Narcissistic personality disorder



Buletinul Clubului Rom?n din ChattanoogaNum?rul 81 (optzeci?iunu) Iulie 2018romclub.Tema lunii:Oglinzile Giovanni Bellini (1430-1516)Poezia oglinzilorOglinzi - Ana BlandianaC?t de greu s? descoperi,Ce u?or s? inven?i,Pentru un rege mortMii ?i mii de regen?i,Pentru-o singur? lun?,Mii de lacuri ?ntinzi;?mi e sete de mine?i beau numai oglinzi.Mii de vorbe ?ipatePentru-un sens care piere;?mi e sete de somn,?mi e somn de t?cere.OGLINZI - Magda IsanosDe oglinzi m? mai tem ?i-acum.Este ?n?untrul lor ca un fum,care noaptea se-ntinde-n odaie,mai ales c?nd e luna-n v?paie.Se deschide-n oglind?-o poart?spre nu ?tiu ce lume moart? ;?i ca un clopot sun?, str?luce?teiluzia care mereu p?nde?te.Nu mi-ar p?rea nicidecum ciudats? ias? din oglinzi un cavaler, un pirat,?i s?-nceap?-a-?i povesti toat? via?a,?nec?ndu-se-n apele lor diminea?a.Foarte mul?i oameni se-neac?-n oglinzi,femei palide, prunci suferinzis-apleac?-a?a ?i se privesc spre sear? -puterea lor ?i soarbe ?i-i omoar?.?ns? noi, c?nd intr?-n odaielun? cuprins?-n ve?ted? v?paie,acoperim ciudatele oglinzi :suntem poe?i ?i suntem suferinziC?ntec - Ion Minulescu?n ochii t?i ca-n dou? oglinzi ?nsufle?iteAmurgul ??i r?sfr?nge privirea-ns?ngerat??i ochii t?i sunt ro?ii ca dou? flori de macPlutind ?mperecheate pe luciul unui lac.?n ochii t?i amurgul, u?or, pe nesim?ite,Se stinge ca lumina din candela uitat??i ochii t?i din ro?ii se-ntunec? ?i parDoi ochi t?cu?i de sf?nt? picta?i ?ntr-un altar.Fior - de Nicolae Labi?Poate-am visat ceva r?u ?i-am uitat,?Poate-i doar pentru c?vi?inii s-au ?nflorat,?Poate-i doar v?ntul ce limpede sun?,?Oripentru c? au mu?cat ast? noapte din lun?V?rcolacii,?ori stele prea multe pe fa??Mi-au picurat o otrav? deghea??,?Ori poate e diminea??.Cine e?ti, orice e?ti,?Abur ori duh str?veziu de pove?ti,?Care-aip?truns ?i ?mi macini mereuTrupul ?i sufletulmeu?Privesc ?n oglind? - acela?i mi-i chipul?i buzelegroase t?iate ca-n lemn.Pe pav?za frun?ii v?d binec? nimeniN-a scris, ?nc? nu, nici un semn.Dar vorbele-mimurmur?: sun?-ne, -ncearc?-ne,?Sufletu-?i p?lp?ie albechem?ri,?Ochii ?mi ard rotunji?i pestecearc?ne,?Inima-?i bate ecoul de z?ri.Cine e?ti,?ori ce e?ti,?Abur ori duh cobor?t din pove?ti,?Und?prelins? s? m? ?nvenine,?Stea fulgerat? ?n mine?? Falduri - de Ion BarbuPentru William WilsonSomn mult, din plu?uri. Vid ?n stal.Vegherea sticlei, drept cortin?.?ndep?rtat, ca-ntr-o odihn?Din membre limpezi, o, cristal!Sub m?turi, fluturi si ur?turiMort – chipul meu, pe crengi de g?turi.Un glas din ceruri, cere: - Dac?Ai face-oglinzile s? tac??Din somn, din stofa sar de?tept,?Smulg fierul scurt, ?l duc la piept.La ??rmul apelor de gal?Strig hidra mea, chilocefal?:- ?ntemni?ate William,?Cast hidrofil, te a?teptamS? treci maree, din oglind??n luna frun?ii, s? te-aprind?;Student stufos, Bostonian,?Ce?oase Wilson William,??ti jur, ar face-o bun? min?Spini ?ase-n pielea ta marin?!(De ?ase ori, ?n ape greleSting fier aprins, p?n?-n pr?sele;Fulger cedat, just unghi normal,?Cad reflectat, croiesc cristal.)Piei chip! R?m?i, cortin? spart?,?P?trat? Spanie pe-o hart?,?R?pus, ?n m?ini, pumnalul tras,??n fund ursuz, de zah?r ars:Valuri fr?nte, gemene,?Ruptura de cremene.Ce g?nd t?rziu m? sufl?-acu?Sa v?ntur nopti “Bu-hu-hu”Ca la c?ntec, altadat??Se toarce vorba, ?nchegat?,?Cutia ?ncet se-ncuie-n piept?n scrisul apei caut drept.?M? privesc uneori ?n oglind? - de Mariana MarinM? privesc uneori ?n oglind??Pentru ca s? mai fie cineva ?n aceast? cas??ce o ur?sc de at?ta vreme??nc?t nu mai pot tr?i f?r? ea.?Con?tiin?a de sine este ?n cele din urm??o stare extrem de comfortabil?-un somn greu.?Ea nu poate sem?na dec?t amintirilor?despre lichidul meu amniotic?pe care le numeam mai demult ?ntr-o art? poetic??sau mor?ii,?ce a spart oglinda?pe care de at?ta vreme scriu acest poem?Inc?t el nu mai poate tr?i f?r? mine...La oglind? - de George Co?bucAzi am s?-ncrestez ?n grind? -Jos din cui acum, oglind?!Mama-i dus?-n sat! Cu dorulAzi e singur pui?orul,??i-am ?nchis u?a la tind?Cu z?vorul.Iat?-m?! Tot eu cea veche!Ochii? hai, ce mai pereche!?i ce cap frumos r?sare!Nu-i al meu? Al meu e oare?Dar al cui! ?i la urecheUite-o floare.Asta-s eu! ?i sunt voinic?!Cine-a zis c? eu sunt mic??Uite, z?u, acum iau seamaC?-mi st? bine-n cap n?frama?i ce fat? frumu?ic?Are mama!M? g?ndeam eu c?-s frumoas?!Dar cum nu! ?i mama-mi coas??or? cu flori, minune mare -Nu-s eu fat? ca oricare:Mama poate fi f?loas?C? m? are.?tii ce-a zis ?i ieri la vie?A zis: - "Ce-mi tot spun ei mie!Am ?i eu numai o fat?,??i n-o dau s? fie dat?;Cui o dau voiesc s?-mi fieOm odat?".Mai ?tiu eu! ?i-a?a se poate!Multe ?tiu, dar nu ?tiu toate.Mama-mi d? ?nv???tur?Cum se ?ese-o p?nz?tur?,?Nu cum stau cei dragi de vorb?Gur?-n gur?.N-am s? ?es doar via?a-ntreag?!Lasí s? v?d ?i cum s? leag?Dragostea - dar ?tiu eu bine!Din frumos ce-l placi ea vine -Hai, m? prind feciorii drag??i pe mine!C?-s sub?ire! S? m? fr?ng?Cine-i om, cu m?na st?ng?!Dar a?a te place dorul:Sub?irea, cu bini?orulC?nd te str?nge el, s?-?i str?ng?Tot trup?orul.Bra?ul drept dac?-l ?ntindeRoat? peste br?u te prinde?i te-ntreab?: "Drag?, str?ngu-l??i tu-l cer?i, dar el, n?t?ngul,?Ca r?spuns te mai cuprinde?i cu st?ngul.Iar de-?i cere ?i-o guri?? -Doamne! Cine-i la porti???Om s? fie? Nu e cine!Hai, e v?ntul! Uite-mi vineS? v?d oare cu cosi??Sta-mi-ar bine?O, c?-mi st? mie-n tot felul!S? m? port cu-ncetinelul:Uite salb?, br?u, ?i toate!?i cosi?e cump?rate,?Stai, s?-nchei ?i testemelulPe la spate.Uite ce bujor de fat? -Stai s? te s?rut o dat?!Tu m? po?i, oglind?, spune!Ei, tu doar? nu te-i puneS? m? spui! Tu ai, surat?,?G?nduri bune.De-ar ?ti mama! Vai, s? ?tieCe-i fac azi, mi-ar da ea mie!D-apoi! N-am s? fiu tot fat?,?Voi fi ?i nevast-odat?:Lasí s? v?d c?t e de bineM?ritat?.C? mi-a spus bunica mieC? nevasta una ?tieMai mult dec?t fata, juna,?Ei, dar ce? Nu mi-a spus buna -?i m? mir eu ce-o s? fieAsta una!Br?u-i pus! Acum, din lad?Mai ieu ?or?u! O s?-mi ?ad?Fat? cum ?mi st? nevast?...Aolio! Mama-n ograd?!Era gata s? m? vad?Pe fereast?.Ce s? fac? Unde-mi st? capul?Grabnic, hai s?-nchid dulapulS? m? port s? nu m? prind?.Salb? jos! ?i-n cui oglind?!Ce-am uitat? ?nchis? u?aDe la tind?.Intr?-n cas?? O, ba bine,??i-a g?sit ni?te vecine,?St? la sfat... toat?-s v?paie!Junghiul peste piept m? taie;Doamne, de-ar fi dat de mine,?Ce b?taie!?Portret de b?rbat cu turban ro?u - Jan van Eyck (1390-1441). Este primul autoportret din istoria picturii ?i a fost f?cut ?n anul 1433. Toate autoportretele sunt f?cute cu ajutorul oglinzii.Citate despre oglinzi“… scopul teatrului, al c?rui rost, dintru-nceputuri ?i p?n? acum, a fost ?i este s?-i ?in? lumii oglinda ?n fa??…” (William Shakespeare -Hamlet)Nu tr?im dec?t o singur? dat? ?i numai o singur? via??. A avea un ideal ?nseamn? a avea oglind?. ?ntr-un ideal te speli ca-ntr-o ap? curat?. ?ntr-o oglind? ??i speli chipul obosit, potrivindu-?i-l p?n? c?nd accep?i s? fii. (Nichita St?nescu)C?r?ile sunt oglinzile sufletului. (Virginia Woolf)Exemplul nu este dec?t o oglind? ?n?el?toare (Pierre Corneille)Cine reflect? mai bine chipul omului: fotograful, oglinda sau pictorul? (Pablo Picasso)Oglinda este cea mai bun? prieten? a mea; niciodat? c?nd am pl?ns, nu a r?s de mine (Charlie Chaplin)Sunt dou? feluri de a r?sp?ndi lumina: fie s? fii lum?narea, fie oglinda care o reflect? (Edith Wharton)Folose?ti oglinda ca s? ??i vezi fa?a, folose?ti operele de art? ca s? ??i vezi sufletul (George Bernard Shaw)Purtarea omului este o oglind? care ?i dezv?luie propriul portret (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)Doctorul trebuie s? fie opac pentru pacient ?i - la fel ca oglinda - s? nu ?l lase s? vad? dec?t ceea ce el a ar?tat (Sigmund Freud)Vrei s? vezi o specie pe cale de dispari?ia? Ridic?-te ?i uit?-te ?n oglind?! (John Young - astronaut)N-ai v?zut niciodat? moartea? Prive?te ?n oglind? ?n fiecare zi ?i ai s? vezi albinele schimb?nd continuu roiul de sticl? (Jean Cocteau)Romanul este o oglind? purtat? pe strada mare (Stendhal)Oglinda fals? - René Fran?ois Ghislain Magritte (1898-1967)Drinkology: Cocktail-ul Fum ?i oglinziHYPERLINK "" 2885440381000Cocktailul Fum ?i oglinzi este f?cut din 50 mL de tequila (alcool de distilare f?cut numai din agava din ?inutul Jalisco, agava tequilliana), 30 mL de mezcal (alcool de distilare f?cut din mai multe feluri de agave: tobala, topaziche, tepeztate, arroquero ?i espadin; el se face ?n mai multe regiuni din Mexic, ?n special Oaxaca) , 30 mL de sirop de rodii ?i 30 mL de sirop de lime. Ingredientele se pun, ?mprrun? cu ghia?a, ?n shaker ?i se zdruncin? bine.PTrivia despre oglinziOglinda d? o imagine invers? a obiectului ?i, ca atare, este o ?ndep?rtare de Principiu ?i Esen??. Multe popoare cred c? ?n oglind? se reflect? nu omul, ci o dublur? a sa av?nd adesea atribute malefice. ?n jurul oglinzilor s-au elaborat numeroase supersti?ii:- Spargerea unei oglinzi e un lucru ?ngrozitor, pentru c? ?apte ani de nenorociri se vor abate peste tine de acum ?ncolo. Probabil, motivul vine din credin?a str?mo?easc? privind faptul c? sufletul omului s?l??luie?te ?n oglind? ?i, odat? spart? oglinda, sufletul acestuia este distrus, condamn?ndu-l pe om la o moarte timpurie, f?r? a avea mai apoi ?ansa de a intra ?n Rai. Ca s? evi?i consecin?ele catastrofale ale spargerii unei oglinzi trebuie s? culegi cu grij? toate cioburile ?i s? le arunci ?ntr-un r?u.- Cel care prive?te ?n oglind? atunci c?nd cadavrul se afl? ?nc? ?n cas? va muri urm?torul ?i asta pentru c? o veche tradi?ie spune c? sufletul omului s?l?sluie?te ?n oglind?.- Poart? ghinion s? prime?ti ?n dar o oglind?- O persoan? ur?t? care se uit? ?ntr-o oglind? va cauza spargerea acesteia- Nu e bine s? te ui?i ?ntr-o oglind? la lumina lum?n?rilor sau s? stai noaptea ?n fa?a oglinzii ?n ?ntuneric.- Se spune c? fetele pot ?ndeplini un ritual ?n fa?a oglinzii prin care ??i pot chema rudele moarte sau s? ??i vad? viitorii ale?i ai inimii- ?ncarn?rile satanice nu ??i suport? oglindirea sau nu se v?d ?n oglind?.- Fetele care privesc ?n oglind? ?n noaptea de Halloween, la lumina unei lum?n?ri, pot vedea imaginea unui b?rbat cu care se vor m?rita.- Oglinzile nu trebuie ?inute ?n dormitor, iar dac? o oglind? se afl? ?n camera de dormit, ea nu trebuie s? fie orientat? spre pat.Cuv?ntul oglind? vine de la verbul a oglindi, care - la r?ndul lui - are originea ?n verbul oglendati din slava veche.Sinonime ale cuv?ntului oglind?: c?ut?toare (transilv), miraz? (arhaism), specul (din latin? speculum - instrument medical de v?zut prin; de la verbul latin specio, specere - a privi, a se uita la, care a dat italianul specchio).Oglinzile pot reflecta sunetele. Oglinzi acustice au fost folosite ?n Marea Britanie ?n timpul celui de al II-lea RM pentru a depista avioanele inamice.Exist? oglinzi submicroscopice care pot reflecta atomii - oglinzi atomice.Primele "oglinzi" folosite de oameni au fost suprafe?ele de ap? lini?tit?. ?n epoca primitiv? a omenirii, apa a fost privit? ca un simbol al "sinelui" ?i al mor?ii.Animalele folosesc reflectarea imaginii lor pe suprafa?a apei pentru a se recunoa?te.Primele oglinzi fabricate de oameni au fost cele din piatr? dur? (obsidian - roc? vulcanic?) ?lefuit? prin frecare. Astfel de obiecte au fost datate din anul 6000 ?.e.n.Au urmat oglinzile din metale ?lefuite (cupru, alam?, aur, argint) care au fost folosite pe toat? durata antichit??ii ?i a Evului Mediu.?n Roma antic?, au ap?rut oglinzi din sticl? care aveau spatele acoperit cu foi?e de aur.?n secolul XVI ?n Vene?ia sticlarii au f?cut oglinzi de sticl? cu spatele acoperit cu foi?e de argint. ?n 1835, chimistul german Justus von Libig a inventat metoda de a depune un strat uniform de argint metalic pe o suprafa?? de sticl?, prin reducerea nitratului de argint. Prin aceasta, oglinzile au putut fi fabricate industrial, pre?ul lor a sc?zut ?i mai mult? lume a avut acces la oglinzi.Unii oameni au fobia oglinzilor, care este numit? capoptrofobia.Un copil nu se poate recunoa?te ?n oglind? dec?t dup? ce dep??e?te v?rsta de 12-20 de luni.?n mai multe culturi exist? credin?a c? prin oglinzi se poate comunica cu lumea de dincolo.La ?nceput, oglinzile au fost folsite exclusiv pentru ??igrijirea corpului; apoi ele au ap?rut ?n decor?rile interioare ?i ?n arhitectur?.In lumea modern?, oglinzile au largi aplica?ii ?n comunica?ii, cercetarea ?tiin?ific?, medicin?, optic?, astronomie, fizic?, lasere, lanterne, periscoape de submarin, m?sur?tori de distan?e mari, generarea de energie elecrric? din lumina solar?, camere de filmat, inspec?ii ?n locuri greu accesibile, etc.Cele trei variante clasice de oglinzi sunt plane, concave, convexe. Recent, oglinda magnetic? a fost introdus? ?n nanotehnologie.Fat? ?n fa?a oglinzii - Pablo PicassoOglind?/Oglinzi - ProverbeDesp?r?irea este ca o oglind? spart?; mai bine o abandonezi, dec?t s? te r?ne?ti ?ncerc?nd s? o repari (Anonim).Cartea este o oglind?: dac? se prive?te ?n ea un m?gar, n-are cum s? vad? un apostol (proverb rom?nesc).Cine are un prieten, nu mai are nevoie de oglind? (proverb rom?nesc).Fa?a e oglinda sufletului (proverb suedez).Ce-?i spune oglinda, nu-?i spune un ?ntreg consiliu (rpverb englez).Oglinda reflect? toate lucrurile f?r? s? se p?teze (proverb chinez).Sinceritatea e oglinda prieteniei (proverb arab).Stomacul nu are oglind? (proverb rom?nesc).Nu e vinovat? oglinda c? ?i-e str?mb? fa?a (proverb rusesc).Somnul e oglinda mor?ii (proverb rom?nesc).Nici un pictor nu e mai bun ca oglinda (proverb rom?nesc)/ Venus oglindindu-se - Edward Coley Burne-Jones (1833-1898)Prima victim? a oglinzilor: Mitul lui Narcis - autor HoriaHYPERLINK ""0000Narcis. T?n?r nespus de frumos, fiul zeului fluvial Cefisos ?i al nimfei Liriope, pe care r?ul o sedusese ?nv?luind-o cu apele sale. De?i era ?nconjurat de dragostea ?i admira?ia celor care ?l ?nt?lneau, Narcis r?m?nea indiferent la aten?iile ?i propunerile amoroase, preferind v?n?toarea, la care era? foarte iscusit. O variant? a mitului spune c? tat?l s?u era Amirintos, tovar??ul credincios al Artemisei, zei?a v?n?torii.De frumosul t?n?r s-a ?ndr?gostit nebune?te nimfa Echo, ?ns? ?i ea a fost respins? ?i s-a stins de durere, v?z?nd c? dragostea ei nu era ?mp?rt??it?; ?n cele din urm?, Nemesis a hot?r?t s?-l pedepseasc? pe Narcis, f?c?ndu-l s?-?i vad? chipul ?n apa unui izvor. T?n?rul s-a ?ndr?gostit de acea imagine, mistuindu-se de dor, ?i s-a transformat ?n floarea care-i poart? numele. Trupul s?u a disp?rut, l?s?nd ?n loc splendida narcis?.La aceast? versiune a mitului, care este cea mai cunoscut?, se adaug? altele, cu c?teva variante.?n Beo?ia Narcis era considerat un t?n?r locuitor din Tespiai, iubit f?r? speran?? de un alt t?n?r pe nume Amenias, foarte insistent. Plictisit de aten?iile admiratorului s?u, Narcis i-a trimis ?n dar o sabie, iar acesta, disperat, s-a sinucis, invoc?nd ?n acela?i timp blestemul divin ?mpotriva celui pe care ?l iubea. Zeii i-au ?ndeplinit dorin?a ?i l-au f?cut pe Narcis s? se ?ndr?gosteasc? de el ?nsu?i, v?z?ndu-?i chipul oglindit ?n ap?; disperat din cauza iubirii sale ce nu se putea ?mplini, Narcis s-a sinucis cu sabia, a?a cum f?cuse ?i Amenias, iar ?n locul unde a curs s?ngele lui a r?s?rit floarea care ?i poart? numele.O alt? variant? a mitului poveste?te c? Narcis a ?ncercat ?n zadar s?-?i ating? propria imagine, arunc?ndu-se ?n apa care o reflecta, ?i a murit ?necat; din trupul s?u a r?s?rit mai apoi narcisa.O versiune diferit?, men?ionat? de Pausanias, aminte?te c? Narcis avea o sor? geam?n? pe nume Narcisa, care ?l ?nso?ea la v?n?toare ?i ?n aventurile vie?ii s?lbatice din p?dure. Narcis ??i iubea nespus sora, iar c?nd aceasta a murit ?nainte de vreme el a fost cople?it de durere. ?ntr-o zi, uit?ndu-se ?n apa unui izvor, ?i-a v?zut chipul ?i l-a confundat cu cel al Narcisei; de atunci, de?i ?tia adev?rul, a continuat s? se priveasc? ?n ap?, ?n ?ncercarea disperat? de a stabili o leg?tur? cu sora pierdut?. (istoriiregasite.)Narcisism: boala iubirii de sineSigmund Freud: On Narcissism, 1914 was a significant point in the development of Freud's theories. The work was produced after work on his earlier theories on dreams and the unconscious mind. It also comes immediately he began to explore the various aspects of the unconscious mind such as the 'id'. However, Freud does not mention the 'id' in this work. Instead, he gives suggestions on the existence of these various parts of the mind. In addition, Freud begins to talk about the mind's self-control mechanisms, which he refers to as the 'ego-ideal'. However, he does not directly mention the superego, which would be the basis of his later works. It is important to note that it is one of his most technical works. In this work, Freud uses many clinical terms, which might not be easy for the common reader to understand.?In the work, Freud introduces the concept of 'narcissism'. He defines it as adoration one accords themselves in light of them being an object of sexual desire. He views narcissism as some sort of neurosis. However, he also postulates that all humans have some level of narcissism throughout their development. In his work, Freud differentiates between two types of narcissism, primary and secondary narcissism. Primary narcissism preexists in all human beings; this type of energy is present from birth. He postulates this is the type of narcissism, which causes individuals their affection towards an object. For instance, when a mother expresses unadulterated love for her child it is a result of this primary narcissism. In addition, he speculates this is the same type of energy evident in young kids. At this point in their life, kids will often believe themselves to be super beings capable of performing amazing feats just by their words.?However, at some point in their life, this primary narcissism is directed outwards to an object. This is because it causes too much conflict within the individual. Freud speculates that secondary narcissism develops when individuals turn this object affection back on themselves. This is after the affection had already been projected outwards to other objects besides themselves. The result is that an individual becomes cut off from society and disinterested in others. Freud postulates that such an individual will have low self-esteem. This is due to their inability to express love to others and have it expressed back to them. In addition, such a person is full of shame, guilt and often very defensive. This is because narcissism causes an individual to seek self-preservation.?In his work, Freud speculates that narcissism from to distinct sources. In the first place, the person is driven by a need to self-preserve; secondly, the individual is driven by the sex drive, essentially the need to procreate. During childhood, these two drives are usually the same and no differentiation can be made. In essence, the more affection 'libido' is projected to others 'object-libido', the less energy there exists for self-love 'ego-libido'. In essence, Freud postulates object libido emanates from a need to ensure the survival of the species. Consequently, Freud argues that the concept of love is for ensuring continuation of the species. He further argues that for the individual and the species to survive, there is a need for maintaining a delicate balance between these two libidos. For instance, if an individual want to eat, he must have some ego-libido, however if he want the species to survive, he must have object-libido. An imbalance occurs when too much energy is directed inwards to the individual. The result is that the personality of the person becomes infected and they can no longer function properly in society.?In later chapters of his work, Freud seeks to explain the cause of homosexuality. According to Freud, the mother-child relationship, the child directs their outward affection towards the mother. However, homosexuals do not learn to project their object-libido correctly, according to Freud, these individuals chose a different object of their choice. Instead, they tend to choose a different object on which to project their affection. According to Freud, this is narcissism in its purest form. In addition, Freud had a few choice words for the behavior of beautiful women. He postulated that most of these beautiful females were narcissists interested in self-adoration. He postulated they tended to look for someone who could develop an admiration for them in the same obsessive way they loved themselves. Consequently, such women were found to be highly attractive to men primarily due to their indifference of what other though of them.?Freud postulates that children expressed their love for children as a way of fulfilling their own narcissistic desires. This primary narcissism reemerges after the child's birth. Freud later explores the ego ideal. In this work, he explains that as a person develops, they develop a sort of self-censorship. In paranoid individuals, the ego ideal is too strong and uncontrolled, which causes an individual to develop of being monitored by unseen persons. Freud also explains, the ego ideal could be the cause of the voice reported in mental patients, which is often said to be critical of the individual.?Consequently, self-esteem is weighed against the satisfaction of this ego ideal. How much self-esteem one has then depends on how much affection and love they are able to derive form the object of their desire. If object-libido is projected outwards without reciprocity, it can lead to low self-esteem.?Freud's work, particularly touching on homosexuality, has elicited much criticism over the years. However, even his critics still find inspiration when they trying to develop their own psychoanalytical theories. His work is still relevant today, for instance, the current societies are arguably some of the most narcissistic in the history. The phenomenon where young and old people seem to have developed lack of empathy for each other is subject of interest for many scholars. However, Freud quite complex work may not provide all the answers to this phenomenon. However, it does raise interesting issues on the role of family in the development of individuals into caring members of a society. ()Narcissistic personality disorderNarcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy (psychotherapy).Symptoms: Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:Have an exaggerated sense of self-importanceHave a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admirationExpect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant itExaggerate achievements and talentsBe preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mateBelieve they are superior and can only associate with equally special peopleMonopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferiorExpect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectationsTake advantage of others to get what they wantHave an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of othersBe envious of others and believe others envy themBehave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentiousInsist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or officeAt the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatmentHave significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slightedReact with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superiorHave difficulty regulating emotions and behaviorExperience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to changeFeel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfectionHave secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliationPeople with narcissistic personality disorder may not want to think that anything could be wrong, so they may be unlikely to seek treatment. If they do seek treatment, it's more likely to be for symptoms of depression, drug or alcohol use, or another mental health problem. But perceived insults to self-esteem may make it difficult to accept and follow through with treatment.If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you're feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.It's not known what causes narcissistic personality disorder. As with personality development and with other mental health disorders, the cause of narcissistic personality disorder is likely complex. Narcissistic personality disorder may be linked to:Environment?― mismatches in parent-child relationships with either excessive adoration or excessive criticism that is poorly attuned to the child's experienceGenetics?― inherited characteristicsNeurobiology?— the connection between the brain and behavior and thinkingDup? explica?iile mitologice, ?n etiologia narcisismului poate intra ?i privitul excesiv ?n oglind? (ad?ugat de editor)Risk factors: Narcissistic personality disorder affects more males than females, and it often begins in the teens or early adulthood. Keep in mind that, although some children may show traits of narcissism, this may simply be typical of their age and doesn't mean they'll go on to develop narcissistic personality disorder.Although the cause of narcissistic personality disorder isn't known, some researchers think that in biologically vulnerable children, parenting styles that are overprotective or neglectful may have an impact. Genetics and neurobiology also may play a role in development of narcissistic personality plications: Complications of narcissistic personality disorder, and other conditions that can occur along with it, can include:Relationship difficultiesProblems at work or schoolDepression and anxietyPhysical health problemsDrug or alcohol misuseSuicidal thoughts or behavior ()Proz? scurt?: Me?terul de oglinzi - de Emil G?rleanuA fost odat?, ?ntr-o ?ar? foarte dep?rtat?, un me?ter de oglinzi. Dar un me?ter foarte iscusit, care prinsese taina luminei, se vede, p?n? ?ntr-at?ta oglinzile lui erau de curate ?i de ad?nci, de s? s-arate ?n ele, p?n? la cel mai mic am?nunt, z?ri ?ntregi. Cea mai u?oar? ?ncretitur? a chipului ?i-o ar?tau oglinzile lui, ?i ceea ce-n oglinzile celorlal?i me?teri nici nu z?reai, ?ntr-ale lui se deslu?ea cu o rar? limpezime.Lume de pe lume alerga la me?terul acesta s?-i cumpere oglinzile. De peste nou? m?ri ?i nou? ??ri soseau la d?nsul, c?ci nic?iri aiurea a?a marf? nu mai g?seau.?i iat? c? ?ntr-o bun? zi, un crainic ?i aduce ?tirea c?-n cur?nd avea s?-i calce pragul ?mp?r?teasa lui Minciun?- ?mp?rat — cel mai bogat om de pe lume — ca s?-i cumpere o oglind?.?i s-a preg?tit me?terul s? primeasc? pe luminata cump?r?toare, ?i cuptoarele nu mai prididir? luna aceea s? topeasc? ?i s? ?nchege apoi cel mai curat ?i mai luminos cle?tar de oglind?.?i a sosit ?mp?r?teasa, cu mare alai, cu suli?ari ?i s?get?tori c?l?ri, ?mprejurul caratei. Iar c?nd a dat s? se coboare m?ria-sa din carat?, s-a sp?im?ntat me?terul de slu?enia ei.Avea, m? rog, ?mp?r?teasa un cap rotund c?t un dovleac, o fa?? f?lcoas?, ca de cal, ?i un trup scurt ?i gros c?t o buturug?.S-a ?nchinat me?terul p?n? la p?m?nt, iar c?nd a trecut ?mp?r?teasa ?naintea lui, s-a b?tut, bietul, peste gur? ca dup? ucig?-l-toaca.?i-a ?nceput s?-i arate, me?terul, ?mp?r?tesei, fel ?i fel de oglinzi. S-a privit ?mp?r?teasa ?n ele, numai c?te o clip? numai, c?ci le ?i d?dea la o parte, nec?jit? c?t de r?u o ar?tau oglinzile me?terului acestuia. ?i, la urma urmei, c?nd ?i-arunc? privirea ?n cea din urm?, batjocori pe me?ter c? o f?cuse s? alerge, po?te ?ntregi, pentru o marf? tot a?a de proast? ca ?i a celorlal?i v?nz?tori.Ba nu se mul?umi cu batjocora, ?i-nciudat? ?i spuse c? dac? p?n? ?ntr-o lun? nu-i face o oglind? care s-o arate cum trebuie, unde-i st? picioarele, ?i va sta capul; iar de i-o va face cum trebuie, ?l va sc?lda ?n aur. ?i-a plecat ?mp?r?teasa.Iar bietul me?ter a r?mas de tot m?hnit. ?tia el bine c? oglinzi ca ale lui nu g?seai s? fi mers lumea ?ntreag?. Mai limpezi mai curate, cum le-ar fi f?cut? Atunci de ce nu i-au pl?cut ?mp?r?tesei? ?i s-a zbuciumat, bietul me?ter, trei zile ?i trei nop?i; ?i a patra zi, iat? c? sose?te, pe nea?teptate, tat?l me?terului, un b?tr?n de peste ?aptezeci de ani, un b?tr?n care v?zuse ?i auzise multe. ?i v?z?ndu-?i fiul at?t de am?r?t, l-a ?ntrebat b?tr?nul: c? ce are? ?i fiu-s?u ?i povesti toate de-a fir-a-p?rul. Iar b?tr?nul ?n?elept z?mbi ?i-i spuse: ?P?i cum vrei tu, m?i b?iete, s?-i plac? ?mp?r?tesei oglinzile tale, c?nd ele o arat? mai bine dec?t toate celelalte, cum e? Iscode?te, de po?i, o oglind? care s-o ?nf??i?eze altfel dec?t e d?nsa aievea, ?i atunci o s? vezi cum o s?-i plac?!”A g?ndit me?terul ?i-a v?zut c? b?tr?nul lui tat? avea dreptate. ?i cum era st?p?n pe taina me?te?ugului lui, a ars din nou cuptoarele, a chibzuit, a ?mbinat ?i a r?sfr?nt razele ?n fel ?i chipuri, p?n? a statornicit, ?n sf?r?it, focarele unei oglinzi, a?a cum vroise d?nsul.Iar c?nd a venit, peste o lun?, ?mp?r?teasa, cum se legase prin cuv?nt c? va face, me?terul s-a ?nchinat ?i i-a dat oglinda. S-a privit ?mp?r?teasa ?i nu-i venea s? mai lepede oglinda din m?n?, a?a de r?s?rit?, de sub?iat? ?i de ml?dioas? o ar?ta cle?tarul. ?i a poruncit s? i se pl?teasc? me?terului aurul din dou? h?r?b?li pline, c? s? fi tr?it me?terul zece veacuri de om, nici pe sfert din bog??ia ceea n-ar fi putut agonisi cu me?te?ugul lui.Iar dup? ce a plecat ?mp?r?teasa, cu suli?arii ?i s?get?torii c?l?ri, ?mprejurul caratei ?i cu cei zece slujitori cari purtau oglinda pe perne de puf, s? nu cumva s-o sfarme, s-a uitat me?terul mai ?nt?i la comoara pe care era acuma st?p?n, apoi la cl?d?ria de oglinzi minunate ce f?cuse ?i zise: ?Dac? numai pentru o singur? oglind? mincinoas? am c?p?tat at?ta aur, c?t nu mi l-ati fi adus voi de v-a? fi v?ndut cu zecile de mii, la ce folos m-a? munci de acum ?nainte s? v? fac c?t mai limpezi ?i mai poleite? Hai, duce?i-v? la naiba!” ?i d?ndu-le un picior, c?zur? oglinzile minunate ?i s? sf?r?mar? ?n mii ?i mii de a?chii.Triplu autoportret - Norman RockwellPentru mul?i ani, Norman Rockwell a pictat pentru revista Saturday Evening Post ?i el a fost considerat de contemporani un simplu ilustrator. Ast?zi, Rockwell este pre?uit ca un autentic artist cu multiple calit??i.Tabloul Triplu autoportret este un exemplu de modestie ?i autoironie. Artistul este a?ezat cu spatele la privitor ?i folose?te o oglind? mare pentru a picta detaliile propriei figuri. ?n oglind?, ochelarii lui Rockwell apar aburi?i, suger?nd c? ce vede artistul este ?ntotdeauna inexact. Pe marginea st?ng? a p?nzei sunt ata?ate c?teva scheciuri ale pictorului, iar pe marginea dreapt? sunt autoportretele lui Durer, Rembrandt ?i van Gogh pe care le ia ca model. Mai e ?i o reproducere dup? o lucrare cubist? a lui Picasso. Deasupra ?evaletului este un coif antic, cump?rat de Rockwell dintr-un magazin din Paris, ca o aluzie la nevoia de a face o lucrare care s? ilustreze "eroismul" subiectului.Din imaginea incomplet? de pe p?nz? se vede c? autoportretul va ie?i ?n final mult mai ar?tos dec?t figura real? reflectat? de oglind?.La oglind? - de Ipolit Str?mbu (1871 - 1934), cunoscut ?i ca Ipolit Str?mbulescu, Hypolit Strambulescu.Rubrica gastronomic?: Pr?jituri cu glazur? oglind? Glazura de ciocolat? (ciocolat? de menaj, cacao, zah?r, sm?nt?n? pentru fri?c?) sau glazura colorat? (ciocolat? alb?, zah?r, sm?nt?n? penru fri?c?, coloran?i) se face mai ?nt?i ca o crem? semilichid?, la foc mic. C?nd se r?ce?te destul ca s? at? atinge crati?a cu m?na, se amestec? cu gelatin? ?i amestecul este strecurat ?i mixat cu blenderul de dou? ori, apoi se toarn? peste pr?jitur?.__________________________________Dennis Prager: Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values (part I, II and III)There is an epic battle taking place in the world over what value system humanity will embrace. There are essentially three competitors: European secularism, American Judeo-Christianity and Islam. I have described this battle in previous columns.Now, it is time to make the case for Judeo-Christian, specifically biblical, values. I believe they are the finest set of values to guide the lives of both individuals and societies. Unfortunately, they are rarely rationally explained — even among Jewish and Christian believers, let alone to nonbelievers and members of other faiths.So this is the beginning of an admittedly ambitious project. Vast numbers of people are profoundly disoriented as to what is good and what is bad. Just to give one example: Take the moral confusion over the comparative worth of human and animal life.The majority of American students I have asked since 1970 whether they would save their dog or a stranger have voted against the stranger.A Tucson, Ariz., woman in late 2004 sent firefighters into her burning home telling them that her three babies were inside. The babies for whom the firemen risked their lives were the woman’s three cats.The best known animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), funded by the best educated in our society, has launched an international campaign titled “Holocaust on your plate,” which equates the barbecuing of millions of chickens with the cremating of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. To PETA and its supporters, there is no difference between chicken life and human life.Only a very morally confused age could produce so many people who do not recognize the immeasurable distance between human and animal worth. We live in that age.We do in large measure because values based on God and the Bible have been replaced by secular values. The result was predicted by the British thinker G.K. Chesterton at the turn of the 20th century: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”Yes, the moral record of Christian Europe is a mixed one — especially vis a vis its one continuous religious minority — Jews. And one has to be quite naive to believe that belief in God and the Bible guarantees moral clarity, let alone moral behavior.But Chesterton was right. The collapse of Christianity in Europe led to the horrors of Nazism and Communism. And to the moral confusions of the present — such as the moral equation of the free United States with the totalitarian Soviet Union, or of life-loving Israel with its death-loving enemies.The oft cited charge that religion has led to more wars and evil than anything else is a widely believed lie. Secular successors to Christianity have slaughtered and enslaved more people than all religions in history (though significant elements within a non-Judeo-Christian religion, Islam, slaughter and enslave today, and if not stopped in Sudan and elsewhere could match Nazism or Communism).In fact, it was a secular Jew, the great German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, who understood that despite its anti-Semitism and other moral failings, Christianity in Europe prevented the wholesale slaughter of human beings that became routine with Christianity’s demise. In 1834, 99 years before Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, Heine warned:A drama will be enacted in Germany compared to which the French Revolution will seem harmless and carefree. Christianity restrained the martial ardor for a time but it did not destroy it; once the restraining talisman [the cross] is shattered, savagery will rise again. . . .What is needed today is a rationally and morally persuasive case for embracing the values that come from the Bible. This case must be more compelling than the one made for anti-biblical values that is presented throughout the Western world’s secular educational institutions and media (news media, film and television).That is what I intend to do. Events in the news will compel columns on those events, but I do not believe that anything I can do with my life can match the importance of making the case for guiding one’s life and one’s society by the values of the Bible. As a Jew, by “biblical” I am referring to the Old Testament, but this should pose no problem to Christian readers, since this is the first part of their Bible as well. Indeed, as the greatest Jewish thinker, Maimonides, pointed out over 800 years ago, it is primarily Christians who have spread knowledge of the Jews’ Bible to the human race.For those who subscribe to Judeo-Christian values, right and wrong, good and evil, are derived from God, not from reason alone, nor from the human heart, the state or through majority rule.Though most college-educated Westerners never hear the case for the need for God-based morality because of the secular outlook that pervades modern education and the media, the case is both clear and compelling: If there is no transcendent source of morality (morality is the word I use for the standard of good and evil), “good” and “evil” are subjective opinions, not objective realities.In other words, if there is no God who says, “Do not murder” (“Do not kill” is a mistranslation of the Hebrew which, like English, has two words for homicide), murder is not wrong. Many people may think it is wrong, but that is their opinion, not objective moral fact. There are no moral “facts” if there is no God; there are only moral opinions.Years ago, I debated this issue at Oxford with Jonathan Glover, currently the professor of ethics at King’s College, University of London, and one of the leading atheist moralists of our time.?Because he is a man of rare intellectual honesty, he acknowledged that without God, morality is subjective. He is one of the few secularists who do.This is the reason for the moral relativism — “What I think is right is right for me, what you think is right is right for you” — that pervades modern society. The secularization of society is the primary reason vast numbers of people believe, for example, that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”; why the best educated were not able say that free America was a more moral society than the totalitarian Soviet Union; why, in short, deep moral confusion afflicted the 20th century and continues in this century.That is why The New York Times, the voice of secular moral relativism, was so repulsed by President Ronald Reagan’s declaration that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.” The secular world — especially its left — fears and rejects the language of good and evil because it smacks of religious values and violates their moral relativism. It is perhaps the major difference between America and Europe. As a New York Times article on European-American differences noted last year, “Americans are widely regarded as more comfortable with notions of good and evil, right and wrong, than Europeans. . . . ” No wonder. America is a Judeo-Christian society; Europe (and the American Democratic Party) is largely secular.In the late 1970s, in a public interview in Los Angeles, I asked one of the leading secular liberal thinkers of the past generation, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., if he would say that the United States was a morally superior society to that of the Soviet Union. Even when I repeated the question, and clarified that I readily acknowledged the existence of good individuals in the Soviet Union and bad ones in America, he refused to do so.A major reason for the left’s loathing of George W. Bush is his use of moral language — such as in his widely condemned description of the regimes of North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an “axis of evil.” These people reject the central Judeo-Christian value of the existence of objective good and evil and our obligation to make such judgments. Secularism has led to moral confusion, which in turn has led to moral paralysis.If you could not call the Soviet Union an “evil empire” or the Iranian, North Korean and Iraqi regimes an “evil axis,” you have rendered the word “evil” useless. And indeed it is not used in sophisticated secular company — except in reference to those who do use it (usually religious Christians and Jews).Is abortion morally wrong? To the secular world, the answer is “It’s between a woman and her physician.” There is no clearer expression of moral relativism: Every woman determines whether abortion is moral. On the other hand, to the individual with Judeo-Christian values, it is not between anyone and anyone else. It is between society and God. Even among religious people who differ in their reading of God’s will, it is still never merely “between a woman and her physician.”And to those who counter these arguments for God-based morality with the question, “Whose God?” the answer is the God who revealed His moral will in the Old Testament, which Jews and Christians — and no other people — regard as divine revelation.The best-known verse in the Bible is “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). It is a reflection of the secular age in which we live that few people are aware that the verse concludes with the words, “I am God.” Though entirely secularized in common parlance, the greatest of the ethical principles comes from God. Otherwise it is just another man-made suggestion, no more compelling than “Cross at the green, not in between.”Those who do not believe that moral values must come from the Bible or be based upon God’s moral instruction argue that they have a better source for values: human reason.In fact, the era that began the modern Western assault on Judeo-Christian values is known as the Age of Reason. That age ushered in the modern secular era, a time when the men of “the Enlightenment” hoped they would be liberated from the superstitious shackles of religious faith and rely on reason alone. Reason, without God or the Bible, would guide them into an age of unprecedented moral greatness.As it happened, the era following the decline of religion in Europe led not to unprecedented moral greatness, but to unprecedented cruelty, superstition, mass murder and genocide. But believers in reason without God remain unfazed. Secularists have ignored the vast amount of evidence showing that evil on a grand scale follows the decline of Judeo-Christian religion.There are four primary problems with reason divorced from God as a guide to morality.The first is that reason is amoral. Reason is only a tool and, therefore, can just as easily argue for evil as for good. If you want to achieve good, reason is immensely helpful; if you want to do evil, reason is immensely helpful. But reason alone cannot determine which you choose. It is sometimes rational to do what is wrong and sometimes rational to do what is right.It is sheer nonsense — nonsense believed by the godless — that reason always suggests the good. Mother Teresa devoted her life to feeding and clothing the dying in Calcutta. Was this decision derived entirely from reason? To argue that it was derived from reason alone is to argue that every person whose actions are guided by reason will engage in similar self-sacrifice, and that anyone who doesn’t live a Mother Teresa-like life is acting irrationally.Did those non-Jews in Europe who risked their lives to save a Jew during the Holocaust act on the dictates of reason? In a lifetime of studying those rescuers’ motives, I have never come across a single instance of an individual who saved Jews because of reason. In fact, it was irrational for any non-Jews to risk their lives to save Jews.Another example of reason’s incapacity to lead to moral conclusions: On virtually any vexing moral question, there is no such a thing as a [missing] purely rational viewpoint. What is the purely rational view on the morality of abortion? Of public nudity? Of the value of an animal versus that of a human? Of the war in Iraq? Of capital punishment for murder? On any of these issues, reason alone can argue effectively for almost any position. Therefore, what determines anyone’s moral views are, among other things, his values — and values are beyond reason alone (though one should be able to rationally explain and defend those values). If you value the human fetus, most abortions are immoral; if you only value the woman’s view of the value of the fetus, all abortions are moral.The second problem with reason alone as a moral guide is that we are incapable of morally functioning on the basis of reason alone. Our passions, psychology, values, beliefs, emotions and experiences all influence the ways in which even the most rational person determines what is moral and whether to act on it.Third, the belief in reason alone is itself based on an irrational belief — that people are basically good. You have to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will necessarily lead to moral conclusions.Fourth, even when reason does lead to a moral conclusion, it in no way compels acting on that conclusion. Let’s return to the example of the non-Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe. Imagine that a Jewish family knocks on his door, asking to be hidden. Imagine further that on rational grounds alone (though I cannot think of any), the non-Jew decides that the moral thing to do is hide the Jews. Will he act on this decision at the risk of his life? Not if reason alone guides him. People don’t risk their lives for strangers on the basis of reason. They do so on the basis of faith — faith in something that far transcends reason alone.Does all this mean that reason is useless? God forbid. Reason and rational thought are among the hallmarks of humanity’s potential greatness. But alone, reason is largely worthless in the greatest quest of all — making human beings kinder and more decent. To accomplish that, God, a divinely revealed manual and reason are all necessary. And even then there are no guarantees.But if you want a quick evaluation of where godless reason leads, look at the irrationality and moral confusion that permeate the embodiment of reason without God — your local university. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download