It’s almost like this at times, there’s a small innocent little boy running around screaming to nobody for help, or for understanding… He holds he leash to a dark demon of wrath who will be unleashed if all goes to shit.
Is that about how it works with people?
Story of my life, leading me to chronically battle substance, gambling and other obsessive traits, except the post I was leashed to was not wrathful, but rationalising and condescending.
Sure, that sounds familiar.
I think there is a little boy (or girl) and a demon inside all of us, but I don’t know if the child is always holding the demon’s leash.
Gib: the child can't let go, unless the demon releases him.
Then who’s got who on the leash?
It depends: on who is the child and who is the demon.
Andthen there is the process of letting the demon no longer be a cast off from the whole.
Demons come with magic.
Yes but white?
Or black? The child doesen't know the difference. That is his redemption. That is faust's childhood, and the magician's downfall. The magician should have alchemically won, though, faust trick was not honest.
Who really won the exchange? Faust deceived himself short term. He thought the old horned one would give up as easily by simple tricks. He may have been grossly mistaken. The child, well, he isn’t out of the woods yet, just because he thought he so easily won by deceipt. It was a clever subterfuge, nevertheless, in spite of it… Maybe Netzche overlooked this clever little sub plot.
I don’t think the Faustian devil is the same as the demon being talked about here. There it is an outside Agency who bestows Powers. Now this may have been a reorganization of integration. IOW the Classic Faust tale is a warning not to integrate your demons and has all the old judgments of the fallen self with all its desires. IOW the biases of strict religious society - secular society also has similar judgments but was not present then - Thinks everying goes to Hell if you integrate your demon, so people end up expending energy controlling a portion of themselves, without even trying to see what would happen if there was a union. they keep imagining allowing the demon to possess them and choose their actions. Which is utterly binary and confused. It’s like if you allow yourself to have sexual desire, you will be a rapist.
There is a kind of moral and psychological anorexia, still, about all this.
They are the same, in a manner that ken Wilber talks about parallelisms.
When dealing with people at certain times,yea.
Well, they’re both you, of course, or parts of you.
The “child” of course is that part of us that rebels against, or at least still survives despite, the spirit crushing forces that society imposes on us in order to mold us into the cog-like automata that it requires in order to function as efficiently as it can.
The demon is a defense mechanism that arises as a reaction to this. It either aims to defend the child, in which case it is the one-man-army that the child employs in its rebellion against the system, or it serves as the child’s replacement as the child surrenders and dies. The latter sort of demon is truly evil, but as I don’t believe the child ever truly dies, at least not permanently, it does not necessarily hold a grip over the child. But insofar as the child is in a dormant state (if not dead), it could be said that the demon does hold a grip on him/her, but this is conditional/temporary–the child must remain dormant.
Do you think this squares more or less fittingly with what you meant?
Well, old ken might be wrong. As much as I respect some of his thinking. But I even included a way of considering them the same, but added that this was a model of what must happend based on encultured bias and fear.
And if you cannot really feel this, other people will tend to seem like spoiled, pushy monsters
even when they are not.
You might as well say that you hated you own demon so much the only way it can show itself is in people who come in Contact with you.
This hits way too close to home for me.
hey, some people are cut off completely and like to bomb other countries. That’s how far off their demons are.
Yes it does: in the sense that it is both of you. But the demon can be the dependent little boy, and the parent can be the obliging one, and then again who is to say? Roles are reversed, the parent can regress and the child can rein in on this to his advantage.
Even if its both of us, the immature wrath can play the games of the obliging parent who will act the part of a monster,to outward appearances, so as to placate other significant other’s in it’ social environment.
The film Damian, a loose adaptation of the biblical anti christ, is a very virulent example of this kind of playfulness.
But in a specific answer to the defense mechanism adopted, is it a defense the child uses? Or is it a defense instigated by the child through another anima? It is questionable whether a small child can invent an effectual animus/anima to be useful in its defense, in my way of interpreting it.
So the above fairly corresponds to the Damian example. However the more sinister one which makes the child dormant, what is the rationale here, and, more significantly who constructs it and through whom? As society is crushing indeed, and as a parent I too share this view along with a lot of others, including those who even go as far as to believe in home instruction, rather than traditional school, I feel most children can successfully navigate through these cog wheel kinds of negative determinism.
How does in this scenario does the sinister defense play out?
Moreno: the projection you are implying here, doesn’t get going here, because the deal is with a small child. For projection to work, there need be at least a degree of differentiation which the child may not have. Instead introjective identification is a fusion of the two personalities, to begin with. * 5 year old cchild is not capable of bombing, the earliest display of agression I heard about was an eight year old boy shooting his five year old brother with a gun left carefully left around.
I confess I do not remeber how old this little child was, but I was under the impression it was a little child.
Oh, dang, you corrected ‘moist children’. That sentence was Beautiful, with the moist Children navigating cog Wheels.