Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#39823 - 07/02/10 07:56 PM WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? by Sandy Hotchkiss
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
A book which I think is germaine to living as a Satanist is: Why is it Always About You? by clinical psychologist Sandy Hotchkiss. In this book, Hotchkiss details many strategies for dealing with narcissistic people. This book is about the bona fide clinical condition, "narcissistic personality disorder", which Hotchkiss attributes to a developmental delay in infancy. However, the outward characteristics of narcissism are all too prevalent in many people who do not have the actual disorder, so I extend her wisdom to include any idiot with the seven characteristics she describes. We all find our lives invaded by one of them here and there, and this is a book of strategies for handling them.
To me, a narcissist is the archetypal psychic vampire. The psychic vampire LaVey described is a convenient one though, because the person LaVey described is fundamentally sane. The assumption is that they can be sent packing by a show of psychological fortitude in the form of confrontation, because they will respond to this. But a narcissist is INconvenient. Confrontation, short of killing them, doesn’t work. They won’t EVER get the message. Applied literally, the principle “if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other” doesn’t work with narcissists. It causes an escalation.
This would be moot if we could ALWAYS walk away from a narcissist, but that isn’t realistic. They are sometimes our noisey neighbours, our employers, etc. – situations that we cannot get away from (at least in the short term). We cannot always extract ourselves from their presence, so it is necessary to have an arsenal of tactics to use against them, a different sort of psychological fortitude. Hotchkiss’ book is about exactly that.

Hotchkiss describes what she calls the “seven deadly sins of narcissism”, i.e. seven primary characteristics of the disorder. These are the first seven chapters of the book and they are:

Shamelessness – Extreme shame sensitivity, i.e. the part where the narcissist cannot react positively (or even sanely) to criticism.

Magical Thinking – Self delusion, a belief that they are the best in the world at something (when they actually stink at it), and cannot be told otherwise (see “Shamelessness”).

Entitlement – i.e. entitlement to someone else’s life, property, and that which the narcissist is NOT legitimately entitled to.

Exploitation – Think Xtian televangelists, or the boss who demands an unreasonable sacrifice.

Bad Boundaries – This is the trickiest one to deal with in my opinion – How do you set up an interpersonal boundary with someone who does not know what a boundary is (and presuming you cannot kill him or otherwise escape from him)?

Arrogance – self explanatory, and sort of already covered above.

The last one may not be considered a problem from the point of view of Satanists, so I’ll let you be the judge: Envy. LaVey obviously didn’t mind envy, qua envy, but with a narcissist you can expect envy to be acted out against you aggressively. Use protection.

The following chapters explain in detail several strategies to deal with narcissists. Here is an example which Satanists will find familiar:

“Strategy One: Know Yourself”

“Our Social history from the very beginning teaches us what to expect from others and how we are to feel about ourselves. That is why our number one tool for dealing with the Narcissist is to examine our own experiences and recognize how our reactions contribute to our discomfort. The goal is to understand what is happening and interrupt the process to protect ourselves.”

If the general principles found in the S.B. are a secret weapon against psychic vampires, then I think the strategies in Hotchkiss’ book are good ammunition.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#39868 - 07/03/10 04:18 PM Re: WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? by Sandy Hotchkiss [Re: BFranklin]
NeoZombie Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Thank You was a good read. I like this line from the movie "Major Payne"

"If you want sympathy get a dictionary it's between Shit & Syphilis".
LOL.
_________________________
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
*Xepera*

Top
#39877 - 07/03/10 05:15 PM Re: WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? by Sandy Hotchkiss [Re: NeoZombie]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2576
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
In an innocent sense, narcissism is simply liking yourself and your existence for what you are and for your potential.

 Originally Posted By: Oscar Wilde, "The Disciple"
When Narcissus died the pool of his pleasure changed from a cup of sweet waters into a cup of salt tears, and the Oreads came weeping through the woodland that they might sing to the pool and give it comfort.

And when they saw that the pool had changed from a cup of sweet waters into a cup of salt tears, they loosened the green tresses of their hair and cried to the pool and said, 'We do not wonder that you should mourn in this manner for Narcissus, so beautiful was he.'

'But was Narcissus beautiful?' said the pool.

'Who should know that better than you?' answered the Oreads. 'Us did he ever pass by, but you he sought for, and would lie on your banks and look down at you, and in the mirror of your waters he would mirror his own beauty.'

And the pool answered, 'But I loved Narcissus because, as he lay on my banks and looked down at me, in the mirror of his eyes I saw ever my own beauty mirrored.'

As Wilde observed, it is a pleasure to be around expert Ns, because we are all Ns and want to know how to sense and express it more elegantly.

Judæo-Christianity [along with the world's other slave religions] hates N. They want you to feel guilty, ashamed, evil, and sinful about yourself, which is how they can exploit and control you, of course. Philosophically this tendency to self-hatred and self-worthlessness has been identified & analyzed by John Fowles as the nemo:

 Originally Posted By: John Fowles, The Aristos
... I trace all these anxieties back to a supreme source of anguish: that of the nemo

Freud, like arbitrary but convenient Cæsar with Gaul, divded the human psyche into three parts or activities: the super-ego, which attempts to control or repress the other two parts; the ego, which is the province of conscious desires; and the id, which is the obscure chaos of unconscious forces. To Freud the basic energy that both requires the interaction and explains the functions of these three parts of the psyche was the libido, sexual desire, which wells or explodes out of the unconscious, is utilized by the ego and more or less regulated by the super-ego. Most psychologists now recognize that while sexual desire is an important constituent of the raw energy that orients and fuels our nature, it is not the only one. Another very primitive drive is the need for security.

But I believe each human psyche has a fourth element, which, using a word indicated by the Freudian terminology, I call the nemo. By this I mean not only "nobody" but also the state of being nobody - "nobodiness". In short, just as physicists now postulate an anti-matter, so must we consider the possibility that there exists in the human psyche an "anti-ego". This is the nemo.

If this concept has not received much attention from psychologists, it may be because it has not, like the other two truly primitive drives of sexual and security/survival desire, been with man so long. The desires for sexual satisfaction and security are not even specifically human ones; they are shared by almost all animate matter. But the nemo is a specifically human psychic force: a function of civilization, of communication, of the uniquely human ability to compare and hypothesize. Moreover it is a negative force. We are not, as in the cases of sexual desire and security, attracted towards it; but repelled from it. The super-ego, ego, and id at least seem broadly favorable to the self, and help preserve both individuality and the species But the nemo is an enemy in the camp.

It is not only that we can imagine opposite states, such as the non-existence of the existent thing; we can imagine countless intermediary states. And our nemo gains power over our behavior to the extent that we believe that were it not for the faults of the human condition, or of society, or of our education, or of our economic position, then we might be what we can imagine. It grows, in short, in strict relation to our sense and knowledge of general and personal inequality.

There are basic aspects of the nemo that can never be remedied. I can never be the historical Shakespeare or the historical Cleopatra. I can never be some modern equivalent of them. I can never live forever, and so on. I can imagine myself to be countless things that I shall never be, for I can never be without the physical and psychological defects which are beyond my own, and science's, powers to remedy. Though it is logically nonsensical to call the inevitable a state of inequality, we do in fact think of it so. And this may be termed the permanent metaphysical sense of the nemo in all of us.

The nemo is man's sense of his own futility and ephemerality; of his relativity, his comparativeness; of his virtual nothingness.

All of us are failures: We all die.

Nobody wants to be a nobody. All of our acts are partly devised to fill or to mask the emptiness we feel at the core.

We all like to be loved or hated; it is a sign that we shall be remembered, that we did not "not exist". For this reason, many unable to create love have created hate; that too is remembered ...

Hotchkiss strikes me as a non-Wildean spasm of J/C worship of the nemo. Wilde, an initiate in the inherent sense of the term, would have held him in benign contempt. So would Anton LaVey, a "carnal N". So do I, a Setian N. C'est moi!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41326 - 08/02/10 06:40 PM Re: WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? by Sandy Hotchkiss [Re: BFranklin]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: BFranklin
Hotchkiss describes what she calls the “seven deadly sins of narcissism”, i.e. seven primary characteristics of the disorder. These are the first seven chapters of the book and they are:

Shamelessness – Extreme shame sensitivity, i.e. the part where the narcissist cannot react positively (or even sanely) to criticism.

Magical Thinking – Self delusion, a belief that they are the best in the world at something (when they actually stink at it), and cannot be told otherwise (see “Shamelessness”).

Entitlement – i.e. entitlement to someone else’s life, property, and that which the narcissist is NOT legitimately entitled to.

Exploitation – Think Xtian televangelists, or the boss who demands an unreasonable sacrifice.

Bad Boundaries – This is the trickiest one to deal with in my opinion – How do you set up an interpersonal boundary with someone who does not know what a boundary is (and presuming you cannot kill him or otherwise escape from him)?

Arrogance – self explanatory, and sort of already covered above.


Wow, these are great. Here's how I'd order them based on what I've seen:

 Quote:

Guilt/shame – used as a weapon; see "passive aggression."

Solipsism - they believe they are the center of the universe, and everyone should be pleasing them.

Entitlement/Exploitation – If someone else has something, I deserve it too.

Bad Boundaries – other people don't have boundaries; I deserve to be able to peer into their lives and manipulate them.

Victimology - somehow, the world has done something wrong to me, so I deserve more/revenge.


It's an extremely toxic viewpoint, this narcissism. I can recommend the following back about its effect in politics:

The Culture of Narcissism, by Christopher Lasch

Lasch is an ex-liberal who figured out more of reality, became conservative, and then criticized this destructive culture he saw arising in the late 1970s. Fascinating book, and as viable today as it was then.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#80135 - 09/02/13 10:28 AM Re: WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? by Sandy Hotchkiss [Re: BFranklin]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
Pausanias had an interesting take on the Myth of Narcissus/Narkissos:

Taken from his Greek Travelogue, 2nd century AD

 Quote:

"In the territory of the Thespians is a place called Donakon (Reed-bed). Here is the spring of Narkissos. They say that Narkissos looked into this water, and not understanding that he saw his own reflection, unconsciously fell in love with himself, and died of love at the spring. But it is utter stupidity to imagine that a man old enough to fall in love was incapable of distinguishing a man from a man's reflection.

There is another story about Narkissos, less popular indeed than the other, but not without some support. It is said that Narkissos had a twin sister; they were exactly alike in appearance, their hair was the same, they wore similar clothes, and went hunting together. The story goes on that Narkissos fell in love with his sister, and when the girl died, would go to the spring, knowing that it was his reflection that he saw, but in spite of this knowledge finding some relief for his love in imagining that he saw, not his own reflection, but the likeness of his sister.

The flower narcissus grew, in my opinion, before this, if we are to judge by the verses of Pamphos [i.e. Homeric Hymn to Demeter]. This poet was born many years before Narkissos the Thespian, and he says that Kore (the Maid) [Persephone], the daughter of Demeter, was carried off when she was playing and gathering flowers, and that the flowers by which she was deceived into being carried off were not violets, but the narcissus."


It was Ovid's rendition in Metamorphoses that elicited Nemesis make Narkissos fall in love with his own image and die in the pool.

Amusing really, its the version used by the APA to diagnose Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as if this thing exists.

Behavioral traits are just the sum-total of influences and experiences of an individual. A personal Cosmology that can be traced as a pathology. Don't we all learn to deal with other people no matter what character traits they have?

To say that a personality is 'disordered' is like saying that everything a person has experienced was out of order. In contrast to what exactly? The order of traditional values and modes of behavior?

Freud misapprehended Greek concepts to codify what we today refer to as 'Ego', never mind that this 'thing' doesn't even exist. It's just a concept model to box in our internal impulses to serve the self.

It was rather self-serving of Freud to write a piece on Narcissism as a way to offer an alternative (in his opinion better) view to what Jung and Adler had to offer. Ironic really.


Sandy Hotchkiss's Book is just walking the reader through a pathology from her case files, to offer people a way to manage specific character traits. It's rarely a black & white sort of thing, it can leave you to make assumptions about a person's individual pathology. Any tools you employ may very well exacerbate any given situation, if you don't know the person's background.

Ideally, it would be better to just manage yourself vs. believing you can manage another person's psyche. Even if you can use LBM to move them this way or that, the dynamic change will fade leaving you with the static to deal with.

If you can't cope with certain traits, it's probably best for you to cut ties as much as you can. As stated previously, there are some situations where you feel stuck (such as with neighbors or co-workers, et al) but if you don't want to run yourself ragged playing ring-leader for a day, I think it's better to manage yourself in those situations.





Edited by SIN3 (09/02/13 10:36 AM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.024 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 18 queries. Zlib compression disabled.