Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Seducer's Diary

The Wikipedia synopsis (spoiler alert):

Written by 'Johannes the Seducer', this volume illustrates how the aesthete holds the "interesting" as his highest value and how, to satisfy his voyeuristic reflections, he manipulates his situation from the boring to the interesting. He will use irony, artifice, caprice, imagination and arbitrariness to engineer poetically satisfying possibilities; he is not so much interested in the act of seduction as in willfully creating its interesting possibility.

Søren Kierkegaard from the Diary of a Seducer:

I once knew of a girl whose story forms the substance of the diary. Whether he has seduced others I do not know... we learn of his desire for something altogether arbitrary. With the help of his mental gifts he knew how to tempt a girl to draw her to him without caring to possess her in any stricter sense.

I can imagine him able to bring a girl to the point where he was sure she would sacrifice all then he would leave without a word let a lone a declaration a promise. 


The unhappy girl would retain the consciousness of it with double bitterness because there was not the slightest thing she could appeal to. She could only be constantly tossed about in a terrible witches' dance at one moment reproaching herself forgiving him at another reproaching him and then since the relationship would only have been actual in a figurative sense she would constantly have to contend with the doubt that the whole thing might only have been an imagination.

I also like this idea of people loving, but loving in two entirely different ways. Consequently, although neither is lying or otherwise misrepresenting themselves, there is still a gross misunderstanding:

The tragic is that the two lovers don't understand each other; the comic is that two who do not understand each other love each other. That such a thing can happen is not inconceivable, for erotic love itself has its dialectic, and even if it were unprecedented, the construction, of course, has the absolute power to construct imaginatively. When the heterogeneous is sustained the way I have sustained it, then both parties are right in saying that they love. Love itself has an ethical and an esthetic element. She declares that she loves and has the esthetic element and understands it esthetically; he says that he loves and understands it ethically. Hence they both love and love each other, but nevertheless it is a misunderstanding.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Quote: Brutality

"In my opinion, it is you considerate, humane men, that are responsible for all the brutality and outrage wrought by these wretches; because, if it were not for your sanction and influence, the whole system could not keep foothold for an hour. If there were no planters except such as that one," said he, pointing with his finger to Legree, who stood with his back to them, "the whole thing would go down like a millstone. It is your respectability and humanity that licenses and protects his brutality."

― Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin

Monday, November 10, 2014

Song: If loving you is wrong




Two sides to extramarital affairs? From her monologue:

But I ain't worried about it, 'cause I found out that when a man starts tipping away from home, somebody at home has fallen down on the homefront.
That's because when those women marry these men, they have a tendency to take advantage of them.
They forget about all the sweet things they say to get them, that they have to keep on saying them to keep them. 'Cause you got a whole lot of women out there these days just like me who will tell a man anything in the world he feel like he might want to hear. 
I know, 'cause I've gone with a married man and last New Year's Eve, I was lonesome as a naked figure.
But, J1, the man came on in like he was supposed to.
And I don't mind waiting that one day, 'cause anything worth having is worth waiting on.
So when the man came in, J1, I was right there waiting on him to tell him all them sweet things I know his wife hadn't told him over the holidays.
And you can think of a whole lot of good stuff to tell a nigger when you're by yourself.
So the minute my man came in the door, J1, I start laying it on him.
I said oooh, baby. Oooh, baby. Oooh, baby. My baby.
You're the sweetest thing I know. Yes you are.
You dim the rainbow's glow. Yes you do, baby.
There ain't no power, no power, no power on this earth
To ever, oh, oh Lord, separate us, baby,
'Cause you are my sunshine, 
My only little sunshine.
You are my sunshine, my sunshine,
And I love you, baby.
I can't help but love you, baby.
I love you, baby.
I couldn't give up if I wanted to.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Highly motivated

One of my relatives started a job as a teacher's assistant at a grammar school. She talked to me about how there are two students in the class that she believes are clearly attention deficit-disordered. Why? Because they don't pay attention in class. It's not that they're not smart, she says, because when she gets them to look at the particular paragraph or reading material they're studying, they can answer questions about it. I asked her why she thinks that means that they *can't* concentrate or focus on the material versus that they *won't*. She looked at me a little as if I was either being daft or difficult, making a distinction without a difference, in her mind. But I think it is often an assumption that people make in educational contexts, that if someone isn't doing something that we expect most people to be able to do, it must mean that they can't rather than they won't. Oddly, when it comes to behavioral things outside of that context, people frequently make the opposite conclusion -- that because someone isn't doing something that everyone else "ought" to be able to do, it must mean that they can but choose not to for some perverse reason.

It reminded me of this old comment:

There was a peer-reviewed article in "Social Cognition" where a study showed something that will surprise a few naysayers. Here's a quote from the author's abstract:

"When the others were described as in-group members, participants higher in psychopathy showed greater concern for those others. This indicates that the lack of concern for others produced by everyday psychopathy is due to a lack of motivation to care about others, rather than a lack of ability to do so."

Believe it or not, but high-functioning members can show concern for others. They just need a reason for it. Ironically, the study was conducted on university undergraduates (though in truth, it is common for research universities to use the student populace as guinea pigs).

In case anyone is interested, the article is called "Understanding Everyday Psychopathy: Shared Group Identity Leads to Increased Concern for Others among Undergraduates Higher in Psychopathy." by Arbuckle and Cunningham in the journal called Social Cognition (October 2012).

But here's the thing I thought about when talking to my relative the teacher's assistant -- do we fault children for not being motivated to learn any more or less than we fault them for a hardwired lack of ability to focus? They live in an economically disadvantaged area. They likely won't have the resources to do much of higher education. Or even if they did, there are people with college and advanced degrees that have lower paying jobs than their parents do. Why be motivated to learn about the different Chinese dynasties? If there is a reason to learn that, then surely the child could be convinced eventually to learn. Similarly, do we blame the sociopath who doesn't care enough to show concern for others if no one has ever shown him why he should care? Who is going to go to the trouble of trying to convince him?

Saturday, November 8, 2014

In love with a sociopath (part 1)

From a reader:
The more I read [your blog] the more reassured I became that the person I am in love with is a sociopath. I have known this person for 7 years, and during these years I was constantly fascinated by him, the way he manipulates people into satisfying his needs, the way he quickly rises up the career ladder, the way he sometimes in an instant lets go of any particular relationship, and the way he never takes responsibility for anything but rather blames the people around him. I have always noticed how people start out by loving him, turning him into an idol, a God, they worship him, but within time every single one of those people ended up hating him. He has constant affairs with women, and each time he claims he is in love (however short lived). Women in his life come and go but I'm the constant. I don't understand why. He said he considers me one of his best friends, however my feelings for him are way stronger than simply friendship. That fact that I love him annoys him a lot, he hates any form of emotion or weakness on my side.

I have learned to accept him for who he is, although sometimes due to my more emotional nature I lash out at him demanding change, I try to explain to him why sometimes I feel alienated by him, or that I simply need more attention, usually these types of conversations end up in a fight, because he is unable to see my side of the story. I understand that it's something that he will never be capable of. However we have managed to keep this friendship running for 7 years. I have invested a lot into this relationship, and yes I willingly putting myself into the position of a victim. I fully accept this. He is a great person, and I am very attached to him, however due to his constant change in behavior I often fear that I will lose him. His attention may turn to somebody else in a blink of an eye, and keeping him in my life (even if only as a friend) gives me a strange feeling of adrenalin (a bit selfish here). He has the power to crush and mend my world in a split second, the high and lows that he puts me through are incredible, although it sometimes exhausts me, but as I said I willingly put up with it. It's my choice to stay friends with him. I'm not going to give up on him simply because he is slightly different from the rest.

I'm not here to complain, I am here to try and better understand him, so that I can further adapt better. So the question that I want to ask is: if sociopaths have no attachments, why won't he let me leave?

There were times when I was very close to abandoning this friendship and each time I would make that decision he would pull me back. He does threaten me sometimes "if you show your emotions one more time I will never talk to you, and this friendship will be over", however he has never actually done it, which means he doesn't really want to let go either. Maybe he takes pleasure in observing me, observing how I'm struggling to keep this friendship running. Or maybe deep down he feels alone, and I'm the only women who loves him for who he is and not for the mask that he puts on for the rest. His true reason for keeping me in his life doesn't matter, as long as I'm in it. I'm just curious of what the reason could be.

He can be very caring for me, and very sympathetic, and he can be very supportive when I'm going through a difficult time, he would constantly call me to check up on me, and than suddenly he would become all cold. Almost as if somebody had pressed the "off" button -- I can cry my eyes out, and reach out for his support, and he won't give it, and it would seem like he doesn't care at all. However, I'm the only person who was ever invited to his family home, the only person with whom he has kept in touch for 7 years, and he protects me (ex: when we would be driving with friends, he would tell me to sit behind the driver because thats the safest place in the car). So what does he feel for me, if he actually feels anything?

Part II and Part III 
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.