The subconscious has no sense of humor.
It is often difficult to align a thought that is uncommon with a persona that is mainstream. Excuses are made, the benefit of the doubt is de rigueur, but, at the end of the day , one is left with what has been said.
It is impossible to know the intent of why someone would say something provocative, but it is quite possible if it is said on more than one occasion, to conclude the subconscious is somehow at play.
From a psychological perspective we often harbor thoughts we do not care to share.
Dark Thoughts.
Whether historical or not, rational or not, intentional or not.
That is a part of our makeup. We also have the tools , hopefully, to self censor. There is also a choice to be made to use those tools. When this is not done , the dark thoughts come to the fore.
A commonly held belief has the power to shape the way we see the world as well as our interactions with said world. Couple that with an unconscious need or desire and you have a recipe for what should have remained unspoken, slipping by our sensors and coming to the conscious and into an already charged public milieu. Once released in that domain, we have no control over the reaction or the result or chain of events.
There is a way of looking at things that can not be ignored if all other indices point in that direction. Sometimes the subject does not consciously realize the import of what has been said. Nor the danger and possible damage that can be done through the spoken word.
One can not run away from the dark thoughts that we all may have . The difference is having sound judgment and a willingness to keep those thoughts or dreams private.
In this election, there has been a lot that has been parsed. In this case, not only is the parsing necessary but justified. It is onerous and reprehensible and predictable, yet, it is acceptable in this morass as if it were just another slip, perhaps Freudian. There will be no further exploration or analysis, however necessary, because the owner of the words is not required to be accountable.
While denial is part and parcel of psychological exploration, it is not the means by which anything is discounted or removed, it is a mere convenience by which all things unpleasant or uncomfortable are absolved.
Yesterday we received a clear view into this subconscious mindset.
No one is surprised.
I am not certain which bit of tripe that someone has recently spewed this piece is about.
The news media: all tripe, all the time. Your source for Tripe 24/7.
My guess is this is about Hillary?
I have to admit, I am baffled about the brouhaha and her recent Bobby Kennedy comment–and since I am not certain what precisely this post is about, I am guessing.
The problem is that her comments are factually accurate; the time is poor.
I am not certain that it is a “dark comment,” merely a fact that she cited that Bobby was running into June when he was shot after winning the California primary.
Primaries were longer, there wasn’t this mad frenzy to tie things up.
I must have missed something, because although the comment was poorly timed, there is a reality underneath that is accurate.
I don’t see this as a dark reality of the speaker’s mind, rather a dark reality about the political and media landscape of this country, where tripe takes on a life of its on, while the word withers away under the weight of human folly.
Apparently, I am the only one . . .
Comment by bluesmokeofparadise — May 25, 2008 @ 8:55 am |
Dark in the sense of a freudian slip. Twice. At least.
Her timing would have to necessarily include the time(s) she said it before.
When it is a question of wanting something at any and all costs,as it appears, our subconscious will sometimes conjure all scenarios. I believe that is part of what happened, coupled with other more obvious statements. It is worth a look into the mindset as is done so often with her opponent. Given the intensity with which she answered, “wish fulfillment” is something to be considered.
Comment by zacca — May 26, 2008 @ 12:31 am |
Wish fulfillment?
Perhaps. But topographically, there really isn’t a direct link. If she were aligning Obama with RFK, that might be different. What most people fail to acknowledge is that her slip had to do with herself, that she sees herself (and presumably Bill) on par with the Kennedys.
The hubris here is far more banal than insidious in my opinion, for neither her nor Bill have carried or worked for this country like the Kennedy’s. RFK president, his brother worked closely with him while in the White House, he was then a Senator who was shot. That to my mind was her real “meaning.”
I am no fan of Hillary’s at this juncture, but I won’t be media bullied into agreeing with something that I think is nonsense and over reacting. And I don’t see the best editors in the country jumping on the band wagon with this, although I may be mistaken. This is about the cable news networks and the blogs, who specialize in all things sensational, while always untethering their reality from the facts. This is a classic example. The converse of the Wright controversy, in which I fully supported Obama.
I don’t see Obama’s “mindset” coming under attack like I do Hillary’s, because he is the presumptive nominee and has walked the walk for most of this race. And he isn’t usually running around saying stupid shit that gets him into trouble, like the Billary dog and pony show. Staying stupid and shit and making malicious “Freudian slips” are two different issues. And here, the slip is not what most people are barking about, because ironically, I don’t really believe a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, given that Freud smoked up to 12 a day.
Hillary is being vilified, and appropriately so, for fighting without grace, for wanting to win at all costs, and the like.
I am not going to analyze Hillary through the lens of the MSM . . . it’s not my forte. Perhaps others are better at it.
Comment by bluesmokeofparadise — May 26, 2008 @ 6:50 am |