It is already on its way to becoming history. Tucson follows in a series that includes Columbine, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech -- not to forget the continuous streams of smaller aggressions to keep the genus going. Wanton acts of terror, to the point of shocking deliberate murders that seem inexplicable to normal thinking.
And the perpetual question: is man good or evil?
Columnists and many others ask: Could this one have been seen in advance? Could anything have been done to prevent it?
Our President is a "cool" one. Not cold, but with his emotions controlled in public. Not completely. The mention of Christy brings the moisture to his eyes.
He has met every barb, challenge, rejection or crisis thus far with a straight frame, his head tilted up, his mouth tight, his face grim, his will determined not to crack.
For this, he is both admired and criticized. The ambivalent public does not have one unified reaction about how to live or lead with emotions. Bush's distance from Katrina played against him. Giuliani, under his helmet in the crowd in the smoke of the 9/11 horror, was catapulted to become a national candidate by his behavior. Senator Muskie dropped out of contention for the Presidency when he cried, hurt by attacks against his wife. Rep. Boehner, the new speaker of the House, emotes easily, copiously. While this might be about internal pride and appreciation, as "crying at a happy ending," he is dubbed on one front page as the new "Wheezer of the House".
Howard Dean was too angry; his human outburst in public did not sit well, where a "stiff upper lip", or political statements of inconsistency, or selective distortions, or overtly insincere ones, are the accepted, or even the required currency of communication. Public officials incur wrath and criticism at a show of emotions, but an equal amount of criticism for holding them back.
What was universally praised and applauded and appreciated about Obama in Tucson was that he spared one side as having a larger part to play over the other in stimulating protest that was able to turn violent. Both sides shared the applause and praise and unity. At least at the time of mourning, so shortly after the acute crisis.
In fact, Sarah Palin was right, that this crime could occur in any individual, and the "blame", if there is to be one, belongs to him alone.
No one will ever know how bipartisan the reaction of appreciative relief would have been had the victim been in the opposite camp -- how much the other side would have resisted a self-righteous position. One knew a more differentiated, polarized response would come later. Our country has not yet passed the test of a severely-dichotomized nation.
One question is not, or should not be opposed. What does the science of mental functioning have to contribute, to shed light on the objective facts of the phenomenon under the microscope, in the hope, even if a vain one, of accelerating some degree of control of such outbursts by a process of reason?
This comes up following each new tragedy, however rare it seems to be to sufficiently ponder an answer. In the lively development of psychological understanding over the past century, a theory of the psychology of action remains the most murky and the last to be focused upon and understood.
Before this brings a torrent of disappointment, if not criticism and confusion, consider the magnitude of the goal. There are 300 million of us in this country alone, and no two are alike. Not even identical twins live the same lives; differences in life experiences are as frequent as what is shared. While many facets of behavior can be predicted based on the past, one can never be certain of the next outward action by a specific individual.
Nor can this be explained in retrospect. A pathologist cannot point to the crucial differences between the brains of an Einstein or a Hitler.
We daily see in the lives of political figures the instability of the most successful-looking families, as much on the public as on the private stage. Governors, candidates for the highest offices, leading secular or even religious leaders, moral models to millions of people, turn out, to our repeated shock, to have clay feet. We are not surprised to see some of them go to jail.
I would like to point to and at least register the essential moment in explanatory theory trying to understand the nature of an impending act, as this takes its place in the framework of the modern mental sciences. In summary, this is mainly from a composite of psychoanalysis, dynamic psychiatry and psychology, what these disciplines share in common in explaining human action. With all its limitations, the amount we know of this area is as much as still resides in mystery.
The theory generally applied and accepted by this composite of mental sciences, is that human action is the final external psychic product of a universal process that consists of a series of preceding internal, unconscious psychological events. The unconscious is a complex realm that plays a part in every human mind. Every intended action, or decision, is preceded by an unconscious process of "trial action", testing the action for its consequences, to receive back a judgment of safety or danger. To accomplish this, the intended action is scanned against all memories of previous instances of the same acts, to judge previous experiences of what can follow from them. The signal received is anxiety or the lack of it. The brain behind this activity is quicker and more complex than any computer manufactured by man. Results are almost instantaneous.
After time, from long previous experience, some actions become quite automatic. We do not think much about crossing the street. Unless we are suddenly in London, we look first in the right direction. In a foreign country, our learned automaticities and facilities are thrown off.
After a signal of safety or anxiety, the remainder of the sequence is permitted to run its course. Outward manifestations of the mental activity emerge in some combination of thoughts, feelings and acts. The first two remain quite private; the latter affects the outer world.
Think what reflection Jared's intended act should have called for. But here a long, previous build-up of his own inner pathological version of consequences played their decisive part. He would not be apprehended and punished; the pernicious government would be put out of business. While the individual Jared Lee Loughner himself is responsible for carrying thought into action, stemming from the extreme nature of his delusions, it still seems a stretch of denial to believe that the long external input of extreme political rhetoric played no role in sustaining the sick ideation behind the act.
How can such distortions and misconceptions be known and controlled in 300 million people?
We actually do not know how many such aberrant actions have indeed been intercepted, by professionals confronted at various stages of such proclivities, from therapists to security agents. It is only action executed outward into society of which we finally, and suddenly, become aware. A bystander during the fracas who had a concealed weapon, almost shot a wrong person in the confusion, but his hand was stopped at the last split-second by someone next to him.
Another recent article from this site by Jason Linkins stresses preference for "a slow and thoughtful process" over hasty legislation stemming impulsively from this event. I obviously agree. The built-in mechanism of delay and check that normally takes place before anyone does anything is the safeguard of the human race, or we would be living in even more mayhem than we do. It is in pathological cases in which it is either bypassed or mis-used that we are in trouble.
Here is a new study which shows the pills that are the most violence-inducing.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031017_violence_prescription_drugs.html
what is the best relief from stress[ entropy,humpty dumpty] ? meditation , deep rest
www.tm.org
this is interesting http://www.newscientist.com/special/infectious-moods
http://www.greatriverbooks.com/PlayingInTheUnifiedFieldPage.htm
Enviornment can add to the insanity of any individually ill person. The question remains...is our current politics a sane environment?
I also second the kiss my buttons statement made by others. Gosh darn it.
The functionality of the Go/NoGo area of the subconscious is influenced by both hardwiring and external perceptions. Some of us are defective units.
Defective units are more susceptible to the flames of hate and fear.
Therefore don't agitate whackos. No good comes from it.
Still on point and discussing the issues at hand, what if they were saying:
"The country is going to heck in a basket and we need to work together to fix it. If you're out of work help out where you can. Help paint the porch for an elderly neighbor, get involved in personal ways to make a daily difference, only then will we get back on track... and etc.'
I think the unbalanced amongst us would at least get into less trouble that way.
Instead we say get a gun the gov't is out to get you and we act surprised by the results.
Finally, his act was not politically motivated it was politically instigated, by the "pundit/candidates" and their discourse from the right.
Yes, there is a line and only a fool would deny it.
Peace
Many said Sarah Palin made the shooter do it, citing a political map with cross-hairs.
Sarah Palin said if any blame is to be assessed it's on the guman alone.
And the blame game continues to this day: right blaming left...left blaming right.
Pres Obama didn't blame anyone. His focus appeared to be on himself, "the cool one." As the featured speaker at a campaign-style rally masquerading as a "memorial service," the president kicked off his reeelection campaign. The DNC packed the gymnasium with a raucous, screaming crowd of college kids. Even tee shirts were for sold to commemorate the event. Is the DNC going to stage every campaign rally like a rock concert starring Mr. Cool and his groupies? Will they sell commemorative tee shirts at every rally? Oh my gosh, I have Obama fatigue already!
Go take some Geritol and get ready for real excitement coming your way.
By the way, the college sold the tee shirts, not the DNC.
It sounds like you already had Obama fatigue. Perhaps some deep breaths and a change of your tv channel/radio dial would help.
Both had extraordinary intellect. We see Eistein brilliance for obvious reasons. His genius has explained the unknown workings of the physical world. His work is the building base for mathematical/scientific discovery and exploration. Yet, is it not equally important that he also inspired an massive army of creators and innovators providing for the greater good of humanity?
Hitler in my opinion has extraordinary intelligence as well. His motives were obviously different, and outed the most commonly known and horrific genocide of the west. He had an interpersonal intelligence that lead people to think and act the way he wanted them too (or at least to enable a hateful person to justify pulling the trigger).
Both have instilled an defining legacy in history.
The difference between brain and mind? I'm not sure. I think it is more important to distinguish how the two work with each other. How can you foster a brilliant mind, or any mind at that, to perform positive actions, not destructive. How do we help a society, or individual, grow and progress without compromising or stifling everyones individual needs, wants, and abilities?
I do believe that people inherently want to provide for the greater good in one capacity or another. I also believe that most people can do it with the proper nourishment. What we need to look at is not differences but how we can embrace them to get on the same playing field.
Each person can begin with understanding and withdrawing support from his own distortions and misconceptions. This will take him a long distance in having a reasonable life, regardless of what other people are doing.
Apparently reality is giving people ample opportunity to recognize these facts.
The children today are inundated with violence through TV, movies, internet, and constant war both on our streets and overseas. They are sponges, soaking up everything around them. Are we surprised that some do not process that information with temperence which they have not yet learned? Loughner constantly tested everyone he came in contact with and they withdrew from him, rightfully so. I wonder if a child who consistently gets away with testing others is able to suppress rage until he can no longer process anything, or if brain chemicals were mis-firing from the get go? There's a reason that children are consistently medicated in this country, can it all be due to mis-fires or is it caused from a corrupt society of killing?
Can any hu(man) provide the definitive definition of what constitutes good or evil? As I suspect every individual only submits their own unique personal interpretation of the phenomenon. If confirmed by investigation, would that not mean good and evil are themselves of human derivation?
“A pathologist cannot point to the crucial differences between the brains of an Einstein or a Hitler”.
Then may a layman posit, Leo? One thought that he knew everything. While the other knew that he didn’t. Let greater minds determine which is who.
“We are not surprised to see some of them go to jail”.
More alarming. We are not surprised to see some of them go into government.
“the amount we know of this area is as much as still resides in mystery”.
It could not be more opaque and murky, if neither of the “realities” to which patient and pathologist are referring were not actual reality at all?
How can such distortions and misconceptions be known and controlled in 300 million people?
When presented with a magic trick, the mind is bamboozled. When shown how flaws in the perception process are being exploited, the illusion disappears.
"a slow and thoughtful process"
Suppose the captain of the Polish premier’s plane had said to his superior. “If I attempt a landing and you’re wrong. What's the worst that can happen? If I don’t attempt a landing and I am wrong. What's the worst that can happen?”
Nobody is only good or only evil. After the Auschwiz-trials in the 50-ies, the German author Peter Weiss came up with a term that describes the situation well: he called it the banality of evil.
Weiss made the observation that sadistic concentration-camp guards, had often lead completely normal lives before the war, and after. They were teachers, grocery store owners, farmers, or nurses. Normal people, with no criminal or violent history, many even with a compassion for others. Then someone gave them a uniform, jackboots, a gun, and absolute authority over life and death of others. Suddenly many of them turned into sadistic monsters, just to rerun to their old lives after the war, and carry on as normal Dads and husbands, as normal Moms and wives.
Is there an instance where infanticide is acceptable?
Is there an instance where the rape of 3 year old is acceptable?
Is there an instance where the extermination of a race is acceptable because of prejudice?
Just because Peter Weiss coined a phrase which eliminates conscience doesn't mean its correct.
If I missed the point of your comment, please elaborate.
Weiss did not attempt to eliminate conscience. The opposite was the case. He himself had to flee Germany after the Nazis took over, and some of his realitves were killed in the camps. Weiss tried to shed light on the German killing machine, and on the phenomenon that absolutely normal, civilized people can turned into sadists, when given a uniform.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html
Per the NIMH:
"Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity."—
Additionally, it's well documented that many people with severe mental disorders discontinue their medications for various reasons: intolerable side effects, thinking they are cured, and/or cost. (if you can't hold a job and have no insurance, how do you even pay for the medications?)
===
In view of this, selling guns to random people off the street is a crap shoot. Every time a gun is sold, there's a 1 in 17 chance that the buyer has one or more severe mental illnesses, which may or may not be treated.
Health care should be universal, not gun ownership; that should be restricted to law enforcement only.
A well regulated militia is not the arming of semi-psychotic people, as advocated by the Tea Party.
I know of many people with juvenile mental histories who are out there buying guns with absolutely no problem. Some of the 1 - 17 you mention will be screened out. But the rest will get their hands on a gun. The rest of the gun-toters will shoot the wrong person when the firing starts.
I personally believe a person should expect the right to have a firearm, though there should definitely be more restrictions on the number of rounds and caliber. However, to tell a law abiding citizen they can't have a .38 revolver would be a bit coddling.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
As a gunowner and a conservative you seem very certain that you have all the answers about who has mental problems and the number of those with mental problems. etc.
You seem to argue that the NIMH is exaggerating for its own selfish interests as part of big gobermint, etc., even as those who died by the hand of a gun nut are barely in the ground.
Why do you give these mentally ill people - some 45 million kids on medicine for psychiatric problems a pass? That figure comes from the Wall Street Journal 12-28-10 edition.
The NIMH statistics may actually be UNDER-inflated instead of OVER-inflated.
And the answer is.....NO! Man is good AND evil.