we are, which cuts off some of our awareness of our most basic physical and emotional needs as social animals.... and those of others!

Empathy finds it's source in these emotional and physical non-verbal exchanges. People who feel the need for bonding, acknowledgement, and sense of belonging, but have beliefs that they should be independent, need no one, be completely self reliant (isn't that the ideal american?) can cut themselves off from awareness of those needs and from others.

Regardless, the social animal within persists and exists, and often can end up submerged in the need for human contact and affection and interdependence that is unfulfilled. Maybe more sugar and salt, caffeine and alcohol, can dull that cry in temporary ways, but yeah....I guess in some cases, the social animal goes rogue.

My husband will be transporting Martin Scorsese in his checker cab at a festival in a couple of weeks, so we talked about the film "Taxi Driver" this morning. The concept that a lonely and struggling person can become so eaten up by their need for recognition, respect, and love that they snap and become warriors of justice in their own mind is something I think more of us would be capable of than we'd like to think. I suspect what we think is just a part of who we are... and the other half is, in some cases, capable of a revolt and coup.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ketsuko

So what is the difference? Why does it make some and break others?

Biology. Your point is proof positive that bullying does not cause nor lead to mass murders or even violence. The notion that the human being is a blank slate upon which the environment moulds monsters is a dogma of psychology. We can rightfully blame the perpetrator, and not his history, not his reading material, not his parents, not his addictions etc. The perpetrator is the only guilty party.

Yeah sure, we're not products of the enviornment.

Go ahead and tell planet earth that.

Try doing a little research on the subject, and then tell the planet earth what you've been telling it all along.