Sharon saw this heading & commented that the term 'male hysteria' is
now rather old-fashioned, and that 'hysteria' is pretty well gender
neutral by now. So they're just hysterical & gone over to the dark side
in their fear (& loathing)...?
Doug
On 19-Dec-05, at 11:54 AM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
> Thanks for that "fanatical positivist" option, Peter. I have always
> felt
> uncomfortable with the "positive' connotation of the word "positivist"
> -
> echo in my Sophomore year of the prof demonstrating that 'logical
> positivism' led right to the logic of building the A and H bombs.
>
> There still must be a phrase for 'male hysteria' that is not built on
> the
> etymology of Greek wombs! Precluding the males among this executive
> branch
> are not endowed with physical assets which are not self-evident!
>
> Stephen V
>
>
>
>> Stephen -- I recall that Dan Dennett mentioned being chided by
>> Richard Rorty
>> [justifiably, I think] for using the term 'hysterical' in a context
>> that
>> lent itself to misunderstanding based on the gender-political baggage
>> you
>> allude to. I think it was in Consciousness Explained; maybe Dominic
>> can
>> correlate.
>>
>> 'Fanatical positivism', perhaps: being flipped into a modality that
>> drives
>> you to build reassurance about the correctness of your point of view.
>> This
>> leads not to being blinded to any evidence to the contrary, but
>> rather to
>> the reconstruction of such evidence to make it perform the positivist
>> function you desire. I hazard a guess.
>>
>> P
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
>>> poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Stephen Vincent
>>> Sent: 19 December 2005 17:55
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: "Male hysterics"
>>>
>>> Is there a psychological category/classification for "male
>>> hysteria"? I admit to suffering from what that is on
>>> occasion. But it begins to strike me that
>>> Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Gonzales et al are "male-hysterics". I
>>> suspect it was not the Twin Towers but the plane that went
>>> into the Pentagon (the equivalent of their private parts)
>>> that provoked a full dose, now over 4 year sustained attack
>>> of this nationally self-destructive hysteria. In their
>>> madness they have torn-up the constitution, tortured, etc., etc.
>>>
>>> Not a pretty site! Pretty crazy. It will be interesting to
>>> see if the U.S.A.
>>> Congress and Judiciary will have the courage to stop enabling
>>> this disease.
>>> I suspect, sadly, the recovery will be quite slow.
>>>
>>> Stephen V
>>>
>
>
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
the precision of openness
is not a vagueness
it is an accumulation
cumulous
bpNichol
|