"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
thoughts.


And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. ‘It takes one to know one’;


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.