Guest guest Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Would the cure for all this be acknowledging the possibility of projection by the victim and their part in the manifestations? No doubt many stalking victims projected being found dead on a sidewalk with their stalker standing there with a gun in one hand and a restraining order in the other. While stalking may begin as a "shadow dance" at some point the victim leaves the dance floor. And the stalker continues dancing. And when the victim doesn't return to the dance floor, the stalker seeks to destroy them. The way a bad seed seeks to destroy a good seed. And the good seed is not projecting anything onto the bad seed. The bad seed merely cannot stand its reflection in the good seed. And seeks to control it in order to possibly have its reflection for its own and then when it realizes it can't it seeks to destroy the good seed in the hopes that by doing so it destroys its own reflection. There may be something to the matter of shadow and projection but may I assure you it is on the part of the victimizer. Not the victim. It's a very complex dynamic. And obviously not one that Jungians are able to deal with as a dynamic choosing instead to merely dismiss it on the basis that somehow the victim is merely projecting and therefore, well, if the victim is not delusional then at best, well, there are no victims only volunteers. So in turn there really are no victimizers? People who seek to excuse victimizers by blaming victims are themselves merely victimizers. And speaking from personal experience, there are quite a few Jungians who do so. Subject: StalkingTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 10:53 AM I have read the stalking posts. I am not professionally qualified tocomment on them. Would someone who is please do so. I would like toknow how much the victim is responsible for this manifestation ofsynchronistic events. Also, can an activated archetype be responsiblefor all this? Would the cure for all this be acknowledging thepossibility of projection by the victim and their part in themanifestations? Seems the correct response to this activated energywould be observing it without judgement, a way of Tao. Seems aggressiveemotional response only makes the activated energy stronger.Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Would the cure for all this be acknowledging the possibility of projection by the victim and their part in the manifestations? Presupposing mutual exclusivity of the roles of `victim' and `victimizer'?When two do a tango, is one the tangoEE and the other the tangoER? No doubt many stalking victims projected being found dead on a sidewalk with their stalker standing there with a gun in one hand and a restraining order in the other. No doubt that many victims-as-victimizers have CALLed one-or-more others victimizers in an attempt to illicite help, sympathy, empathy, secondary gains, etc. While stalking may begin as a " shadow dance " at some point the victim leaves the dance floor.As if mutual stalking were not possible? As if situations were Neither and/or Both did not exist?Someone yelled `snark' and it seems that folks are off on a snark hunt.How does one spot stalking behavior?If I write a paper about Firemen as a category or group likening them gang stalkers am I stalking firemen en masse ... or just projecting via categorical discrimination, painting with broads strokes, or something else altogether? And the stalker continues dancing. And when the victim doesn't return to the dance floor, the stalker seeks to destroy them. This is ugly language. Sorry I can't help it.We start out talking about Pink elephants and once we've nominalized something or other into an identity we proceed to discuss `identity' rather than behavior, capacity, or function. Once a `stalker' always a stalker?Perhaps we can brand anyone `found' a stalker with a scarlet letter?I eat occasionally, does this make me an `eater' ... a full-time, non-stop, 24-7 `eater' ... you know how `THEY' are. And once I've been designated an `Eater' how do I ever unlatch the latched up brains of those who engage in such persistence-of-identity ... such branding, labeling, and the categorical discrimination processes which go along with such? The way a bad seed seeks to destroy a good seed. Huh?As if seeds `seek' anything? Seeds respond to physical phenomena: water, temperature, nutrients.This `seeks to destroy' seems little more than human projection of human traits on to seeds: anthropomorphism pure and simple. And the good seed is not projecting anything onto the bad seed. The wind does not move the flag, your mind is moving.The seeds do not project, the human using the fallacy of narration seems projecting.http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Narrative_fallacy The bad seed merely cannot stand its reflection in the good seed. All seeds having eyes with which to behold and judgment by which to moralize and discern bad qua BAD from good qua GOOD ... irrespective of context, setting, or circumstances? And seeks to control it in order to possibly have its reflection for its own and then when it realizes it can't it seeks to destroy the good seed in the hopes that by doing so it destroys its own reflection. Ahhh ... they way the gang-stalking firemen seek to control ... but not those who seek to control by labeling, branding, vilifying, or defaming ... by the use of Words Magic, categorical discrimination, and persistence of as-identification? How does this model of `control' not promote `objectification' wherein the would be `controler'-cum-victimizer controls the object-of-manipulation cum object?Once again, if two do a Tango is one the TangoER and the other the TangoEE? Does the would be `victim' role entail total lack of `control' the way the Victimizer role entail powerlessness?I'm reminded of the Cults of the perpetually powerless ... the 12 step programs.There is something disturbing about those who promote personal empowerment by proclaiming their powerlessness vis-a-vis some personal bugaboo. There may be something to the matter of shadow and projection but may I assure you it is on the part of the victimizer. Not the victim. e You `assure' me?Sure you jest.Your use of rhetoric assures me of nothing.What you have evinced, IMO, is a mindset wherein Victim and victimizer are two disparate roles in which neither the two shall meet ... a false dichotomy. It's a very complex dynamic. Agreed. More complex than your rhetorical model, it would seem. And obviously not one that Jungians are able to deal with as a dynamic choosing instead to merely dismiss it on the basis that somehow the victim is merely projecting and therefore, well, if the victim is not delusional then at best, well, there are no victims only volunteers. Jungians of the sort which don't beg the question as well as those who do? So in turn there really are no victimizers? What are the diagnostic criteria for assessing when someone is acting-as-if a `victimizer'?Without such criteria the term lacks symbol grounding as is useful for little more than pushing peoples buttons emotionally .... a terms with pure connotative value and no denotative value. People who seek to excuse victimizers by blaming victims are themselves merely victimizersAnd likewise, those who wish to exhonerate one victim/victimizer in a pair without acknowleding how victims can and do victimize those they `identify' -- be it through objective criteria, projection, projective identification or otherwise -- excuse themselves for their impoverished mental models and/or cognitive falacies. And speaking from personal experience, there are quite a few Jungians who do so. From personal experience, there are quite a few HUMANS who do so. We are talking about human psychodynamics here, are we not?How many can pass up the opportunity to attribute blame to one party and blamelessness and victim status to another?Some of the most devious victimizers I've seen have used the victim role from which to exact their `control' and revenge ... and to obtain secondary gains from others while doing so. Just a a few thoughts, Gene Subject: StalkingTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 10:53 AM I have read the stalking posts. I am not professionally qualified tocomment on them. Would someone who is please do so. I would like toknow how much the victim is responsible for this manifestation of synchronistic events. Also, can an activated archetype be responsiblefor all this? Would the cure for all this be acknowledging thepossibility of projection by the victim and their part in themanifestations? Seems the correct response to this activated energy would be observing it without judgement, a way of Tao. Seems aggressiveemotional response only makes the activated energy stronger.Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 You are a very disturbed soul. -- Subject: Re: StalkingTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 1:14 PM On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 15:24, charli schauseil <charlischauseil@ yahoo.com> wrote: Would the cure for all this be acknowledging the possibility of projection by the victim and their part in the manifestations? Presupposing mutual exclusivity of the roles of `victim' and `victimizer'?When two do a tango, is one the tangoEE and the other the tangoER? No doubt many stalking victims projected being found dead on a sidewalk with their stalker standing there with a gun in one hand and a restraining order in the other. No doubt that many victims-as-victimiz ers have CALLed one-or-more others victimizers in an attempt to illicite help, sympathy, empathy, secondary gains, etc. While stalking may begin as a "shadow dance" at some point the victim leaves the dance floor. As if mutual stalking were not possible?As if situations were Neither and/or Both did not exist?Someone yelled `snark' and it seems that folks are off on a snark hunt.How does one spot stalking behavior?If I write a paper about Firemen as a category or group likening them gang stalkers am I stalking firemen en masse ... or just projecting via categorical discrimination, painting with broads strokes, or something else altogether? And the stalker continues dancing. And when the victim doesn't return to the dance floor, the stalker seeks to destroy them. This is ugly language. Sorry I can't help it.We start out talking about Pink elephants and once we've nominalized something or other into an identity we proceed to discuss `identity' rather than behavior, capacity, or function.Once a `stalker' always a stalker?Perhaps we can brand anyone `found' a stalker with a scarlet letter?I eat occasionally, does this make me an `eater' ... a full-time, non-stop, 24-7 `eater' ... you know how `THEY' are. And once I've been designated an `Eater' how do I ever unlatch the latched up brains of those who engage in such persistence- of-identity ... such branding, labeling, and the categorical discrimination processes which go along with such? The way a bad seed seeks to destroy a good seed. Huh?As if seeds `seek' anything? Seeds respond to physical phenomena: water, temperature, nutrients.This `seeks to destroy' seems little more than human projection of human traits on to seeds: anthropomorphism pure and simple. And the good seed is not projecting anything onto the bad seed. The wind does not move the flag, your mind is moving.The seeds do not project, the human using the fallacy of narration seems projecting.http://wiki. lesswrong. com/wiki/ Narrative_ fallacy The bad seed merely cannot stand its reflection in the good seed. All seeds having eyes with which to behold and judgment by which to moralize and discern bad qua BAD from good qua GOOD ... irrespective of context, setting, or circumstances? And seeks to control it in order to possibly have its reflection for its own and then when it realizes it can't it seeks to destroy the good seed in the hopes that by doing so it destroys its own reflection. Ahhh ... they way the gang-stalking firemen seek to control ... but not those who seek to control by labeling, branding, vilifying, or defaming ... by the use of Words Magic, categorical discrimination, and persistence of as-identification?How does this model of `control' not promote `objectification' wherein the would be `controler'-cum-victimizer controls the object-of-manipulat ion cum object?Once again, if two do a Tango is one the TangoER and the other the TangoEE?Does the would be `victim' role entail total lack of `control' the way the Victimizer role entail powerlessness?I'm reminded of the Cults of the perpetually powerless ... the 12 step programs.There is something disturbing about those who promote personal empowerment by proclaiming their powerlessness vis-a-vis some personal bugaboo. There may be something to the matter of shadow and projection but may I assure you it is on the part of the victimizer. Not the victim. e You `assure' me?Sure you jest.Your use of rhetoric assures me of nothing.What you have evinced, IMO, is a mindset wherein Victim and victimizer are two disparate roles in which neither the two shall meet ... a false dichotomy. It's a very complex dynamic. Agreed. More complex than your rhetorical model, it would seem. And obviously not one that Jungians are able to deal with as a dynamic choosing instead to merely dismiss it on the basis that somehow the victim is merely projecting and therefore, well, if the victim is not delusional then at best, well, there are no victims only volunteers. Jungians of the sort which don't beg the question as well as those who do? So in turn there really are no victimizers? What are the diagnostic criteria for assessing when someone is acting-as-if a `victimizer'?Without such criteria the term lacks symbol grounding as is useful for little more than pushing peoples buttons emotionally .... a terms with pure connotative value and no denotative value. People who seek to excuse victimizers by blaming victims are themselves merely victimizers And likewise, those who wish to exhonerate one victim/victimizer in a pair without acknowleding how victims can and do victimize those they `identify' -- be it through objective criteria, projection, projective identification or otherwise -- excuse themselves for their impoverished mental models and/or cognitive falacies. And speaking from personal experience, there are quite a few Jungians who do so. From personal experience, there are quite a few HUMANS who do so.We are talking about human psychodynamics here, are we not?How many can pass up the opportunity to attribute blame to one party and blamelessness and victim status to another?Some of the most devious victimizers I've seen have used the victim role from which to exact their `control' and revenge ... and to obtain secondary gains from others while doing so.Just a a few thoughts, Gene Subject: StalkingTo: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.comDate: Monday, July 19, 2010, 10:53 AM I have read the stalking posts. I am not professionally qualified tocomment on them. Would someone who is please do so. I would like toknow how much the victim is responsible for this manifestation ofsynchronistic events. Also, can an activated archetype be responsiblefor all this? Would the cure for all this be acknowledging thepossibility of projection by the victim and their part in themanifestations? Seems the correct response to this activated energywould be observing it without judgement, a way of Tao. Seems aggressiveemotional response only makes the activated energy stronger.Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 You are a very disturbed soul. I am as I seem to whomever I seem for as long as I seem.It's your projective test. What else do you see?Better a `disturbed soul' than a gang-stalking fireman?So, if I may, what, prey tell, disturbs your soul when you spot a disturbed soul? Sincerely, Gene -- Subject: Re: Stalking To: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 1:14 PM On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 15:24, charli schauseil <charlischauseil@ yahoo.com> wrote: Would the cure for all this be acknowledging the possibility of projection by the victim and their part in the manifestations? Presupposing mutual exclusivity of the roles of `victim' and `victimizer'?When two do a tango, is one the tangoEE and the other the tangoER? No doubt many stalking victims projected being found dead on a sidewalk with their stalker standing there with a gun in one hand and a restraining order in the other. No doubt that many victims-as-victimiz ers have CALLed one-or-more others victimizers in an attempt to illicite help, sympathy, empathy, secondary gains, etc. While stalking may begin as a " shadow dance " at some point the victim leaves the dance floor. As if mutual stalking were not possible?As if situations were Neither and/or Both did not exist?Someone yelled `snark' and it seems that folks are off on a snark hunt.How does one spot stalking behavior? If I write a paper about Firemen as a category or group likening them gang stalkers am I stalking firemen en masse ... or just projecting via categorical discrimination, painting with broads strokes, or something else altogether? And the stalker continues dancing. And when the victim doesn't return to the dance floor, the stalker seeks to destroy them. This is ugly language. Sorry I can't help it.We start out talking about Pink elephants and once we've nominalized something or other into an identity we proceed to discuss `identity' rather than behavior, capacity, or function. Once a `stalker' always a stalker?Perhaps we can brand anyone `found' a stalker with a scarlet letter?I eat occasionally, does this make me an `eater' ... a full-time, non-stop, 24-7 `eater' ... you know how `THEY' are. And once I've been designated an `Eater' how do I ever unlatch the latched up brains of those who engage in such persistence- of-identity ... such branding, labeling, and the categorical discrimination processes which go along with such? The way a bad seed seeks to destroy a good seed. Huh?As if seeds `seek' anything? Seeds respond to physical phenomena: water, temperature, nutrients.This `seeks to destroy' seems little more than human projection of human traits on to seeds: anthropomorphism pure and simple. And the good seed is not projecting anything onto the bad seed. The wind does not move the flag, your mind is moving.The seeds do not project, the human using the fallacy of narration seems projecting.http://wiki. lesswrong. com/wiki/ Narrative_ fallacy The bad seed merely cannot stand its reflection in the good seed. All seeds having eyes with which to behold and judgment by which to moralize and discern bad qua BAD from good qua GOOD ... irrespective of context, setting, or circumstances? And seeks to control it in order to possibly have its reflection for its own and then when it realizes it can't it seeks to destroy the good seed in the hopes that by doing so it destroys its own reflection. Ahhh ... they way the gang-stalking firemen seek to control ... but not those who seek to control by labeling, branding, vilifying, or defaming ... by the use of Words Magic, categorical discrimination, and persistence of as-identification? How does this model of `control' not promote `objectification' wherein the would be `controler'-cum-victimizer controls the object-of-manipulat ion cum object? Once again, if two do a Tango is one the TangoER and the other the TangoEE?Does the would be `victim' role entail total lack of `control' the way the Victimizer role entail powerlessness?I'm reminded of the Cults of the perpetually powerless ... the 12 step programs. There is something disturbing about those who promote personal empowerment by proclaiming their powerlessness vis-a-vis some personal bugaboo. There may be something to the matter of shadow and projection but may I assure you it is on the part of the victimizer. Not the victim. e You `assure' me?Surely you jest.Your use of rhetoric assures me of nothing.What you have evinced, IMO, is a mindset wherein Victim and victimizer are two disparate roles in which neither the two shall meet ... a false dichotomy. It's a very complex dynamic. Agreed. More complex than your rhetorical model, it would seem. And obviously not one that Jungians are able to deal with as a dynamic choosing instead to merely dismiss it on the basis that somehow the victim is merely projecting and therefore, well, if the victim is not delusional then at best, well, there are no victims only volunteers. Jungians of the sort which don't beg the question as well as those who do? So in turn there really are no victimizers? What are the diagnostic criteria for assessing when someone is acting-as-if a `victimizer'?Without such criteria the term lacks symbol grounding and is useful for little more than pushing peoples buttons emotionally .... a terms with pure connotative value and no denotative value. People who seek to excuse victimizers by blaming victims are themselves merely victimizers And likewise, those who wish to exhonerate one victim/victimizer in a pair without acknowleding how victims can and do victimize those they `identify' -- be it through objective criteria, projection, projective identification or otherwise -- excuse themselves for their impoverished mental models and/or cognitive falacies. And speaking from personal experience, there are quite a few Jungians who do so. From personal experience, there are quite a few HUMANS who do so.We are talking about human psychodynamics here, are we not?How many can pass up the opportunity to attribute blame to one party and blamelessness and victim status to another? Some of the most devious victimizers I've seen have used the victim role from which to exact their `control' and revenge ... and to obtain secondary gains from others while doing so.Just a a few thoughts, Gene Subject: StalkingTo: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.comDate: Monday, July 19, 2010, 10:53 AM I have read the stalking posts. I am not professionally qualified tocomment on them. Would someone who is please do so. I would like toknow how much the victim is responsible for this manifestation of synchronistic events. Also, can an activated archetype be responsiblefor all this? Would the cure for all this be acknowledging thepossibility of projection by the victim and their part in themanifestations? Seems the correct response to this activated energy would be observing it without judgement, a way of Tao. Seems aggressiveemotional response only makes the activated energy stronger.Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.