CSS pop

Thursday, October 8, 2020

The origin and etymology of narcissists

 I was thinking that the first recognition was probably Sigmund Freud. Probably sometime around the turn of the 20th century.

 NPD wasn't a thing untill the 1960s iirc. 

Freud had gone so far as to say that as a parent they would be likely to sabotage and commit levels of incest not just abuse.

what inspired me to post  was the realization that humanity might have had the concepts pinned down long before

Incubus and succubus


It doesn't take much browsing or attempts to educate oneself on the subject to find that many people subjectively compare narcissists to emotional vampires.

I'm aware etymology is typically used to express the origin of a word not a concept. But but it seems appropriate here because the study of psychology post dates obviously humanity itself by quite some ways.

That said and more readily apparent and feels like astronomy, philosophers and language that predates the specific study still can allude to topics later given a new name or new word via a new science.

And it does turn out to be the case that those two concepts are far older than Sigmund Freud. I actually laughed out loud when the result below appeared


Further googling to at least superficially check my assumptions. The vast majority of what I write here is top of my head. Often checked later but I don't always have the time or concentration.




When someone else through malicious and often criminal acts can decide your diet and how your time is managed and that you have zero comfort well if you're the state of Minnesota that's assigned that you need help not that the laws need enforcing. To remind the man behind the curtain or the potential financial gain for the state. Which might not be direct. But any state can cut taxes only the bolds court order private companies a revenue stream


Clearly speculation on my part.


Also I highly doubt I'm the first person to make this connection or will be the last. I try to remind myself I'm somewhat intelligent. That's pretty crucial for self esteem and self-efficacy. What I fear and what I would say somewhat reasonably justified is if context is distorted and scope is artificially whatever whenever well anything you say can and will be used against you the will being dependent on your local governments interest or lack thereof. What I've seen of their ordering of psychology and the doctors who execute it .. executes probably a pretty accurate term.

When they demonstrate willful refusal to view objective relevant expert testimony but declare something delusional all bets and apparently medical ethics are off.

There's the possibility of my case is a fluke But I see little in the system that would prevent this from being the norm 

Human lessons in ethics and justice are often written in blood and those lessons seem to be willfully forgotten today


But now that we've hopefully got any delusions turned accusations of delusions of grandeur out of the way. If there is a greater good to be had from any action within the context of the internet and the public conscience despite the fact that probably wasn't the first I would say certainly wasn't the first to draw this connection and won't be the last homogeneous conscience of limited exposure I don't think benefits anyone. The way search engines work if there is a greater good one more article on this that might make some people think is probably for it.

But it's more of interest and the later is the secondary but I do despise control freaks and people believing they have a right or in a superiority to others. Especially when the response tends to be they get to decide what's right and wrong good bad free alive dead and/or that it's for the greater good to limit other people and what they may reach for. Especially without informed consent. 

I think it's a twisting of science to create a new play on fascism. Dark days are ahead if we continue this path. I could be wrong and I really hope I am

In North Dakota there was a doctor I trusted while I was at college and I happened to have come across Trist Emery Travisstock and not jumping to conclusions still of the belief that even if an organization like that was out to harm us they are nothing in the scheme of things it's the knowledge they create if it's accurate not any one organization holding it. In other words psychology like any academic human endeavor develops a tool which in itself is innately neither good or bad. It's how it's implemented.

If you're already aware that's really who this part is for then you're also likely aware that the two above had a pretty massively influential paper published in that one of them in particular is responsible for a lot of the work in open systems theory. The conclusion I came to is they weren't out to make any blueprint for harm and in fact did not really like what they saw us on as a course.

But back to the doctor I trusted. I asked her if she was familiar with and where and what she made of the conclusion that some people drew if not they themselves.

I got almost a devious smile and a slight chuckle and she said yes she was. And the rest was I think it's going to get a lot worse really soon. We never spoke of it again.

All I want is to be able to use some of the abilities and talents I have to at least support myself. Seems this legal system is in bed with private industry and literally enabling incest destruction of entire family lines

I'd love to shut up about it I'd love to be able to code to have anything to show for the last 32 years between the police and parents acting maliciously after poisoning via mold used as a bio weapon mold they paid to have remediated... I didn't ask for it I do not deserve this and no traditional standards of justice are being applied. I'd love to shut up about it I don't think not talking has helped at all there's a risk to talking as well. I don't see good things coming when the later becomes norm.

Something about both sides are dependent on knowledge of the others intent to maintain coexistence that only seems applicable between nation states citizens subjected to absolute power are probably f***** either way. The one thing that would seem to hold true even if it's been disabled is echoed in the concept of the rule of law and the French revolution less extremist it's even echoed in business and what the market will tolerate

That is public willingness to comply as a group

The danger and not talking especially in the age of mass communications is how does anyone even know what the problem or risk to them might be if it's silent?

I'm also pretty sure it was once noted that  abusers often convince a victim that communicating it externally only causes more harm. That's been personally true in my case but would appear to be the same thing that a culture of speech is dangerous has cultivated

/End rant

No comments:

Post a Comment

 It just dawned on me. If you want to see evidence that black people are no more inherently violent than white people Martin Luther King and...