Its still disconcerting to watch how supercilious Affleck is in this discussion. His false analogies and unwillingness to listen are very reminiscent of my own experience in certain respects. Though there is certainly nothing wrong with dialectical disagreement, which offers the opportunity for growth and enrichment for both of the participating parties, its impossible to derive anything worthwhile with someone who is infuriatingly discourteous and arrogant. Instead of listening attentively to what the other person is saying, people like Affleck seem to defensively disparage their opponents by distorting their words and defaming the other persons position in a disingenuous attempt to discredit them. Its so patently puerile and counterproductive; theres just nothing constructive to be gained from such a poisonous exchange. If anything, Affleck just makes himself come across as a reactionary ignoramus. Even after Sam patiently articulated what he meant, seeing that clarification may have been important in disambiguating potential misapprehensions, it was nevertheless ineffective and fell on deaf ears. I am somewhat suspect of certain assertions put forth by Harris. For instance, I dont think its as simplistic as Islamic beliefs themselves being solely responsible for the emergence of IS. Those who join ISIS are undoubtedly the victims of childhood maltreatment, as evidenced by their transforming passive suffering at the hands of a deranged parent into active behaviour. Violence of the kind displayed by this terrorist organization are aberrant products of an organism that has been subjected to horrific abuse involving the iniquitous amputation of their soul. During the helplessness of childhood, being completely beholden to their abusers, these subjects had no recourse of defence but to modify their sadistic maltreatment through glorification to endure such unrestrained brutality. The complete repression of their feelings of powerlessness, rage and humiliation metamorphoses into a latent hatred that awaits abreaction on surrogate objects. Like any other obscene ideological justification for senseless and insuppressible violence, these movements provide these people with an excuse and mandate to unleash years of pent-up aggression on innocent stand ins. Their parents are symbolically subjected to myriad depredations to make up for years of excruciating powerlessness. As monotheistic religions instruct their followers to show unconditional deference to their parents, seemingly irrespective of the manner in which they were treated, latent hatred is ineluctably fostered in the unconscious. Children from strict and devout religious backgrounds find it absolutely incumbent to forbid their organismic reactions of rage and hatred from being expressed and directed at their abusers; fearful and circumspect as they are of their parents retaliation. Thus, this attachment that comes naturally to the child leads the way to that generated loathing and apprehensible anger to be galvanized, but always outside the organisms field of awareness. In other words, it cannot be symbolized accurately in consciousness on account of the dreaded repercussions that are likely to follow. A nurturance of a feeling of revengefulness and indignation is continually sustained and lying in wait to be abreacted on innocent victims. With them, they can avenge their parents misconduct and disembarrass themselves of years of pressing humiliation and degradation they were unrelentingly exposed to.
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:27:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015