dr.e

Regarding motive: Individuals' aims and strategies can often be illuminated, neutralized or strengthened by understanding, or not, these aspects,,, whether of oneself, of a subculture, a nation, or a world in itself.

Whoever said human beings are simple, wasnt paying attention. They are so complex entire hagiographies are yet to be written about those who bear light, let alone those who may not yet. In any event, as we often see in political times like ours, the persona–literally, the mask one wears publicly– is not the same as the true person…who is often somewhere, close by or in exile, or somewhere in between.

A lot of people like different aspects of all four candidates, like you do. A good many people also like some of the people who were knocked out of the races as well.

I know in media, the 'sides' tend to be portrayed as though they are screamers at ringside. But, I give all sides far more credit for their thoughts than just abreaction. Most, I think, just my two cents worth, despite all carrying forth, will ultimately vote for who they believe can help the issues they see as critical.

It's always been this way River. As far as I can tell, it just seems louder than usual, more fractious, because of the immediacy of call and response on network, cable, online. The quickness of the volleys used to be days, not the intervals between volleys is often minutes.

I believe the din is actually about the same; same for fiercely putting forth one's own opinion. About the same, but seems more ferocious because of now jillions of persons able to 'broadcast' instead of just speak persuasively at the local pub

I read to learn, and I learn alot form our commenters here and from columns I write elsewhere. One is, how smart people are; how often media underestimates that. That too may be a typological mindset.

dr.e

Dr. E— love what you wrote here, ” we can hold onto some kind of incandescence even though we're rolling through the saddest or most difficult darkness imaginable.? ” How very true and one source of that light is the heart, authenticity and challenges of deeper revealings in your writing. Thanks Dr. E.

One classic thought about shadow, or the covert and overt impulses/ complexes in any individual, is that when there's little self-appraisal / consciousnes, the shadow jumps out when least expected–that can be, in the case of repressed gifts, positive or negative. Same with repressed thoughts and feelings. Same with brutal impulses. Same with love.

dr.e

I guess, to complete the picture as it relates to the duel on moor, I would need to add a leadership style that had 1. an uncompromising authoritative flair (my way or the highway, best represented by Bush), 2. a tendency to be impulsive (which means anything from over looking facts, history, others opinions, and a tendency to rely on a feeling/–(what they sense in themselves) and 3.a willingness to engage in high risk behavior for which in all likelihood others will pay the price ( a lack of empathy for the plight of others). In terms of impulsive, I think I also mean that both feelings and sensation are capable of overwhelming the rational. McCain has a history of having a temper, and as being a maverick, working outside the tribal mentality when it suits him, otherwise he is a loyal tribesman as substantiated by the media telling us that he had voted with Bush 90-95% of the time.

I like what the media, from Letterman to other news outlets are suggesting, that McCain has had an awful week, is stalling for time, is not as prepared as he would like to be, and so, stalling for a different set of circumstances. It feels like a political ploy wrapped in patriotic flagology* (*new word) that involves quite a gamble.

When you speak in terms of these “styles” Dr. E, don't they have a shadow side too, so that they may have an expressed style, borne by experience and history, but are quiet capable, under preparation, duress, or shear surrender to present a style that is less represented in the same wo(man). Is some ways, I detect that in McCain as he seems under wraps most of the time to disguise what I perceive to be his impulsiveness. So does Obama have an emotional impulsive side too, or is it that we see what we get?

I think if you read a little about typology, it can help to clarify how different people perceive and judge the very same circumstances: Essentially through a superior function (a favored way of perceiving that is natural and innate to each person): such as perceiving through feeling or intuition or sensation or thought, for instance…. whichever of these favored, is then augmented, deepened or broadened (or blocked) by introversion or extroversion… and then adding to the mix, one's own history, psychological 'druthers and revulsions, for instance.

A typological frame is one way to sort of map how people perceive and make judgments about life, work, others, themselves…negative and positive and mixed.

I think it is notable that thinking types and intuitive types, unless they have developed some of 'the other' are sometimes quite hard at odds with one another; one being seen as harsh and quick to be judgemental; the other being seen as coming up with ideas out of left field that can be substantiated, but are often first presented with trust rather than factually mapped

Many of the arguments we have with others, or quickness to condemn or over-praise self or others may have origins in basic typology… One idea of development is that a person develops in some measure all four ways of perceiving over their lifetime, that that brings about more relatedness to others and the world.

That evolution occurs, in part, by leaving, as you call it River, 'the collective' way of thinking that tends to be One Way Fits All, rather than truncated, like a tree with several limbs, each separate, but connected.

You might notice that successful managers, for instance… often can appreciate the different ways people perceive, and have learned to speak more than one 'language' of perception, so that most all employees feel communication is good to excellent, instead of awful to even more awful.

It seems that most veryone is called to that process of individuation, esp when they reach the 'is this all there is?' wall. Jung said this occured in midlife.

But, my experience is that it comes when it comes, way earlier than mid-age or way way later… and often because of a sudden twist of fate, a bad crisis, and/or because other people in struggle have modeled it for us somehow… modeled that we can hold onto some kind of incandescence even though we're rolling through the saddest or most difficult darkness imaginable

dr.e

dr.e

I am not inclined usually to see only the pro or only the con of most things or people, although I admit, that sometimes, re dictators like Than Shwe of Burma, it is hard to see the pros exactly. I think the foibles we all carry are certainly present, but too, I find often people's best hearts are not well advertised in comparison.

Just my two cents' worth

dr.e

dr.e

Dr. E How many ways and how many times do we need to see the dissonance of dualities before we jump out of the collective projection of what might be called the left and right brain dichotomy? Maybe that is not the right term, but surely it comes from the internal dichotomy . How has our National psyches created this ongoing division that splits us right down the middle? The more i sit back and just observe it, wonder who is dreaming who? We think they are spinning us, maybe we are spinning these two guy? Who are the leaders and who are the followers?
Whose ever it is, it seems more a nightmare than a dream. Kinda like green clouds at dusk in Tornado Alley. Or are we seeing the attempt of a bloodless coup of the American people by Wallstreet? This entire economical crisis is much easier to deal with at a collective dream level than trying to understand the reality of what is really going on here? Dr. E i have lots of questions here, do you have any thoughts on what is real?