sherlockzen
  • Home
  • About
  • Admin
  • Register
  • Login
  • Contact

sherlockzen

  • Home
  • About
  • Admin
  • Register
  • Login
  • Contact
Monthly Archives

July 2009

Mysteries

Friendship’s Darker Dynamic

by Dr. Mark Dillof July 26, 2009October 20, 2018
written by Dr. Mark Dillof
Friendship’s Darker Dynamic
  • Tweet

“God protect me from my friends.” — Anonymous

We had previously analyzed the episode of Seinfeld, in which George Costanza — realizing that every decision that he has made in life has turned out to be a bad one — decides that, from now on he will do the exact opposite of what his usual instincts tell him to do. As a result, George’s situation in life undergoes a dramatic improvement. He gets an attractive girlfriend; he moves out of his parent’s house; and he gets a dream job with the New York Yankees. What interests us here, though, is how George’s transformation affects his friendships.

The person whom it specifically affects is Elaine. After George’s transformation, everything begins to go wrong for her. Elaine gets thrown out of her apartment. And carelessness, on Elaine’s part, causes her publishing house to lose a major contract. Sitting at their familiar restaurant table Elaine, Jerry, and Kramer discuss the matter:

Elaine : Do you know what’s going on here? Can’t you see what’s happened? I’ve become George.
Jerry : Don’t say that.
Elaine : It’s true. I’m George! I’m George!

Elaine realizes, in horror, that she has inherited George’s bad fortune. But, is this really possible? It is, according to what is known by psychologists as “family systems theory.” The theory contends that there are certain roles available to family members. If, for example, one family member is the serious scholar, that role is now taken and a younger member of the family needs to adopt a different role. It might, for example, be that of underdog, rebel, clown, or athlete. This same claiming of roles also occurs in relationships. For example if one person takes the role of being careless with money, the other partner will have to become the responsible one.

What interests us here is how these family systems dynamics apply to friendships. Since George — after his “do the opposite” transformation — is no longer the schlemiel, or hapless loser, someone else, out of a curious psychological necessity, must assume that role. That person could have been Jerry or Kramer, but, for whatever the reason, the curse falls on Elaine. Jerry attempts to offer Elaine a kind of philosophical solace: “Elaine, don’t get too down. Everything’ll even out, see, I have two friends, you were up, he was down. Now he’s up, you’re down. You see how it all evens out for me?”

People intuitively realize that this dynamic exists, which is why, if another person — their a family member or a friend — starts to do better, they might try to trip him or her up. Usually, this dynamic occurs unconsciously. It can, though, be quite conscious and demonic, as illustrated by the film “The Razor’s Edge.” (1946). Sophie is a recovering alcoholic. Larry, her new husband, has helped her go straight. Isabel, out of jealousy over Sophie’s marriage to Larry, tempts Sophie to return to her drinking. Usually, the efforts by other people to bring us back to who we had been is not so egregious, as in that film. But it can be all the more insidious, in its subtlety.

The Sense of Betrayal

Often, those who knew the transformed person as a suffering sad sack, will feel betrayed. They will feel betrayed out of an inner sense that these roles had been agreed upon, and now these roles have been changed or even reversed. Sometimes, it is simply the case that a friendship is predicated on the roles that two people have been playing. When one of the pair changes, the other person will often feel that he has lost a friend, simply by virtue of the person no longer being the person whom he had been.

Indeed, friendship may simply no longer be possible. Consider, for example, Shakespeare’s King Henry IV, (Part Two). When Prince Hal becomes king, he rises to the occasion, putting aside riotous living. He becomes a serious and responsible person, as befits his new role in life. When Hal, now Henry the Fifth, is greeted by Sir John Falstaff, his former drinking and carousing buddy, he coldly replies: “I know ye not old man.” Falstaff is crushed by Hal’s words.

Sometimes, the feeling of betrayal may also have another sense to it. Most people have a sense that they need to change their life around. When they see that a friend has done precisely that, they feel threatened by a kind of inner accusation: “See, your friend Mary has changed. Why can’t you.” It is true that misery loves company, so if we renounce our formerly miserable state, we are no longer good company to those who are still miserable.

Dread of the Uncanny

There is another, more fundamental, sense of what happens to friendships, should one of the friends undergo a significant psychological change. A real change can be frightening, for other people. More specifically, it evokes the uncanny, of which Freud — in his 1919 essay “The Uncanny” — perceptively observed that there is nothing more terrifying. What makes it so? Our sense of reality is predicated on objects and people being who they are. Should that no longer be true, so long to reality and sanity as well.

It’s true that we may enjoy the transformations that a magician on stage brings about, for we know, full well that it involves trickery. But, if we witnessed real magic — one thing or person actually transforming into something or someone else — we would likely get sick to our stomach or faint, for we would become unhinged from our fundamental orientation to the world.

In point of fact, people do, on rare occasion, undergo a major transformation. It can then unhinge his friends and family. It is unsettling to realize, as have the existentialists, that the self is not a fixed thing, an object, but is what Kierkegaard called “a freedom,” a freedom that is fluid and can become anything. For their own psychological survival, they may seek, as much as possible, to try to bring him back to who he had been before the transformation.

Needless to say, not all friends and family members are nefarious in this way. Some, quite the contrary, are genuinely delighted by the person’s transformation, and experience a beneficent joy that he or she who had been lost is now found. That felicity is dramatized Dickens’ story “The Christmas Carol,” when Scrooge undergoes something akin to a spiritual rebirth. If anything, the change can be a relief for everyone concerned. Now, for example, they need no longer be burdened by an irresponsible fool who had been a financial and emotional drain for the family. Or perhaps the person had formerly been overly somber and serious, but now she is lighthearted and a pleasure to be around.

That said, there is still often a psychological investment, on the part of certain friends and family members, to bring us back to being the person we had been, for they dread the uncanny. The subtext of everything they say and do is: “Please, for the sake of my sanity, be the person familiar to me!” Thus, one of the serious obstacles, for those who wish to change their life, is the expectations of other people. And that is why it is often necessary, when we have undergone a change, to leave town. Of course, that is not always feasible. Sometimes, after a break with the past, former friendships can be renewed, but if they are, they would have to be reformed on a much different basis.

July 26, 2009October 20, 2018 4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
MysteriesPoliticsThe Zeitgeist

Socialism’s Incestuous Relation to the Mother

by Dr. Mark Dillof July 22, 2009October 20, 2018
written by Dr. Mark Dillof
Socialism’s Incestuous Relation to the Mother
  • Tweet

A nation with a socialized economy is aptly called a “nanny state.” Like an overly protective mother, it stifles self-reliance, individual initiative, and ultimately liberty itself. The Leviathan that socialism creates invariably infantilizes us. We are to forsake our status as citizens to become subjects, under the aegis of various ministers, or czars, who administer to our needs.

As our dependency on government increases, we become, in effect, wards of the state. Yes, governmental “smother love” is a pernicious thing, which leads one to wonder: why would anyone crave the degraded, ignominious form of existence wrought by socialism? Here lies a mystery!

Socialism Versus Capitalism

Consider, by way of contrast, capitalism. It financially rewards hard work, ingenuity, risk taking, and individual achievement. The downside is that we are must pay the price for our errors. But accepting responsibility for our actions is intrinsic to being a mature adult. Socialism, on the other hand, promises to protect us from the negative consequences of our actions. For example, if we fail to save money for a rainy day and disaster strikes, the state steps in to protect us. It does so by robbing, i.e., taxing, Peter to pay Paul for his poor judgment. In that sense, the lure of socialism is a regressive wish to forsake the burdens of adulthood.

Socialism also appeals to the longing for equality. Socialists contend that any distribution of goods, based on achievement, is intrinsically unfair. The implication is that life is a zero-sum game, and that one person’s gain is another person’s loss. As a solution, Karl Marx advocated the philosophy — and the call to action — that lies at the heart of communism: “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” Implicit here is the view of the state is a large family, with only so much food to go around. If some of the family members have large portions, then the rest of the family will have less. Of course, this metaphor is absurd, for the world is not a large family, even if many Utopian socialists believe it to be so. (Nor is it a village, as Hillary Clinton implied in her book “It Takes a Village.”)

We have mentioned two of the appeals of socialism, the wish not to have to take responsibility for one’s errors and the craving for equality. There is a third appeal of socialism, one that is never stated, perhaps because it initially seems counterintuitive. It is to create a world where one no longer needs to be charitable towards other people. This may sound rather surprising. After all, those on the political left pride themselves on their compassion. Alas, their compassion really consists in forcing those who are affluent to give to those who have less. Apropos is Aristotle’s reason for rejecting socialism. He contended that charity is good for the soul, and under socialism there is no need to be charitable, for the state gives us all that we need.

There exists, then, on the part of the socialist the desire to create a world where no one need ever be charitable. And so why the desire to create such a world? It is because the socialist knows that to give to others contradicts that desire that is at the heart of socialism, the wish to stay to be given and not have to give, i.e., the wish to stay as a child. In such a world, the soul withers and dies.

Pa is to Blame for Everything

Let us consider socialism and capitalism in terms of Jungian archetypes. The mother does not require that her children accomplish anything to receive a piece of the pie. They all receive an equal portion. This matriarchal mode of distribution is the ideal of socialism. Now consider the father, in his many archetypal forms — including one’s personal father, God, one’s pastor, one’s teachers, and anyone else in authority. Unlike the mother who, out of unconditional love, makes no demands, the father divvies up the pie based on individual merit.

Socialists rail against the father’s manner of distribution, accusing him of favoritism and bias, of lacking compassion, of being altogether unfair. Their accusations towards the father cloak their true animus: socialists hate and resent the father for requiring that they become responsible adults. They similarly hate that the father’s love is conditional, in that respect. In the language of Freud, they hate the father for forcing them to renounce the pleasure principle and to accept the reality principle. For in truth, socialism, like all Utopian creeds, is a flight from reality.

Certainly there are injustices in the world, but most often the accusation of unfairness is a puerile protest against the demands of adulthood, a protest that is often darkened by a baleful dose of envy of those who have more. They claim that if it wasn’t for the father, everyone could have an equal piece of the pie. The revolution that socialists wish to foment is one that would kill the father, and put the “mother” in charge of the world.

This patricide can take many forms, from a contempt for culture and tradition to anti-Americanism, from atheism to antisemitism. In regard to the latter, the Jewish people have always embodied the morality of God, the father. Even if particular Jews embrace socialism, and even if particular Jews renounce morality, the Jewish people as a whole are forever branded those, among the nations, who have chosen God, the father.

Socialism and the Oedipus Complex

All cultures have an incest taboo. They realize that a violation of this taboo can have grave results, for the individual and for society. Freud referred to the dynamic, by which the child’s incestuous longings are punished, as the Oedipus Complex. As we have been suggesting, socialism is essentially a longing for the mother. In other words, socialism is the creation of those who — despite the guilt engendered by the Oedipus Complex — have refused to renounce their longings for the mother. (The consequence of ignoring one’s Oedipal guilt is a diminished sense of self, but that is another story for another essay.)

The original version of the film, The Manchurian Candidate (1962) evokes this noxious connection between communism, i.e., socialism taken to its logical conclusion, and the mother. In that nightmarish story, a POW, named Raymond Shaw, is brainwashed and turned into a political assassin, by the Chinese communists, during the Korean War. The film suggests that Raymond has an incestuous relation with his domineering mother. (The book, by the same title went much further down that road.) A casual remark by the protagonist of the film, Major Marko, suggests a parallel between Raymond’s relation to his mother and difficulties that Orestes had with his mother, Clytemnestra.

Raymond’s mother — although apparently a virulent anti-communist, right-winger — is really in league with the communists, who have brainwashed her son. What triggers the hypnotized Raymond to obey a command is the site of a certain playing card, the queen of hearts. That card, of course, represents his mother. In any case, we mention this film because it evokes the connection between socialism in its final form, i.e., communism, and an unresolved Oedipus complex.

Marx famously wrote: “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of communism.” Were Marx psychologically astute, he would have realized that the real specter haunting Europe, the US, and the rest of the world, is the mother archetype, or what the Jungian Erich Neumann called “the Great Mother.”

The Swinging of the Pendulum

As Hegel’s dialectic reveals, when the pendulum of history swings to one extreme, it will invariably swing to the opposite extreme. What, then, lies on the opposite extreme of socialism? The other end of the pendulum’s arc is radical Islam. It is concomitantly a fanatical faith in the father (Allah) and a violent rejection of the mother.

Islamists perceive that both the socialistic and the capitalistic nations…

Would you like to read the rest of this insightful

essay? Then download a copy of Mysteries in

Broad Daylight!

Broad Daylight!

 

Hot off the virtual presses, after four years of intense research and writing! Dr. Mark Dillof has essentially written a detective manual, for those seeking clues to the most perplexing enigmas of everyday life. He initially planned to sell it at seminars, for $75, but a friend recommended making it available to a much larger audience of readers, by offering it as an e-book, for only $9.95. Read more about this amazing new book, at:   www.deepestmysteries.com

Or you can…

Download for Amazon Kindle 

Download for Barnes & Noble Nook

Mysteries in Broad Daylight contains:

  • Powerful essays — like the one you’ve been reading, designed to help you decipher the meaning of everyday life, who you are and what it’s all about.
  • Exciting dialogues — they will entertain you, but also make you think deeply about life.
  • Exercises and questions designed to teach you the art of uncovering the deep meaning of everything — from the foods we eat to our conflicts at the workplace, from our problems on the golf course to life’s ultimate riddles.
  • And much, much more!

Mark Dillof’s new book will awaken you to the mysteries of everyday life. Indeed, it’s likely to expand your consciousness 100fold, illuminate your world and blow your mind!

How much is a life-changing insight worth to you? $1000? $10,000? Priceless? Mysteries in Broad Daylight is overflowing with life-changing insights and all for only $9.99!

 Read more about this amazing new book at www.deepestmysteries.com

 

Mysteries in Broad Daylight will soon be available in paperback, for $19.99. 


 

July 22, 2009October 20, 2018 8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
MysteriesThe Zeitgeist

The Pathos of Dying, While Getting One’s Act Together

by Dr. Mark Dillof July 12, 2009October 20, 2018
written by Dr. Mark Dillof
The Pathos of Dying, While Getting One’s Act Together
  • Tweet

There have always been large-scale funerals for entertainers, from Rudolph Valentino to Elvis Presley. But never has there been anything like the one for Michael Jackson, attended by tens of thousands and viewed on TV by millions. Nor were these other celebrity deaths the number one news story, for over a week straight.

On the face of it, this is understandable. After all, Michael Jackson had been popular since the late nineteen-sixties, initially as a member of the Jackson Five, before going solo. His album “Thriller” still holds the record for album sales. He was truly an international sensation. But that in itself is not seem sufficient to explain the sudden apotheosis of Michael from pop-star to musical demigod. There’s something odd about all of this.

Yes, Michael Jackson was undoubtedly a very talented singer and dancer, but there have many been others, at least as good, if not much more so. That list should include, for example, James Brown, Janis Joplin, Marvin Gaye, Hank Williams, Roy Orbison, and Ray Charles. Then there were extremely popular singers and dancers from earlier eras, including Al Jolson, Fred Astaire, Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, and Elvis Presley. Indeed, there have probably been hundreds of entertainers as good if not better than Michael Jackson. This is not intended to denigrate his musical accomplishments; it’s just meant to consider his career in a more realistic perspective. The deaths of these other entertainers had also been in the news, but nowhere near to the extent than was the news about Michael Jackson’s death. Apparently his death hit a nerve in the collective psyche. But what is that nerve?

Discovering a Clue to the Mystery

The day after Michael Jackson died, I ran into a friend whose sentiments offered me a clue to the mystery. He found it very sad that Michael died just when he was on the verge of a comeback. He explained to me that Michael had even hired Lou Ferrigno, star of the film The Hulk, to be his personal trainer. And Michael had been practicing everyday with the other dancers, for his upcoming London concert series. So there lies the sense of tragedy.

Thornton Wilder expressed this same pathos in his classic 1927 novel “The Bridge Over San Luis Rey.” Wilder explores the lives of five people, each of whom had suffered through life’s trials and tribulations. Now they were about to set forth in a new direction. Crossing the bridge was symbolic, in that sense, of their important life transition. But, they never made it, for the bridge collapsed and they perished.

John Lennon perceptively said that “Life is what happens to us, while we’re making plans.” It can also be rightly said that death is what happens to us, while we’re making plans. After all, we are always making plans about something or other. Death must, therefore, interrupt us when we’re in the middle of things. Nor can we defer it with a game of chess, as did the knight in Bergman’s film.

When the final interruption arrives, amidst a life transition, it seems all the more poignant. Michael had been down on his luck and his reputation badly tarnished, mostly due to his own outrageous behavior. His comeback was not just about returning to popularity. It had an aura about it of rebirth and self-renewal, and not just artistically, but in a moral and religious sense. Yes, in the eyes of his fans, Michael seemed to be getting his act together, both the one on stage and the one inside of him. Whether or not he truly was is another story. At least the public felt that way about him retrospectively. It is, of course, easier to forgive a person’s transgressions and view him in a more favorable light, after he is gone. Here is the same pathos that the untimely death of Princess Diana evoked for millions of fans, the sense of an unhappy person’s voyage to a new life being tragically aborted.

Discovering the Raw Nerve

Many people are in the midst of a life transition. There are many, many more who inwardly know that a transition, of some sort, is necessary. The requisite transition might range from shedding ten pounds to launching a new business to becoming a truly good person. Here, then, is why the death of Michael Jackson became a major story, eclipsing even the most serious political news: it reminded us that the bridge we need to cross (i.e., the life transition that we need to undergo) could collapse, with us on it. That is the raw nerve in the collective psyche.

To borrow a metaphor from John Donne, Michael’s mourners heard the bell tolling, but only dimly perceived that it was really tolling for their soon to be lost possibilities. For unless they acted decisively, they too would — as have millions of people before them — plunge into the abyss, without ever having gotten their act together. Thus in weeping for Michael, they were really weeping for themselves.

The cure for this self-indulgent sadness and despair is, of course, to “screw one’s courage to the sticking-post” and — right now, at this very moment — to become the person one needs to become and to do what one needs to do.

July 12, 2009October 20, 2018 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest

Recent Posts

  • Waar Kan Je Een Aandeel Kopen | Beleggen met weinig geld
  • Investeren Vanuit Eenmanszaak – Directe investeringen met het buitenland
  • Snel Geld Verdienen Met Telefoon | Aandelen verkopen: conclusie?
  • Stiekem Geld Verdienen | 4 Geweldige boeken om te leren over beleggen
  • Beste Strategie Ing Beleggen – Aandelen kopen en verkopen: rendement?

Archives

  • March 2022
  • March 2020
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • March 2012
  • August 2011
  • April 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • October 2008
  • July 2008
  • May 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008

About Me

About Me

Mark Dillof has been a philosophical counselor for over twenty years. You can learn more about his work, by going to his other website, www.deeperquestions.com.

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter

Recent Posts

  • New ">The Mystery of VapingNew 

    October 13, 2018
  • New ">The Mystery of a French Horn, in a Beatles’ SongNew 

    October 13, 2018
  • Waar Kan Je Een Aandeel Kopen | Beleggen met weinig geld

    March 14, 2020
  • Investeren Vanuit Eenmanszaak – Directe investeringen met het buitenland

    March 14, 2020
  • Snel Geld Verdienen Met Telefoon | Aandelen verkopen: conclusie?

    March 14, 2020

Dr. Dillof’s New Wonder Seminars

Starring America’s premier philosophical entertainer!Gain mind-boggling insights! Perfect for corporate retreats.

Purchase Dr. Dillof’s New Book.

Unravel The Mystery That Is You

The Dillof Institute

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Tumblr
  • RSS

Copyright © 2018, Mysteries in Broad Daylight.