# Be thankful it's DP.



## Ben (Apr 21, 2005)

The recent events in London got me thinking this morning and I thought I would share my ruminations with the group. For the Moderator Nazis out there, this is about DP so don't get your panties in a curl over my words here.

I'm convinced of the fact that the human creature falls into two main categories: those who are aware they exist, and those who aren't aware they exist. This may seem like a funny, bizarre statement as most would think, "Yes, of course I exist" - but my point goes deeper than that. Ever since I was afflicted with Depersonalizatoin, I have become extremely sensitive to my existence, and after having come out of it, I have become extremely aware of the existence of others. The world seems so much more vivid to me - and, it's possible, that the experience of DP was purely a shield during the transition I had towards this more sensitive awareness of my world.

Regardless of how you look at it, there comes a point when people behave with such acts that you begin to question exactly what view they have upon the world, or exactly how aware they are that this isn't some kind of melodrama staged purely for their own interests. When someone plants a bomb in the underground of London, or when someone hurls an airliner towards a building full of thousands, you stop and wonder how they viewed their world and what, exactly, they thought about a night before they went to sleep.

I have yet to meet a person on this board who has a bad heart, or is out to hurt anyone, or is out to do anyone harm - especially to the level we saw displayed in London today. We are good people and we are sensitive, warm and generous people. Our pain is brought on by our sensitivity towards the world, our past experiences living it, and the result of our minds being, probably, a bit more in tune with the nature of nature than others. When I read the threads that flow on this group I don't see a bunch of people without hearts or minds or souls, I see wonderful folks reaching out to each other in an attempt to carry on in this place.

Be thankful it's DP. The horrid minds that performed these disgusting acts of pure insensitivity in London today are the real ones without awareness of the world, they are the ones that are without person or reality - living in a maniacal world of insane religiosity and lack of reason. These people are animals - and in light of that, I see us - the sensitive ones - as the ones that truly experience life.

Next time you feel depersonalized, ask yourself if it is you that views the world in a tilted way, or if you simply became aware of how tilted the world really is.

To all my friends in the UK - my thoughts go out to you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2005)

I will begin my rebuttal by saying "my, I do love that Ben" (and I do)

However, I disagree here on a few points.

WHile yes, we are all decent people here (and I truly think we're well above average), we are human. And as humans, we ALL (every human, dp or not, board member or not, internet savvy or not) have HUGE amounts of rage and violence in us.

We can choose to act as we choose - to consider repurcussions, to weigh with compassion, to "Golden Rule" it, etc....but in our hearts, we are filled with ALL KINDS OF feelings and thoughts, many of them very far from pure and warm and fuzzy.

Be careful that you don't get TOO caught up in seeing yourselves as "all good of heart" - that is one of the easiest pathways to mental symptoms. When we are afraid of our own "inner terrorist" we often create obsessions and crazy thoughts or dp states of all kinds of hell for ourselves. We start to fear that IF we acknowledged our own rage, we would have to ACT on it. Not true.

It can be very important for the healing process, for all things mental, to work towards accepting that we are VERY human, and can be dear and loyal and loving and considerate AND petty and jealous and vengeful and controlling. If we are too afraid of seeing our own dark sides, we are just "bait" for symptoms.

Please don't hurt me, Ben.
grin


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I disagree as well, my POV being that mental illness of all kinds is an "equal opportunity" scourge, as are all illlnesses. Good people and bad people get mental illness, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, intelligent and not so intelligent, etc, etc.

And I agree with Janine to an extent in that we are indeed all human beings, and as such are fallible sp?, none of us perfect.

There are people who have come and gone on this Board who have been tremndously kind, empathetic, and others who aren't.

Yes, we are unique in this miserable experience and it is excellent we can share our experiences with others -- not be alone, but I've seen all kinds of people since joining Andy's Board in 1999.

Also, I see serious social problems at the root of terrorism, it is a "gang mentality"in a sense. Those commiting this barbaraism seem to be young men, disenfranchised. This gives them a goal, a purpose, in a society where they see no future. Where they have no hope, where death seems to offer more than life. If one is raised with this mentality ... how is that "undone."

I haven't a clue.
Very sad.

Best,
D


----------



## Ben (Apr 21, 2005)

> Be careful that you don't get TOO caught up in seeing yourselves as "all good of heart" - that is one of the easiest pathways to mental symptoms. When we are afraid of our own "inner terrorist" we often create obsessions and crazy thoughts or dp states of all kinds of hell for ourselves. We start to fear that IF we acknowledged our own rage, we would have to ACT on it. Not true.


Very good points, and I'm glad you made them. I guess I'm a bit sensitive myself about what happened in London.

In the end I think I got a bit wordy, but my point is simple and direct: we have DP, but we could have it a lot worse. I'll believe that whole heartedly. I also think that people sometimes are so afraid that they feel lost, but I wanted to make point that alongside the many things people could do when they feel lost or without a direction (such as throwing an airplane into a building), we're doing the right thing which is reaching out to others on this group.



> Please don't hurt me, Ben.


Oh my God Janine - please don't think I'm going after anyone on this board (especially in this part of the forum). Please read the PM I just sent to you. It has also been brought to my attention that some individuals I recently disagreed with are moderators (and were bothered by my "Moderator Nazis" comment); and let it be known that I didn't realize anyone's "status" until now (this shows you how much I really care about "Moderator" status). This wasn't meant as a re-opening of an old attack but as a jestful nudge towards the status of "Moderator" in general. A joke - read my lips: J.O.K.E.

I am more than happy to have people make return posts to me and say that they disagree with things - that's what learning and growth is all about.


----------



## Lilymoonchild (Jun 18, 2005)

I agree that good and bad people are stricken with dp, along with all other disorders. 
Last night, (actually, it was probably right about the time the attacks were happening) I was watching a program about the Congo, and how it is the most dangerous place to live and all. It made me thankful for what I have, where I am, and that I have the time to not only think about dp, but to blog about it as well.
I think dp sometimes can be accentuated by not having enough to think about besides how we feel. If we truly had other things to be more concerned with--foraging for food, where we're going to sleep, not getting killed today--I somehow think our depersonalization might not be such a problem. 
A lot of times, social issues take me out of my dp for a while, because when I truly realize how insignificant it is that I feel a little out of sorts when there are people being raped and murdered in the world every day, I feel a little better (as morbid as that sounds.)


----------



## mcsiegs (Apr 27, 2005)

"All the world is a stage, and everyone has their part"

Is that statement really true? Or is everyone just searching for the Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame to distinguish themselves from the rest of the world?

Whether someone is good or bad, people need to feel as though they stand for something and stand up for something. Whether it be something as major as religion, or something as small as a song (think about how defensive some people get when you hate a song they love), people need to feel their opinion matters and that other people are listening. Some people take it to the extreme, and kill people in the name of beliefs that they feel others are trying to squash.

The people who did this in London spend their lives training how to kill and how to die. They train for the 15 minutes of fame.

We, as DPers train our whole lives to hopefully one day experience 15 minutes of lack of self awareness and the outside world, let alone fame.

What I am trying to say is that the goals of all people are different. Unfortunately, some goals are good (I want to cure AIDS, I want to be the guy to cure cancer), and some are bad (I want to fly a plane for terror purposes). We will never be able to change the goals of anybody. What we can do is reach our own before it is too late.

Try and live life to it's fullest. Screw the people with bad goals. Pet a dog, Hug a cat, Feed a homeless person, take your mom to dinner, tell your sister you love her.

And if you die tomorrow from someone who had a bad goal, your life was fulfilled the last day you lived.


----------



## Ben (Apr 21, 2005)

> Try and live life to it's fullest.


Amen brother.


----------



## delicateshadow (Jul 2, 2005)

wish I could

I guess its having an 'inner terrorist' (yes I have approached 'her' in therapy)is what can make it so hard, at least one of the things, anyway...

(living in London and trying to dissociate, but its not working so far  )

Katie


----------



## bright23 (Jun 6, 2005)

Feel at a loss about todays events, it looks really grim in the "real world" presently.

My thoughts are with our friends in the U.K. Peace.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

hahaha

good heart...

*ahem*

I mean of course I love the little children! And the trees!


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

Okay, the soup needs something, so here goes:

http://www.scienceforpeople.com/Essays/mind_reading.htm


----------



## bright23 (Jun 6, 2005)

wow.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

Ben, I don't mean this in a bad way, but I don't agree at all. In fact I think this kind of attitude is probably a little "dangerous".

The minute we start saying that the people who detonate themselves, kill innocents and so on are somehow "just evil", or that somehow they are all psychopaths with warped minds intent on murder, is the minute we make the situation far worse.

The fact is that these terrorists _are_ rational, they know _exactly_what they're doing and, importantly, they are doing it for a reason. Most of them have grievances with us beyond our status as "western infidels".

I'm not saying that we shouldn't condemn them or their activities, but we have to understand that terrorism is instigated by rational people and that they have reasons for doing so. The way to solve the issue is to work out what these reasons are, and to try and rectify the situation. Demonizing them helps nobody, and certainly won't prevent further atrocities.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

lilymoonchild-

I LOVE Kahlil Gibram!

Gibran?

Kalil?

I don't know if i even spelled any of it right!

oh well. you know who i mean!


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

Monkeydust said:


> The minute we start saying that the people who detonate themselves, kill innocents and so on are somehow "just evil", or that somehow they are all psychopaths with warped minds intent on murder, is the minute we make the situation far worse.


Poppycock! We will hunt them down and wipe them out -- them and their evil supporters, enablers, and defenders.



Monkeydust said:


> The fact is that these terrorists _are_ rational, they know _exactly_what they're doing and, importantly, they are doing it for a reason. Most of them have grievances with us beyond our status as "western infidels".


Balderdash! When the allegedly sane think insanity is rational, we have increased the ranks of the insane.



Monkeydust said:


> I'm not saying that we shouldn't condemn them or their activities, but we have to understand that terrorism is instigated by rational people and that they have reasons for doing so.


Horse twaddle! Irrational crapola! The world is beginning to understand that the defenders of these murderers are just as guilty as they are. And you'd better believe that they are going to be treated accordingly. Sane people do not condemn the activities of "rational" people.



Monkeydust said:


> The way to solve the issue is to work out what these reasons are, and to try and rectify the situation. Demonizing them helps nobody, and certainly won't prevent further atrocities.


The supporters of these crazy people -- just as much as the crazy people themselves -- need to be pointed out as the demons they are.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

> Poppycock! We will hunt them down and wipe them out -- them and their evil supporters, enablers, and defenders.


This is exactly the kind of message that doesn't help matters whatsoever, and in fact makes them worse.

But let's suppose your plan is the right thing to do for the minute: where would you find them? How would you "wipe them out"? Do you propose to destroy ideas with bullets and bombs? Do you really think that would work?

If you think the best idea to solve the issue would be to invade another country, perhaps you need reminding that the statement allegedly made by the terrorists on their website stated explicitly that their motive for the attacks was the West's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I personally don't see how a "gung-ho" attitude to the matter can solve the problem.



> Balderdash! When the allegedly sane think insanity is rational, we have increased the ranks of the insane.


You might like to put it down to "insanity". But, by all evidence, it is not.

In fact most of the Al-qaeda figures I've read about seem to be very intelligent, well-educated people. Muhhamed Atta, for instance, the main perpetrator of 9/11, had a top degree from a German University - I think it might have been Hamburg.

We may call these people "bad" or "evil". They are not, however, insane in the least.



> Horse twaddle! Irrational crapola! The world is beginning to understand that the defenders of these murderers are just as guilty as they are. And you'd better believe that they are going to be treated accordingly. Sane people do not condemn the activities of "rational" people.


You seem to be confusing matters unnecessarily.

I am *not* saying that what these people are doing is permissible, not in the least; I'm just saying that they are *not* nutcases.

It's perfectly possible to be rational _and_ evil. I don't see where your problem here is. In fact it seems to me that the vast majority of "evil" people - at least the more famous ones - have been rational and "sane".



> The supporters of these crazy people -- just as much as the crazy people themselves -- need to be pointed out as the demons they are.


I think you misunderstood what I meant.

I have no problem with calling them "demons" per se. It's when we say they are _just_ demons - that they're mindless, evil, irrational, inexplicable folk - that we lose are way.


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

M-dust wrote:
I am not saying that what these people are doing is permissible, not in the least; I'm just saying that they are not nutcases.

----

And I am saying that you may want to rethink your definition of the meaning of the word.

M-dust further wrote:
I have no problem with calling them "demons" per se. It's when we say they are just demons - that they're mindless, evil, irrational, inexplicable folk - that we lose are way.

----

It is wholly irrational to believe that evil can bring about good. It is wholly irrational to believe that by killing your family I will make you love and respect me.

Evil is not a thing. It is the absence of the good.

Being evil has nothing to do with being intelligent. Adolf Hitler was intelligent. Ted Bundy was intelligent. Satan is intelligent. Many evil throughout history have had brilliant minds. But they were crazy nutcases.

The perversion of good to evil is the definition of nutcase.


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

Soj wrote:
And I am saying that you may want to rethink your definition of the meaning of the word.

When she meant:

And I am saying that you may want to rethink your definition of _nutcase_.


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

Hm. Tried saying so long to Mike, but was told the forum is "locked." Now his message has disappeared...


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

I think the underlying theme here is that 'insane' isn't as simple as just a diagnosis from your psych. It's a socially constructed term. These people don't hear voices/see demons driving them to do the things they do, they are driven by very real reasons, but these reasons are so far removed from anything anyone of us can comprehend that in our society, it IS delusional. To us. And probably to most of the rest of the world.

Think about if you had grown up, indoctrinated with this shit, you knew nothing else other than your 'cause' in life, I personally don't think this makes you insane to act on this. It's an interesting thing I've often wondered, a bit like Fred and Rose West, they had such screwed up childhoods, how accountable are they for their actions? They weren't mad, they could rationalise.

However, my more human and gut reaction is to stick them on a bonfire.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> The supporters of these crazy people -- just as much as the crazy people themselves -- need to be pointed out as the demons they are.


Yes there are radical fundamentalist leaders, whom I can't define as anything more than evil... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. But look at Hitler, again. Such a strange leader comes onto the stage at the right place and the right time and instigate new movements, wars, but those who follow in their footsteps aren't all necessarily evil.

This is too difficult to type about, it needs to be discussed.

But again, in terms of WWII. Hitler and Mussolini were... "Evil" I guess. The concept of "racial cleansing" is truly ludicrous. But can we call all German people who "helped" Hitler with his "final solution" as horrible people? Many people in Hitler's inner circle might be shot to death if they took one misstep. This seems to be a pattern of leadership among despots.

Also, the US refused to let Jews immigrate during WWII. In a sense we were complicit -- does that make us evil? Our government, the average citizen?

Once an evil stone gets rolling, it DOES gather moss... as in the case of any group of terrorists ... those who are passionate with the cause, those who feel they have no other choice, join in the frenzy.

The endless conflict of the IRA, Israel and Palestine, horrible despots in Africa, etc., etc. Certain leaders have certain agendas that rile up a group, get them excited about a cause, make them feel alive by participating.

Middle Eastern terrorism isn't new, and terrorism has existed in some form I think for as long as the human race has existed. Unfortunately, the world is now very small, technologically advanced. It is far easier to wipe out large numbers of people in carefully coordinated efforts.

Just though of "Bye Bye Miss American Pie" -- "For ten years we were on our own, and moss grows fat on a rolling stone, but that's not how it's supposed to be." (I know that has many interpretations ... now I won't be able to stop singing it. HELL.)

D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Exactly, what g-funk said. If this is the "world" you are raised in, it's like being raised in the ghetto. There is a hopelessness. The end result is despair, crime, gangs, drugs, etc., etc., etc. A young person can see no choices, no other options, and can literally be in danger if he/she doesn't participate in the "gang culture" for instance.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

Sojourner and others,

I agree that to an extent "insane" or "nutcase" is a cultural definition, meaning different things at different times and places, and to different people.

This is all very well. But it misses the point. Whichever definition of "insane" you want to use, it remains the case that these people are not _just_ "evil guys" because that's "who they are" - that they just _are _ "bad" and it's that inherent malevolence inside them that drives them regardless of circumstances.

Terrorists _do_ have a cause for their actions. We may not grasp why entirely, but the key to stopping their atrocities is to understand these grievances and try to solve them; simply calling them "evil" is useless.

Incidentally, to this



> But can we call all German people who "helped" Hitler with his "final solution" as horrible people?


I say yes.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Sojourner said:


> Balderdash! When the allegedly sane think insanity is rational, we have increased the ranks of the insane.


This gets my vote for quote of the month!


----------



## Ben (Apr 21, 2005)

> They weren't mad, they could rationalise.


Yes, you are absolutely right - 100% correct and I really should be more careful when throwing around the phrase irrational or insane or the like; insanity is a completely different beast and this situation becomes more complicated than that. These people are not hearing voices, they are not responding to demons in their minds, and they are not losing the facilities of their brains. Very correct, thanks for your post here.

Rather than try to bend the word insanity to match what I really mean, I really should try to explain what I really mean. I think my words were being used thoughtlessly.

Each and every one of us has a perspective on the world, we see things different from the person next to us due to our upbringing and the like. This is interesting as one person's "reasonable" actions can become someone else's "unreasonable" actions simply because one person's actions seem incomprehensible to another (the purpose becomes lost because of different experiences). This is all perfectly understandable and perfectly reasonable - and I can appreciate the complexities inherant in something like this.

However, the issues I have with these people is their inability to see beyond their fanatacism; their inability to realize that they 'could' be wrong. Therein lies the great problem that I'm getting at, and therein lies the similarities to insanity that I mention. I live my life with a 99% rule - that is, I never let myself believe something more than 99% because I could be wrong. This may sound like a lack of conviction, but really it is a method I use to keep from becoming to locked into my ways (and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't), thereby allowing for growth and change. I fear change - like many do - but I try my best to see that my perspective, the American perspective, could be wrong. So why my over-wordy fanatical post? I got emotional, just like these people, plain and simple. I should have relaxed a bit before I wrote it, but I was pissed and wrote it and everyone here is (rightfully) calling me on my bad thoughts. The different, though, between the life I lead the life they lead is that I'm not going to fight to the death because I HAVE to be right here. Case in point, that's really what I mean, these people have a very limited view on the world around them, and have picked up a dangerous, absolutist view on their universe.

I have talked to schizophrenics before, and often there is very little ability to reason with them. If someone is trying ot administer medication - the thought that there might be poison or something in the meds is a thought that cannot be reasoned with. These people (the terrorists) cannot be brought to the table to discuss things, they are not interested in finding common grounds, they are not interested in deals or half-way interests. They are out to kill the infidels; which is a widely placed label on a very diverse group of people.

People can possess insanity, which has neurological and biological origins, or they can do insane things - actions performed on a perception of the world that they refuse to budge or refuse to revise because it CANNOT be any different. I still believe (but could be wrong!) that these people's actions are insane-like in their lack of reason, without reason because they are not looking for reason or understanding or the ability to present their case in a reasonable fashion. They want one thing - the death of us all. When one doesn't want to listen to another side, or try to reason with another side, I see that as a lack of reason.

In that sense, I see their actions as unreasonable. One final point - what it reason? That is a totally different point all together, and a whole different argument, but something that is more reasonable than something else more closely coincides with reality, that is, presents thoughts and conclusions that can be tested, verified, and project expectations that can be verified consistently. We are all human and benefit from being in touch with reality, and so I see we all have a common ground in finding reason.



> But look at Hitler, again. Such a strange leader comes onto the stage at the right place and the right time and instigate new movements, wars, but those who follow in their footsteps aren't all necessarily evil.


Very sound point Dreamer, I agree with you - the people who followed Hiter cannot be easily labeled evil; their situation was far more complex. They can be considered wrong, however - and here is my reasoning.

After the war, many people were brought through the concentration camps (German citizens) and exposed to the carnage that existed there. There are videos of townfolk being paraded through - seeing the burnt bodies of the Jews - and they were visibly bothered, horrified, afraid of what they saw. These people were not willing to see what they let happen - and, in interviews, knew was happening, but chose to simply not face. They knew what they had done was wrong, but rather than stop it - sat still and let it happen. In the face of fear, of being shot, were they justified in their actions - no, there was REASON, but not justification, and therefore I believe they were wrong.

In interviews fifty years later, I have seen these German citizens break down over their actions of the time - and call Hitler "insane" and a "madman". With the reflection of years behind them, they admitted their wrong-doings, and I agree with them.

They were not insane, however, as they had good reason to do what they did - they did reason. And in some instances there was compassion.

Hitler, however, was higly delusional, hiding out in his bunker believing the third reich to survive as the Russians were pounding the hell out of Berlin. People that witnessed him at the time noted he was losing his mind - talking to himself, speaking of the advancement of his country, still making plans about his future empire. Hitler was insane (and some people believe he may have also been suffering from Syphilus (sp?) at the time).

Regardless, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and points here - I was clearly lose in many of my terms and my post was rather ill-thought.


----------



## Lilymoonchild (Jun 18, 2005)

Monkeydust said:


> > But can we call all German people who "helped" Hitler with his "final solution" as horrible people?
> 
> 
> I say yes.


If one were to say that all Nazi soldiers were evil, then were all slave owners evil? Both groups took an entire race of people and reduced them to nothing more than objects.

Victor Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, said this:



> There are things which must cause you to lose your reason or you have none to lose. An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior...
> It is apparent that the mere knowledge that a man was either a camp guard or a prisoner tells us almost nothing. Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn. The boundaries between groups overlapped and we must try not to simplify matters by saying that these men were angels and those were devils...[T]here are two races of men in this world, but only these two--the "race" of the decent man and the "race" of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people. In this sense, no group is of "pure race"--and therefore one occasionally found a decent fellow among the camp guards.
> Life in a concentration camp tore open the human soul and exposed its depths. Is it surprising that in those depths we again found only human qualities which in their very nature were a mixture of good and evil?


(Quoted from Man's Search for Meaning.)


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

Ben,

I _do_ see where you're coming from, and I mostly agree with that clarification there. I certainly agree with your comment that following a religion without question is not a rational, or in my mind even reasonable, way to go about things.

But - and there has to be a "but" lol - I still think we need to distinguish between two things. On the one hand, we have the fact that these people follow a religion, usually Islam, with incredible fanaticism and dedication to the point where they can "lose touch" which the "real world" and practical concerns. This is fine, and I have no qualms with this truth whatever. On the other hand, however, we have the point that they're actually willing, with that religion giving supposed though dubious justification, to commit atrocities against the West with the intention to kill innocent people.

Now this second point is _linked_ to the first; but in reality it involves something else: fanaticism does not lead _directly_ to atrocities else we'd have a great many more atrocities being carried out. I've met a couple of Muslims who are dedicated to the extent of fanaticism but would _never_ assist in murdering innocents because to do so, they say, is to twist their sacred texts.

Now whilst I agree with the main thrust of your point, I think it's dangerous to put it _just_ down to irrationality because this "something else" - the factors that change fanaticism to terrorism - is a collection of identifiable causes and grievances that we need to understand before we can eliminate.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that you intended this in your original statement, but I think it's a corollary that many will draw from simply putting it down to irrationality. If, for instance, it's just people being irrational, what can we do to stop them besides wiping them out? This is the main gripe I have with such a line of thinking.

Oh and one more point of my pedanticism :wink:



> Hitler, however, was higly delusional, hiding out in his bunker believing the third reich to survive as the Russians were pounding the hell out of Berlin. People that witnessed him at the time noted he was losing his mind - talking to himself, speaking of the advancement of his country, still making plans about his future empire. Hitler was insane (and some people believe he may have also been suffering from Syphilus (sp?) at the time).


Hitler was *not* insane. If you read the accounts of his Doctors, even at the end, they were reluctant to write that he was insane - even after he was dead when they had no reasons to lie.

I think it's possible that he was displaying psychotic features in the last days of his life; but, under that kind of pressure - with your world caving in on you, having led a war for 6 years, seeing your dreams about to be shattered and facing your imminent demise - that's pretty "normal".

In any case, until those last days, he was not insane whatever. That's not to say he was normal, though most modern psychiatric evaluations of him I've read tend to conclude that he had very strong narcissistic features and many bipolar features also. But insane? No.

[/quote]


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

Lillymoonchild,

I think I misled you there. I agree that not all German soldiers in the Third Reich were evil. I was talking specifically about those that, as Dreamer put it, "helped" in the "final solution". By that I was referring specifically to Polish concentration camp guards, who almost exclusively were members, and chose to be members of, the SS.

Those people are evil inasmuch as we can say anybody is. Though in practice it's hard to remain objective on such "loaded" questions.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Just a quick note.

The title of this thread made me, once again, tremble with rage. I'm not crossing swords with anyone over it, because frankly I'm bored of discussions like this. They go on and on and on and on, from differing fundamental points of view (and yes - I'm guilty of this too)...

Ben - suffering is relative to the individual. Mental pain and anguish is, for the most part, worse than physical pain. Be thankful for having DP ? Jesus wept. Just because others are suffering from different conditions or situations which you deem to be worse. I'd be interested to know how you quantify suffering, and by what standard.

I guess people with cancer should be grateful they don't have DP anymore ? Yeah?


----------



## Ben (Apr 21, 2005)

Martin,

I made a mistake posting this thread. I may offend people with what I'm about to say: I have good reasons for my standpoints, I feel, but I really don't want to be involved in another one of these threads as it seems I cannot make my standpoints on issues without offending/hurting/insulting others. I have no problems continuing this discussion offline through PM or chat or whatever, but I don't want to participate in any more debates on this board - too many things get taken personally.

The arguments also have a tendency on this board to get too broad and too open-ended when others get involved as each person puts their thoughts into the mix and points start getting foggy, lost, and confused. One on one discussion is, I believe, the best way to talk about something like this. That's just my opinion, but I believe it's the most time-saving. So, I'm done on this topic unless someone PMs me.


----------

