Capitol Rotunda

[Lloyd DeMause]

Does anyone know what the statue is on the top of the U.S.
Congressional Capitol Rotunda?
The Rotunda itself is an obvious breast, topped with an obvious
nipple, but there is a statue
of someone on the very top of the nipple and I'm guessing it is of
some goddess (since breasts,
nipples and goddesses usually are tied in to Motherlands in most
nations -- cf Lady Liberty and
Mother Russia and Germania). Anyone know? There are 12 million
references to the Capitol
on Google...
Lloyd

[kathleen duey]

Lloyd--Statue of freedom, or goddess of freedom:

 

main page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views

 

 

enlargable shots:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_1.jpg

 

There is a third view, but it is a silhouette against a bright sky

 

k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     k a t h l e e n  d u e y
http://kathleenduey.blogspot.com/
   www.kathleenduey.com

[kathleen duey]

Sorry, didn't notice it was a general URL

main page

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views

 

 

scroll down for images, click to enlarge them.

[Lloyd DeMause]

Thought so.  Many thanks Kathleen. 

When you cling to your Motherland, it is always as a Killer Mother (with lightning bolt).

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

Lloyd,   Of course a nation is a Group Fantasy.  But do you seriously think that human psychology can dispense with Group Fantasy?  The nation-state GF was created in part to replace, or at least counterbalance, the Church GF.   What do you propose as a replacement for this psychological structure? Are you sure it would be an improvement?   -------Jim --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Lloyd DeMause <psyc...@tiac.net> wrote:

[Lloyd DeMause]

Christian Lackner will shortly publish in the Journal a "non-group-fantasy" nation, the EU,

which does not have a Leader nor authoritarian structure, and you'll see what the new

psychoclasses of the coming generation in Europe can replace the nation with. Stick

with us.

Lloyd

[Lloyd DeMause]

[James Sturges]

I look forward to seeing it. However, I am extremely skeptical that a "nation" that is not based upon a GF --- that is not, in fact, unconsciously "drenched in blood," can survive the first meaningful threat to its existence.

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

James,
With the advanced psychoclass being the most loved and therefore most
secure, adaptive, playful--powerful psychoclass around (and that has
ever been), I can only assume that whatever they come up with it'd be
extremely ably constituted to deal with threats. No?

Patrick

On Sep 29, 1:24 pm, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> I look forward to seeing it. However, I am extremely skeptical that a "nation" that is not based upon a GF --- that is not, in fact, unconsciously "drenched in blood," can survive the first meaningful threat to its existence.
>  
> -------Jim 
>

> --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:

>
> From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>
> Subject: Re: Capitol Rotunda
> To: realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 11:59 AM
>
> Christian Lackner will shortly publish in the Journal a "non-group-fantasy" nation, the EU,
> which does not have a Leader nor authoritarian structure, and you'll see what the new
> psychoclasses of the coming generation in Europe can replace the nation with. Stick
> with us.
> Lloyd
>
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:52 PM, James Sturges wrote:
>
> Lloyd,
>  
> Of course a nation is a Group Fantasy.  But do you seriously think that human psychology can dispense with Group Fantasy?  The nation-state GF was created in part to replace, or at least counterbalance, the Church GF.
>  
> What do you propose as a replacement for this psychological structure? Are you sure it would be an improvement?
>  
> -------Jim
>

> --- On Mon, 9/29/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:

>
> From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>
> Subject: Re: Capitol Rotunda
> To: realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 9:30 AM
>
> Thought so.  Many thanks Kathleen. 
> When you cling to your Motherland, it is always as a Killer Mother (with lightning bolt).
> Lloyd
>
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:25 PM, kathleen duey wrote:
>
> Sorry, didn't notice it was a general URL

> main pagehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views

>  
>  
> scroll down for images, click to enlarge them.
>  
>   
>     
>  
>  

> k a t h l e e n  d u e yhttp://kathleenduey.blogspot.com/ 

>    www.kathleenduey.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kathleen duey
> To: realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Capitol Rotunda
>
> Lloyd--Statue of freedom, or goddess of freedom:
>  
> main page:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views
>  
>  
> enlargable shots:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Exterior_views
>  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_1.jpg
>  
> There is a third view, but it is a silhouette against a bright sky
>  
> k
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

>      k a t h l e e n  d u e yhttp://kathleenduey.blogspot.com/ 

>    www.kathleenduey.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lloyd DeMause" <psych...@tiac.net>
> To: <psychohistory-historicalmotivati...@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 6:56 PM
> Subject: Capitol Rotunda
>
> > 
> > Does anyone know what the statue is on the top of the U.S.  
> > Congressional Capitol Rotunda?
> > The Rotunda itself is an obvious breast, topped with an obvious  
> > nipple, but there is a statue
> > of someone on the very top of the nipple and I'm guessing it is of  
> > some goddess (since breasts,
> > nipples and goddesses usually are tied in to Motherlands in most  
> > nations -- cf Lady Liberty and
> > Mother Russia and Germania).  Anyone know?  There are 12 million  
> > references to the Capitol
> > on Google...
> > Lloyd
> > 

> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[James Sturges]

Is this a fantasy, Patrick?  Do you think that nations rely for military strength primarily on the "higher" psychoclasses?   ------Jim  --- On Tue, 9/30/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

No, not a fantasy, James. The most advanced psychoclass would be all
about peace, of course. However, they would have within their ranks
the most creative (least stulified; least rigid--most free) thinkers
on earth, who could ably attend to such necessities as insuring they
are not vulnerable to their "barbarian" brethren's perpetual need to
war and sacrifice (their own). (They' be like Apple--fun, happy,
with technology that outpaces all competition.)

I know it's easy to imagine those who are most loving as a bunch of
wayward nymphs and pixies. But what they'd really be would be those
who when forced into combat (for them it would really be last resort--
if they sensed their "enemies" [lower psychoclasses] were in the mood
for war, they'd be the type to figure out a way to address their
opponent's need with the least amount of bloodshed as possible), they
would be most ably constituted to resist sacrificing their own, to
magnify the conflict, so as to satiate Mother.

When Britain began their great economic expansion in the seventeen
hundreds (the time when they became a nation of "shopkeepers"), the
conservatives at the time said that the emerence and social
predominance of a middle class (the emerging new psychoclass, as
delineated by Lloyd and Stone) who believed life should be about
commercial pleasures, would ensure that britian would become easy prey
for more martial nations (Athens/Sparta references were everywhere in
the conservative press). I believe it was Burke who pointed out that
the emergence of a nation of shopkeepers had gone hand-in-hand with
(and was largely responsible for) the emergence of Britian's great
naval fleet, which was scoring victory after victory, as Britian's
commercial empire grew and grew and grew.

Cheers,
Patrick

On Sep 30, 12:05 pm, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> Is this a fantasy, Patrick?  Do you think that nations rely for military strength primarily on the "higher" psychoclasses?
>  
> ------Jim 
>

> --- On Tue, 9/30/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lloyd DeMause]

Coming up in the Journal is a Book Review Essay on the book
"Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?" that details how Scandinavian
nations and Austria have improved childrearing enough (outlawed hitting
children, gave mothers lots of money and help in raising each child) to
make the military an ideal of the past. To subscribe to the Journal,
just send me (psyc...@tiac.net) your postal address, and you'll have
the initial year's half-price $32 price.
Lloyd

[James Sturges]

Thank you, Patrick. Believe it or not, I am familiar with this train of thought. I simply do not agree with it.   If there is a vast difference in psychoclasses, as in the comparison of the Islamists vs. the West, where one side is locked into Medieval thought and technological capabilities, then ... yes ... the formulation would apply. But in comparing the capabilities of two psychoclasses who are, let us say, within the same century ... then I simply do not think the assumption would hold true.   In fact, military capability at the battlefield level would depend very little on cleverness or creativity ... and very much on the willingness of soldiers, sailors and airmen to sacrifice themselves, to follow orders without question, and to willingly inflict devastating damage on lots of other people they've never met personally. None of these are traits I would particularly associate with "higher" psychoclasses.   Maybe you consider it an argument that the battles would be delegated to lower psychoclasses from the higher psychoclass leaders. But, that would undermine the thesis of a "non-GF nation".  And, anyway, some of those "lower psychoclass" warriors are inevitably going to rise into leadership, unless we are referring to Plato's Republic.   Maybe you subscribe to the ideal of a totally peaceful world -- a Utopia. In my opinion, the civilization/culture surrounding this Group Fantasy would last exactly as long as it took for them to be discovered by a group of armed sociopaths (e.g., Nazis, Bolsheviks, conquistadors).   In my opinion both Group Fantasy behavior and warfare are permanently baked into the human condition.   I would add that fantasy is an absolutely necessary part of human thought. It should never be devalued or denied, notwithstanding the destruction that can sometimes ensue from particular GFs.   --------Jim

--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

James, I strongly suspect that the only thing that could do the
advanced psychoclass in, is something this century's advanced
psychoclass has outgrown--namely, the feeling that they don't deserve
to be prosperous and strong.

I appreciate hearing but do not believe your theory that "military

capability at the battlefield level would depend very little on

cleverness or creativity" What comes to mind is the dominating play
of the defencemen Lidstrom of the Detroit RedWIngs--the best
defenceman in the NHL. He never plays as if he is possessed by
Demons; instead, he plays in a serenly calm way, always assessing the
best play to make at every particular moment of time. Point being: I
actually imagine the advanced psychoclass would staff their own
"frontlines." (I am noting, though, that I am tending to portay the
advanced class as the sort of cerebrally calm folk Plato delineates/
celebrates in his Republic. I would therefore like to point out that
while the lesser psychclasses are animal passions, I do not imagine
the advanced psychoclass as Reason--the philosophers' praise of Reason
had everything to do with their own fears of "losing control.")

Patrick

On Sep 30, 10:50 pm, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> Thank you, Patrick. Believe it or not, I am familiar with this train of thought. I simply do not agree with it.
>  
> If there is a vast difference in psychoclasses, as in the comparison of the Islamists vs. the West, where one side is locked into Medieval thought and technological capabilities, then ... yes ... the formulation would apply. But in comparing the capabilities of two psychoclasses who are, let us say, within the same century ... then I simply do not think the assumption would hold true.
>  
> In fact, military capability at the battlefield level would depend very little on cleverness or creativity ... and very much on the willingness of soldiers, sailors and airmen to sacrifice themselves, to follow orders without question, and to willingly inflict devastating damage on lots of other people they've never met personally. None of these are traits I would particularly associate with "higher" psychoclasses.
>  
> Maybe you consider it an argument that the battles would be delegated to lower psychoclasses from the higher psychoclass leaders. But, that would undermine the thesis of a "non-GF nation".  And, anyway, some of those "lower psychoclass" warriors are inevitably going to rise into leadership, unless we are referring to Plato's Republic.
>  
> Maybe you subscribe to the ideal of a totally peaceful world -- a Utopia. In my opinion, the civilization/culture surrounding this Group Fantasy would last exactly as long as it took for them to be discovered by a group of armed sociopaths (e.g., Nazis, Bolsheviks, conquistadors).
>  
> In my opinion both Group Fantasy behavior and warfare are permanently baked into the human condition.
>  
> I would add that fantasy is an absolutely necessary part of human thought. It should never be devalued or denied, notwithstanding the destruction that can sometimes ensue from particular GFs.
>  
> --------Jim
>

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

A more honest responses is this: I've subscribed to your journal
before. I was finding that the sort of delightfully experimentative
essays and such I read in abundance in the journals' first number of
years, were in short supply. Lots of good people posting somewhat
pedestrain posts (I think even you started covering your own ass a bit
too much). I strongly suspect that the journal is not doing what it
needs to do to attract the interest of young/old members of the
healthiest psychoclass; something about its need to be scholarly/
professional/respectable is making it home for the best of an older
psychoclass rather than for the looser "McSweeney" generation. I
think that for now I'll continue to try and participate meaningfully
to this discussion group.

Patrick

On Sep 30, 5:13 pm, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
> Coming up in the Journal is a Book Review Essay on the book
> "Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?" that details how Scandinavian
> nations and Austria have improved childrearing enough (outlawed hitting
> children, gave mothers lots of money and help in raising each child) to
> make the military an ideal of the past.  To subscribe to the Journal,

> just send me (psych...@tiac.net) your postal address, and you'll have

[James Sturges]

Patrick, when you state that "the lesser psychclasses are animal passions" I believe you strongly illuminate the area of my disagreement with your "no-GF nation" thesis. For ALL humans have this at their emotional core, do we not?   Again, I think you set up a straw man if you are comparing modern man with a stone-age brute. Of course modern man wins this battle, because of hir superior technology.  (For this same reason the threat posed by the "war on terror" is greatly overblown, probably for political purposes.)   Nor do I think that athletics is in any sense comparable to military affairs. Pacifists can certainly play football (or hockey) too (Consider Muhammad Ali.). Athletics is simply a celebration of the physical aspect of our being.  Moreover, I agree with you that creativity in sports is a great asset ... one that many coaches seek to instill in their athletes and teams. But this is rarely the case on the battlefield, where instantaneous and unquestioned following of orders has been found to be a crucial element of military success.    Neither is the image of a highly pensive thinker necessarily that of a higher psychoclass. As Fairbairne (for one) discussed extensively, intellectualization is a form of splitting -- a characteristic defense mechanism of the schizoid personality structure (now often considered to be in the narcissistic category) and hence is developmentally associated with an infantile defense mechanism in response to painful feelings of abandonment.   BTW, my reference to Plato was not intended to suggest that advanced psychoclass equates with philosopher king, but that in any real-world society, military leaders are going to have a good opportunity to eventually appear amongst the civilian leadership.   --------Jim

--- On Wed, 10/1/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

James, the sort of "hyper-adrenalized" state I associate with animal
passions(!), is something I associate with those who have experienced
the sort of brain development that follows a traumatizing/menancing
childhood. Love, empathy (the higher emotions!), I associate with
those whose course of brain development was determined by long
accompanyment with loving caregivers. I truly do believe that the
marvel of homo sapien sapiens, is that their DNA hasn't trapped them
so that regardless of phylogenetic development, they remain
fundamentally, at the core, brutish (I understand that this isn't
quite what you're arguing). Instead, once freed from sadistic threats
(something I believe entirely possible), the homo sapien sapiens child
will become for all intents and purposes, an entirely loving being.

I've read a lot (well, quite a bit) of the neuroscience (though it is
the work of Stanley Greenspan which ripples through my thoughts/
feelings right now), and, I feel sure, so have you. But it isn't all
this which convinces me: instead, it is my experience of people: I
have encountered those it cannot but seem misleading to attend to how
parts of them still draw them to be aggressive and such. I'm sure
your experience of people has lead you to different conclusions.


You know, what works on the battlefield is really something I'd have
to hear more about. I've heard various different generals argue
various different things. Moreover, I think a heck of a lot of
military officers like to imagine their troups as needing bravery more
than they do minds/self determination, to satisfy their own self-
assessment needs. Typical managerial (classist) think. Knowing/
suspecting this doesn't mean you're wrong, though. Also, not making a
connection between the field of sports and the battlefield might be
the right thing to do, but it certainly would go against the
(historical) grain.

Intellectualization as a defensive tack to ward of feelings of
abandonment sounds interesting to me. I'm thinking that I associate
it mostly with early experiences of maternal emotional excess. What
is coming to mind is all the literature I've read where complaints
against unreason and for good reasoning (and the spartan life), go
hand in hand with tirades against (feminine--read: maternal) luxury
and indulgence.

Patrick

On Oct 1, 10:57 am, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> Patrick, when you state that "the lesser psychclasses are animal passions" I believe you strongly illuminate the area of my disagreement with your "no-GF nation" thesis. For ALL humans have this at their emotional core, do we not?
>  
> Again, I think you set up a straw man if you are comparing modern man with a stone-age brute. Of course modern man wins this battle, because of hir superior technology.  (For this same reason the threat posed by the "war on terror" is greatly overblown, probably for political purposes.)
>  
> Nor do I think that athletics is in any sense comparable to military affairs. Pacifists can certainly play football (or hockey) too (Consider Muhammad Ali.). Athletics is simply a celebration of the physical aspect of our being.  Moreover, I agree with you that creativity in sports is a great asset ... one that many coaches seek to instill in their athletes and teams. But this is rarely the case on the battlefield, where instantaneous and unquestioned following of orders has been found to be a crucial element of military success. 
>  
> Neither is the image of a highly pensive thinker necessarily that of a higher psychoclass. As Fairbairne (for one) discussed extensively, intellectualization is a form of splitting -- a characteristic defense mechanism of the schizoid personality structure (now often considered to be in the narcissistic category) and hence is developmentally associated with an infantile defense mechanism in response to painful feelings of abandonment.
>  
> BTW, my reference to Plato was not intended to suggest that advanced psychoclass equates with philosopher king, but that in any real-world society, military leaders are going to have a good opportunity to eventually appear amongst the civilian leadership.
>  
> --------Jim
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Lloyd DeMause]

Patrick: Your problem is you don't subscribe to The Journal of
Psychohistory.
I published a long article on the psychology and neurobiology of
childrearing
modes and their effects on adult violence and other patterns you
discuss.
Just email me (psyc...@tiac.net) your postal address and I'll send
you that issue free.
Lloyd deMause

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

Hi Lloyd. I've read that article (I appreciate that you put this
article up on the web--that was an open, generous thing to do). How
would you like me to ammend what I just posted, though? I gather
that you would prefer that I just referred James back to your bit on
the neurobiology of biology (the Master did it best, James), and then
shut the hell up. Hope I'm wrong about this.

My unwillingness to subscribe to your journal right now is--as I tried
to explain--not a problem. Instead, it is to a certain extent a bit
of a protest that the journal has not adapted itself so that the sort
of people who will soon really matter in the world (i.e., the advanced
psychoclass McSweeney readers) find themselves drawn to your journal.
To me it really doesn't matter if the likes of Time or Newsweek or CNN
or even the New Yorker find themselves referring to psychohistorical
work. The readers of these journals are not of the advanced
psychoclass--they're old guard, whose time--thank god--is nearly
done. Right now in universities the advanced psychoclasss are drawn
to work in feminist/postcolonial/gay-lesbian approaches to history and
literature. And they should be: the people who teach from these
approaches generally tend to be nicer than the kind of folk I've read/
heard teach psychohistory. (I love you dude, but you can tend to be
ornery old fellow yourself, Lloyd.) It would be a pity if this
situation doesn't change.

I'd have preferred you just got youself meaningfully involved in
James' and my discussion. Please do stop just popping in only to
scold, correct, and to direct the wayward to your readings--it's kind
of rude, actually (as Alice scolded the Cheshire cat).

Patrick

On Oct 1, 7:55 pm, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
> Patrick:  Your problem is you don't subscribe to The Journal of  
> Psychohistory.
> I published a long article on the psychology and neurobiology of  
> childrearing
> modes and their effects on adult violence and other patterns you  
> discuss.

> Just email me (psych...@tiac.net) your postal address and I'll send  

[Lloyd DeMause]

Patrick: I'm afraid if I do what you want for the Journal I would
have only a couple of
article contributors writing for it and only a handful subscribing (I
already have dropped
from 6,000 to 1,000 subscribers in last three years, with those who
refused to renew
writing me "too depressing" or "too hard to believe" or something
similar.) You are
the ONLY subscriber who dropped out and told me to be more radical.
Lloyd

[Terence O'Leary]

As I recall, I seem to remember that we were taught in school that the statue was Mercury, symbolic of speed and fidelity, i.e. swift justice. I do not have a "source" for this thought, only an anecdote. I was "taught" in Catholic Parochial Schools.

Terence

[Terence O'Leary]

Of course, it's "Lady Liberty"

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

Lloyd,

I'm thinking about your reply. I admit I'm surprised: I would have
figured the numbers had increased. Mustn't have felt very good to
take risks and have the numbers dwindle like that; being "punished"
with relative obscurity for doing right--Hmmm. Maybe, though, this
development could serve as a spur to encourage you to let those who
are interested in psychohistory but are not those who would push the
discipline where it really ought to and could go, go. (I wonder if
some of your interpretations of America's current situation could be
presented so that mags like McSweeney would draw their readers'
attention to it. I think your Reagan's America one of the most
interesting and fun works I've ever read. Something like that done
for the current four year cycle, maybe . . . )

In any case, maybe this discussion group could continue to do some
real good that'll draw in some of those who've had it with it with
tentative bullshit from those who are far more interested in
consolidating their lives' gains than in engaging in potentially
psychologically unnerving explorations (to me, that sums up a hell of
a lot of academia, as I experienced it) of psychic experience. I know
that personally whenever I see writers/thinkers these days who are
willing to look foolish to explore ideas they find interesting, I
cheer loudly (what's life about, anyway?). Hasn't been an age for
this kind of thing--for it usually means being ignored by everyone
("what's up with that strange fellow?"--and then they move on) while
others are oh so loudly and repeatedly feted: and that's almost
impossible for even the healthiest to be able to take. Still, there
are books being written like that popular underground British one--_Is
it Just Me or is Everything Shit?--which suggest to me that maybe
brazen risk-takers will start getting the support they deserve and may
to some extent need, from the people who'll most matter in the
upcoming years--that is, by those who have had enough support from
their mothers that they don't need to use literature/science/society
to shore up/strengthen their fragile psyches ("please don't let the
earth crumble from underneath me!"), and who really are interested in
undertaking new journeys, whatever the risk involved.


Patrick

[James Sturges]

Patrick, I am reading with great interest your commentary on JPH. Though I have read some wonderful articles in the Journal over the years, I would have to say that, in general, the articles lack the spice of these forum conversations.   Lloyd and a core group laid out a methodology for doing PH years ago in an effort to instigate scientific/academic rigor. Thus techniques such as fantasy analysis and research into childhood were introduced, more recently augmented with neurophychology.  And Lloyd is famous for the extensive footnoting and referencing of his articles (Nobody can possibly keep up with his breadth of reading).   But this effort to (prematurely IMO) claim a role as a science is as problematical for psychohistory as it was for Freud.  Of course Freud emerged directly from 19th century materialism, and believed deeply in the scientific basis of psychoanalysis ... but in my view (and I love Freud's work) this view was one of his own fantasies.   I think it is more 3rd millenium to realize that the frontiers of knowledge are not contained within the category: science -- and that science is what the followers do once repeatable experiments are discovered that can be endlessly elaborated upon.  I don't know if this speaks to your concerns or not,  but I would love to see JPH unchained from the effort to fit into a scientific pattern, and instead offer a playground for unbridled interpretations based upon the limited amount of theoretical basis in large group psychology that is currently available (e.g., Freud, Bion, DeMause, Lipton) -- as well as attempts to expand upon this limited body of theory.  That's what I think would generate the excitement.   --------Jim

--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> wrote:

) your postal address and I'll send > >> you that issue free. > >> Lloyd deMause > > >> On Oct 1, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Patrick McEvoy-Halston wrote: > (snip)

[Lloyd DeMause]

I regularly ask for subscriptions both from realpsychohistory list
and Jerry Atlas's
PH Discussion List (1600 people). I never get a single subscription
from these requests.
So the discussion groups do little for the Journal.
Lloyd

[Lloyd DeMause]

Jim:  I in fact will publish exciting articles as long as they have wide basis in evidence that can be cited.

But I get virtually NO articles without continuously begging for them.

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

Lloyd, I would like to (most respectfully) question what you mean by "evidence."   We both know that papers in psychoanalysis, including some of the most influential, are often published on the basis of a single case. Actual clinical experience with patients is considered the gold standard of psychoanalytic literature -- and rightly so. Yet ... am I the only one that oftens suspects these seminal "scientific" papers are more properly understood as the subjective musings of geniuses?   On the other hand, those of us that are fascinated with the psychology of large groups are expected to document interpretations with ... what?  Thousands of citations to some other literature?  It scarcely needs to be pointed out that we cannot get society at large to lay down on our couch for seven years and free associate. Yet neither can we ever escape involvement with these "patients."   Moreover, experiments in real-life, or applied, psychohistory are carried out all the time. These are everything from elections to wars to the stock market (or other markets) to movies, to advertising ... etc.  So, in reality, we do not have a shortage of available "clinical" material, but an embarrasment of riches. It's all around us.   You have contributed a broad theoretical framework for psychohistory--primarily grounded in the role of large groups in channeling the individual psychology of dissociation. You have courageously pushed the epoch of developmental psychology back to the birth trauma and even the late experiences in the womb. (This is a particularly fabulous area of your work, IMO.) Others, including Freud and Bion have also made huge, albeit sporadic, contributions.  Your framework, and that of others, can be referenced by those wishing to make interpretations.  Over time, if the interpretations are deemed strong enough, the frameworks will gain credibility. Doubtless there will also be further theoretical innovations.   I guess what I am asking is whether your "rules of evidence" might be overly restrictive, especially for the still nascent stage of development of PH compared to what we all believe (I suspect) to be its potential.  Maybe you are making it too difficult for would-be authors because of an inappropriate application of academic style to what should still be a more free-wheeling, frontier exploration.   ------Jim

--- On Sun, 10/5/08, Lloyd DeMause <psyc...@tiac.net> wrote:

[Lloyd DeMause]

I guess "evidence" is at least one if not two actual historical cases for motivations.

Anyway, are you saying you would like to write a theoretical piece without any evidence at all?

Whose work is it I'm overlooking?

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

The "evidence" is all around us. We cannot escape it.   Maybe my disconnect is with the true definition of psychohistory as it has evolved in JPH. I'm sorry, but reading endless articles about the details of medieval childhoods gets old pretty fast, and maybe that's why the readership is shrinking.  If psychohistory is "the science of historical motivations", it is only valuable (as a "science") in dealing with the present and the future.  The other stuff is more in line with what I would call "the history of psychohistory."  Kind of like "history of science" --- a discipline of derivative interest from the main purpose.   As for writing an article ... well, I came to PH as a culmination of years of study in the psychodynamics of large groups via personal observations, practical applications (in business and finance); and, more importantly perhaps, immersion in the relevant literature of psychoanalysis. (I am neither clinician nor academic.) But you often admonished me: "Don't bring up Bion, Klein, Kernberg, Fairbairne etc."  Then, when you were moderator of the other list, you censored my posts if I took issue with Jerry Atlas. That drove me away from the whole field for a few years. (Obviously the approach has killed the other list too, since I re-subscribed to it lately and there is no activity.)   If you are interested in an article from me, and are open to something new and different, then perhaps Patrick would work with me on expanding the dialog about PH "from and outsider's point of view."  If we could get past that initial hurdle, then I could see putting together pieces on the financial markets, where I have employed a PH-influenced approach to trading for the past several years, and fared extremely well.   As another suggestion, I think you should solicit inputs from PH-educated parents as to how they have employed the insights of PH into the raising of their own children. What, if any, have been the challenges ... and how has it worked out.   Best, Jim

[Lloyd DeMause]

Guess you don't like HISTORY.  Only the future concerns you.  

I'll be publishing a long article on the markets by our Swiss Institute for Psychohistory manager shortly.

Take a look at it and see if you want to oppose it somehow.  Then email me what the focus

of your article will be "from an outsider's point of view"  which I take it means ignoring everything

we've found in the past 36 years.  Then I'll see.  OK?

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

Lloyd, in case you haven't noticed, I have had a good dialog with Florian as long as I have been on this list.       You are the one who brought up the shrinking membership and the difficulty in attracting papers.  If you insist on any potential writer studying the last 36 years of JPH before they submit an article, then I am afraid your pool of authors will continue to shrink. I am not suggesting that you accept something of poor quality, but I think you realize that I am conversant with the field, and especially your work. That should be enough for a paper "from an outsider's point of view."  Otherwise, if you exert prior editorial restraint, then it violates the spirit of the avowed theme.  (BTW, my offer is only good if Patrick will join in.)   ------Jim

[Lloyd DeMause]

I was just trying to avoid you having to write up a whole paper and submit it and take a

chance as with all submissions that it might not be printed.  Especially with economic material,

especially now, it is important that the material be fairly recent.  I'm now filling the Summer

2009 issue, because Florian's piece will be in the Spring issue, and it will seem odd to have

forecasts based on year-old economic events, true?  I have more than "my theories" as "editorial restraint"

I fear.  Quarterly issues are not like email postings.

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

The market has long ago taught me not to make "predictions" --- at least not short to intermediate term. The market is such a powerful GF, it often seems to have a mind of its own ... and that mind is frequently perverse.   However, I will remind you that I tried to convince you to invest IPA funds in gold mining stock about 9 years ago, when gold was at at $260 per oz. (now $860)

[Lloyd DeMause]

But my question as an Editor of a scholarly journal is this:

Should I have published an article that focused solely on a suggestion to invest in gold?

What does that teach our readers, who subscribe to learn about historical motivations?

That's our scholarly goal.

Lloyd

[James Sturges]

I never considered writing an article on gold back then; but if I had, it would have focused on an interpretation of the GF that imputes value to the metal (even referencing historical material), and the rationale for believing that this particular GF was due to become cathected, thereby increasing its value.  By expressing the PH reasoning, then when the event came about (or failed to come about) as predicted, one could appropriately value or devalue the underlying interpretation of the GFs controlling the market.   Lloyd, the world loves predictions. Like when, back in the mid 90s, you predicted a 2nd MidEast War as being virtually inevitable about a decade removed from the first.  I think what is important is that predictions be checked out, and the appropriate lessons drawn from both hits and misses. This would have the potential to advance PH both substantively and in the PR department, IMO.

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

Lloyd,

How can anyone who appreciates and largely agrees with your argument
of history largely being about slow, gradual psychoclass evolution,
not to some extent find HISTORY displeasing. The prospect of studying
history--because it means extensive involvement with largely unhealthy
people--should make any healthy contemporary groan! If medievals were
of some way lower psychoclass (which I believe true), who, though they
no longer sacrificed their first born, still inflicted continuous
torturous garbage onto their kids, why the hell would we want to be
acquainted with these people?! Right now there are two arguments
within the field of academic history for studying history--namely: a)
history "contains" riches; and b) we need to study history in order to
expose oppressive narratives and thereby help free ourselves from the
chains of the past. Your view of history is history as horror show,
and your view of freedom is that it is obtainable only when we stop
exposing our kids to horrors (isn't the study of history to some
extent akin to the medievals' practice of showing their kids corpses
[it's for your own good, kiddies!]): that is, it would seem to follow
from your work that the last thing we ought to want to do is study
history! It may still be necessary to do so (maybe only that lived by
the last few generations, though?), but even this cannot easily be
assumed.

Someone ought to have made this argument long ago, and I hope someone
has--How can you read your writings and not think this?

Patrick

> > --- On Mon, 10/6/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>

> >> --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >> From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>

> >>> <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From: Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>

[Patrick McEvoy-Halston]

James,

I really like your suggestion that the PH journal work to help
establish just how the study of psychohistory has helped contributers
raise their kids. It strikes me that anyone who agrees with Lloyd's
sense of how society improves, would always want to monitor their
scholarly activities to try and make sure they work best and primarily
to promote more nurturing relationships in the world. You'd expect
them (i.e., contributers) to be biographical, for they'd appreciate
just how much their own relationship with their mothers determines not
just what they study, but their ultimate goals in engaging in their
studies--including the real possibility they're still influenced by an
inner director which threatens horrible punishment if they dis
"mama." You'd most certainly expect them to buck the scholarly trend
and speak in a warm, engaging, friendly voice, for they'd want their
readers to know that if they ever met them in person, they'd see their
real worth, and like them very, very much. With such things, they'd
know, more people smile, and the world becomes a better place.

Patrick

On Oct 6, 11:51 am, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> The "evidence" is all around us. We cannot escape it.
>  
> Maybe my disconnect is with the true definition of psychohistory as it has evolved in JPH. I'm sorry, but reading endless articles about the details of medieval childhoods gets old pretty fast, and maybe that's why the readership is shrinking.  If psychohistory is "the science of historical motivations", it is only valuable (as a "science") in dealing with the present and the future.  The other stuff is more in line with what I would call "the history of psychohistory."  Kind of like "history of science" --- a discipline of derivative interest from the main purpose.
>  
> As for writing an article ... well, I came to PH as a culmination of years of study in the psychodynamics of large groups via personal observations, practical applications (in business and finance); and, more importantly perhaps, immersion in the relevant literature of psychoanalysis. (I am neither clinician nor academic.) But you often admonished me: "Don't bring up Bion, Klein, Kernberg, Fairbairne etc."  Then, when you were moderator of the other list, you censored my posts if I took issue with Jerry Atlas. That drove me away from the whole field for a few years. (Obviously the approach has killed the other list too, since I re-subscribed to it lately and there is no activity.)
>  
> If you are interested in an article from me, and are open to something new and different, then perhaps Patrick would work with me on expanding the dialog about PH "from and outsider's point of view."  If we could get past that initial hurdle, then I could see putting together pieces on the financial markets, where I have employed a PH-influenced approach to trading for the past several years, and fared extremely well.
>  
> As another suggestion, I think you should solicit inputs from PH-educated parents as to how they have employed the insights of PH into the raising of their own children. What, if any, have been the challenges ... and how has it worked out.
>  
> Best,
> Jim
>

> --- On Mon, 10/6/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>

> Subject: Re: Discussion of JPH
> To: realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 3:45 AM
>
> I guess "evidence" is at least one if not two actual historical cases for motivations.
> Anyway, are you saying you would like to write a theoretical piece without any evidence at all?
> Whose work is it I'm overlooking?
> Lloyd
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:31 PM, James Sturges wrote:
>
> Lloyd, I would like to (most respectfully) question what you mean by "evidence."
>  
> We both know that papers in psychoanalysis, including some of the most influential, are often published on the basis of a single case. Actual clinical experience with patients is considered the gold standard of psychoanalytic literature -- and rightly so. Yet ... am I the only one that oftens suspects these seminal "scientific" papers are more properly understood as the subjective musings of geniuses?
>  
> On the other hand, those of us that are fascinated with the psychology of large groups are expected to document interpretations with ... what?  Thousands of citations to some other literature?  It scarcely needs to be pointed out that we cannot get society at large to lay down on our couch for seven years and free associate. Yet neither can we ever escape involvement with these "patients."
>  
> Moreover, experiments in real-life, or applied, psychohistory are carried out all the time. These are everything from elections to wars to the stock market (or other markets) to movies, to advertising ... etc.  So, in reality, we do not have a shortage of available "clinical" material, but an embarrasment of riches. It's all around us.
>  
> You have contributed a broad theoretical framework for psychohistory--primarily grounded in the role of large groups in channeling the individual psychology of dissociation. You have courageously pushed the epoch of developmental psychology back to the birth trauma and even the late experiences in the womb. (This is a particularly fabulous area of your work, IMO.) Others, including Freud and Bion have also made huge, albeit sporadic, contributions.  Your framework, and that of others, can be referenced by those wishing to make interpretations.  Over time, if the interpretations are deemed strong enough, the frameworks will gain credibility. Doubtless there will also be further theoretical innovations.
>  
> I guess what I am asking is whether your "rules of evidence" might be overly restrictive, especially for the still nascent stage of development of PH compared to what we all believe (I suspect) to be its potential.  Maybe you are making it too difficult for would-be authors because of an inappropriate application of academic style to what should still be a more free-wheeling, frontier exploration.
>  
> ------Jim
>

> --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> From: Lloyd DeMause <psych...@tiac.net>

> Subject: Re: Discussion of JPH
> To: realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 9:31 PM
>
> Jim:  I in fact will publish exciting articles as long as they have wide basis in evidence that can be cited.
> But I get virtually NO articles without continuously begging for them.
> Lloyd
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 1:59 AM, James Sturges wrote:
>
> Patrick, I am reading with great interest your commentary on JPH. Though I have read some wonderful articles in the Journal over the years, I would have to say that, in general, the articles lack the spice of these forum conversations.
>  
> Lloyd and a core group laid out a methodology for doing PH years ago in an effort to instigate scientific/academic rigor. Thus techniques such as fantasy analysis and research into childhood were introduced, more recently augmented with neurophychology.  And Lloyd is famous for the extensive footnoting and referencing of his articles (Nobody can possibly keep up with his breadth of reading).
>  
> But this effort to (prematurely IMO) claim a role as a science is as problematical for psychohistory as it was for Freud.  Of course Freud emerged directly from 19th century materialism, and believed deeply in the scientific basis of psychoanalysis ... but in my view (and I love Freud's work) this view was one of his own fantasies.
>  
> I think it is more 3rd millenium to realize that the frontiers of knowledge are not contained within the category: science -- and that science is what the followers do once repeatable experiments are discovered that can be endlessly elaborated upon.  I don't know if this speaks to your concerns or not,  but I would love to see JPH unchained from the effort to fit into a scientific pattern, and instead offer a playground for unbridled interpretations based upon the limited amount of theoretical basis in large group psychology that is currently available (e.g., Freud, Bion, DeMause, Lipton) -- as well as attempts to expand upon this limited body of theory.  That's what I think would generate the excitement.
>  
> --------Jim
>

> --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>