CHILDREN OF OTHER LANDS

I'm packing up my books in preparation for a move and to make the load lighter I have to sell books that have been on my shelf for decades. Geez, it's hard. It's like getting rid of old friends. These are books that have guided my thinking for decades and determined the course of my life. Yikes!

A typical book in the "sell" pile is this old-fashioned one (above and below): "Children of Other Lands" by Piper and Holling. I can't justify keeping it because it has no immediate utility but I've frequently thumbed through it over the years and have been seduced by its charm every time. I'll miss it when it leaves the house.

By way of an example of Hollings' work, here's a black and white picture that always reminds me how important culture is to a family. This modest room with it's dutch door and plates arrayed on a ledge, and the beautiful costumes worn daily by the women, reminded me how people who are steeped in culture have an easier time in life than the rest of us. They know where they fit in and what's expected of them, and that frees them to think about other things. Well...that's my admittedly romantic take on it, anyway.

   

It must be nice to live in a part of the world (above) where architectural styles are somewhat set and homes are expected to reinforce the culture of the whole community.

Of course I live in modern America and part of my culture is to change styles constantly. Here's (above) a beautiful picture (above) of a cluster of pueblo buildings nestled in a pocket of towering hills. If such a landscape actually exists I wouldn't change a single stone, but the picture compels me to imagine what would happen if the mountains were skyscrapers and the river a highway.

In my minds eye I see a modern city where clusters of tall, modern buildings are punctuated by rolling hills capped with Montemare-type bohemian villages.

But....the book has to go. You have to be ruthless when you're undertaking a long move.

"CONFESSIONS OF A SOCIOPATH"

Here's  what I've been reading lately..."Confessions of a Sociopath," by M. E. Thomas, a clinically diagnosed sociopath. The book cast a pall over my holiday because it was so interesting that I couldn't put it down, even when I was forced to read by the light of the Christmas tree. It wasn't exactly holiday reading. My family must have thought I was nuts.

The author is unusual in that she actually likes being a sociopath. She says it confers advantages. She says her inability to experience emotional attachment allows her to be objective, to consider things on their own merit without emotional bias. She thinks the world wouldn't work without people like that. And besides, given the choice of being a wolf or a sheep who wouldn't prefer to be a wolf?

That's not to say that this condition doesn't have big disadvantages. Sociopaths get bored easy and will turn to mischief just for something to do. In Thomas's case she hinted that she filed sexual harassment complaints against innocent men she didn't like, just to watch them squirm. As a consequence she had to change jobs every two or three years because she'd get a reputation as a troublemaker. I get the feeling that sociopaths are frequent job changers.

BTW: bored easy can be a surprisingly dangerous trait. Lots of us fill in the gaps during the day with random thoughts about social relationships. Sociopaths aren't interested in things like that and the void that results sometimes drives them to do wild things to fill it. Geez, maybe thinking of social trivia keeps normal people sane. But I digress....

Another disadvantage is that sociopaths never seem to learn from bad experiences. They're driven to do what they do, sometimes with slight regard to consequences.

They're also born manipulators. They can be good listeners, but that's because they hope to discover your vulnerabilities. Sociopaths are users. Someone on the net said their true goal is to make their acquaintances into zombie slaves. They don't believe that harms us much because in their eyes the rest of us aren't fully human anyway. We're just... goldfish. It's not like they were hurting a real human being...like themselves.

Sociopaths are said to be more likely than normals to be drug abusers. Maybe that comes from being bored easy. They also have violent tendencies but many manage to keep them in check, largely by avoiding situations where they'd lose control. One commenter on Thomas' blog "Psychopath World" says he steers clear of prostitutes because their high risk life style makes them perfect victims, and he'd rather not be tempted.

Lots of psychologists subscribe to the famous list of seven sociopathic attributes found below. You can have only five and still be diagnosed as a socio, but four or less apparently disqualifies you.

Thomas says she'd add one more attribute: a lack of a sense of self. Socios are shape shifters who tailor their personality to fit the unique need of each person they're trying to manipulate. The downside of all that role playing is that sociopaths may not have a default personality. They don't have a clear idea of who they really are.

How do you spot a sociopath? Thomas offers her own list of twelve relatively minor behaviors that might serve as a tipoff (below).

It's kind of funny that sociopaths are appalled when they're confused with psychopaths. In their eyes psychopaths are just plain crazy.  Psychopaths hear voices or see visions...they're delusional. Sociopaths aren't delusional at all. They take in information the same way the rest of us do, they just have different values, or at least that's how they see it. Haw! It's funny to think that in the world of psychological disorders each group has its own niche, which is strenuously defended. 

What's my take on all this?  I think Thomas may be right about the benefits to society of certain disorders, provided the sufferer has some self restraint. At the top of the heap are the obsessive compulsives. We all benefit from what those guys do, though they don't seem very happy and I wouldn't want to trade places with them. Sociopaths are scary because at the extreme end they can lapse into absolute evil, but a mild case...mmmm, maybe there's some benefit there, I'm not sure.

I do think that too many normal people cheerfully identify themselves as sociopaths based on the fact that they have disdain for the people they meet. That doesn't sound right. Disdain alone isn't sociopathy, it's just...I don't know...misanthropy. If the book is right, sociopaths aren't just down on people; they have no personality, are chronic manipulators and shape-shifters, are potentially violent, and never learn from experience. It's a whole package.

BTW: A commenter doesn't agree that there's a difference between psychopaths and sociopaths. I've read differently, but he cites a reputable source. Read what he says and judge for yourself. 

WHO CAME BEFORE THE BEATS?

Ever since the late fifties a large number of the intellectuals in this country (above) have been bohemians. Even some traditional intellectuals like Bill Buckley had a bit of a bohemian side to them, and enjoyed playing to bohemian audiences.  That's understandable. The 50s intellectuals seemed to be searching for something elusive,  and you always have a grudging respect for seekers, no matter how addled they may be in other respects.  


Before the Beats most intellectuals were attached to universities. There's was a frustrating era because everybody knew the old world had ended with WWII, but nobody had a handle on the new one.  With the radicalism of the Depression years and all the wartime propaganda for our allies Stalin and the Soviets, Marxism now had a place at the university table and a lot of academics didn't know how it fit with traditional liberalism. The response of some of these intellectuals was to be  placeholders. They were determined to shepherd the old ideas and values into the mysterious new era, integrating them with whatever scary radical thing would come next.


It was an odd time, an inbetween time. University presses put out thousands of books with unclear, mushy opinions that nobody wanted to read. Today you won't even find these books in used book stores or thrift store bins. They just don't have an audience. Maybe they never did. Half of the titles had "Crossroads" in the title, as in "Education at the Crossroads." The output of liberal arts universities at this time was so boring and muddled that young people began to self-educate, which is one of the ways the Beat movement began.  

I'm a traditional liberal so I have no sympathy with the liberal/Marxist synthesis that was painfully emerging in the 50s. On a purely human level though, I sympathize with the attempt of academics in mid-century to keep the old wisdom alive. Doing that in a world that had recently been gutted by fanaticism was a perfectly understandable thing to do. The problem was that the old wisdom, at least when it was stated in the old way, was curiously out of sync with the new era. Immensely destructive changes were ahead, and these heroic placeholders were doomed to pass unthanked into obscurity.  I think they knew that would happen, they just didn't know what to do about it.


Anyway,  they were a likable bunch of people who were riddled with funny quirks and affectations as many good people are. Pipes (okay, cigarettes), woolen tweeds,  bow ties, Terry Thomas moustaches...they had it all, as you can see in the films below.






Here (above) an unidentified announcer of that era sits with critic Lionel Trilling, and "Lolita" author, Vladimir  Nabokov. The set is a room filled with statues, wainscoting, pillars, old European furniture and a working oil lamp which functions as a sort of candelabra.  After talking for a bit around the lamp, all move over to the sofa, as if to enjoy cigars and brandy. It's a wonderful world where intellect and culture still have a place. It just seems funny to see all those cultural artifacts crammed into such a tiny space. I like it, though. If this show were still on I'd watch every episode. 

Nabokov is fascinating, but he doesn't really say anything. Trilling attempts to say it for him and is good-naturedly rebuffed. Boy, you can never get creative people to tell you how they do what they do.

Trilling has real charisma. He has that great tortured look that intellectuals are supposed to have, as if every word was painful to enunciate.  The moderator, Pierre Berton,  does a great job of setting a musical tone that sets up pleasing counterpoints from his guests. It's a great little ensemble. Even if nothing memorable is said, it's wonderful theater.

Aaaargh! I'm too tired to write anymore.

A FUN BOOK

I'm reading a few books at once as I always do. I'm still reading "Animated Man" and I just finished Mc Bride's famous (some would say infamous) book on Frank Capra. Here's one of the books I have on my bed stand: "The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Extreme Edition." Have you read any of these Worst Case books? Are they serious?

Here's (above) my favorite chapter: "How to Escape From an Angry Gorilla." The situation is that a gorilla has grabbed your arm. Maybe he's doing it to be playful, maybe not. There's no way to tell. You have no choice but to assume he's hostile. The book wisely advises the reader to be silent and act submissive. So far so good.

Then the book takes a giant step. If submission doesn't work try treating the grab as a sexual (my word) advance by the gorilla. It almost certainly wasn't sexual but the idea is to plant the thought in the gorilla's head. It's as if you're saying to the gorilla, "Hey, big boy! I like you too. No need to get rough! Let's you and I go steppin'."

You groom his arm. Maybe the gorilla is starting to get hot and bothered. Hopefully this causes the ape to walk away in confusion. Hopefully. But what if he doesn't? What if he takes it seriously and...Ugh! It's too horrible to think about!

I hasten to add that the book doesn't mention sex. That's my interpretation...and maybe it would be the gorilla's too.


Here's (above) another chapter: "How to Survive if You're Buried Alive." Aaargh! How gruesome! The book advises that you only have an hour or two at most before the air runs out. What you should do is wrap your shirt around your head like a bag with a big knot on your forehead to provide an air pocket for your face. You then kick the wooden coffin lid with your feet. The weight of the dirt above will have weakened the lid and if you're lucky you might succeed in breaking it. Your main problem will be channeling the dirt as it falls into the container and you dig your way upward.

Does that seem realistic to you?