Wednesday, January 15, 2025

J D Salinger and the Narcissistic Personality

 It'a frustrating when I have ideas for blog posts so close together as this one that follows on the one aout Israel I wrote just a few minutes ago.   This one will rise to the top of th epage and that one move down while I'd really lik e it to have preeminense ce ofr a while at least.  But I have this new topic fresh in my mind and if I put it off I may never write it at all.  that happens.


Because one of my grandsons is reading J D Salinger's Cather in the Rye for school I decided to see if I could find it as an audio book at You Tube because although I thought I'd read it I hadn't.  It's so famous it's easy to think you've read it when all you know about it is from reviews and things people say about it.  And then you read it and it's way more than all that.  Yes I did listen to it.  I can't exactly say I LIKED it, that's the wrong wrord somewhow, but in way I do have to like Holden.  In a way.  But I don't want to discuss the book here.  I don't think it's necessary but if it seems to e I'll say something about it later on.


Then I read Franny and Zooey and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, and A Good Day for Bananafish.  And heard may interviews with people who either knew him personally, Salinger I mean, or had ;written a lot aout his books and that sort of thing.    Some women are heard from who present a less than lovely portrait of Salinger.  Especially Joyce Maydnard.


I wanted to read her book, listen to it that is, where she writes about her time with him but it's one of those teasere things where I got to heard some of it but then it refers you to a page that wants you to sighn up to hear more, right at the point in the story where she's starign to describe her pexperisnces with himj of course.


But she said enough in an interview I heard, and so have some others who are up on the story, to get a picture of the man that interesetingly fits almost too perfectly with what I've been hearing recently about the narcississtic personality.  An unlikeable man underneath a carefully cultivated very likeable exterior.  Cruel, uncaring, tyrannical, cold, emotionally abusicve.   


He has some sort of facination with chilcrdren.  Holden in a Catcher in the Rye is especially fond of his little sister, Seymour in A Good Day for Bananafish seems to cultivate children as friends.  Salinger started relationships with at least three women in their teens, married two of them when they turned nineteen, no not at the same time, years apart.  Waited until they were nineteen.  But I get the feeling he would have preferred to have a closer relationship with them when they were younger.  From everything that has been written and said by him and others I don't have the impression that he had a sexual attraction to tchildren, but of course if that were the scase he'd camouflage it anyway so it's hard to know.  It sounds more like a an idealization or emotional obsession.  But again he would camouflage it if it were an erotic fixation of course.   But it culd have been mental rathern than physical .  Some suggested that.  


He married one of the young women and had two children with her.  She finally left after about ten years if I remember fightly, having endured much tyrannical controlling abuse from him.  Another rlationship ;he started when the girl was fourteen and when some years later he had sex with her that abruptly end ied it for him and he simply broke it off.  With Joyce Maydnard he "love bombed her" for a long time through letters and she was sure she would be happy hmarried to him although she was only eighteen and he fifty four at the time and went to live with him and married himj.  But they were together only a year when he suddenly told her he wanted to end it, uite absruptly, she should go to their ohome, get her things together and leave.  Just like that.    these behaviors are described as typical of the narcissistic personality in many of the videos I've een hering.  the love ombing and the abrupt rejection.


In A Good day for Bananafish, Seymour takes a little girl into the ocean on a raft and at one point imnpulsively kisses her bare foot to which she protests.  He has gone tdown to the beacdh without his wife who is in their hotel room.  When he returns there she is asleep and he lies down on the other bed and ;shoots himself through the temple.  


There is another story I couldn't  find in a form that I could hear well, it was way too fuzzy sounding, callee Seymour, an introduction, which gives a lot more decription of this man Seymour though those who discuss it say it doresn't answer the question fo qhy he killed himself.  \He carried the gun around in his valise so he probably had the idea for some time but had he planned it for that day?  As I was pondering this I decided that something about the encounter with th elittle girl is what pushed him over the edge.  Something about an unfulfilled desire for the child.  He as not happy with his wife, that was suggest in an early ier story, Raise Hight the Roof Beam Carpenters.  He mjight even have wanted to push her in some way by killing himself in the nxr bed.  \


Anyway this is how I put together what I think could be the underlying mindset of Salinger as he wronte the story.   He marries oung women, no doubt not as young as he'd like but young, then throws them away when they become too adult for him.


Oh well,  I can' speculate about such things I guess.  Why not.\\



I did start thinking that the man has such a comjplex emotional life  and probably a life laden with shaeful aspects or aspects of it that would not go over well with mots people so would have to be campuouflaged somewhoe, and that his writing would be a sort of therapy, a way to express his deepest desires in  some kind of code that would hide them from others while keeping them clear to himself.  What all these things might be of course I have no idea though I've mentioned one above.  Another is that I wondered why he shocese the name Glass for the family whose members he writes about in so many separate short stories, such as Seymjour, wwho is Seymour Glass.  Why Glass?  It's an odd name isn't it?  Glass as in mirror?  His characters all reflect some aspect of himself?  Somehting like that?  he writes beautifully.  He creates marvelously natural dialog.  I suspect there is also a code in there somjewhere that epxresses something very deep in himself for himself only.  


Glass as in glass houses, not throwing stones and all that.  Glass as in breakable, brittle and vulnerable.  But glass as mirror above all I suspect.


Oher themes come flodding in but I'm not usp to all that right now.  He was in the war, at D Day, at the Battle of tht eBulge. at the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp.  He's half Jewisyh.  He'd lived before the war for a time in Vienna with a Jewish family, all of whom were killed in the camp[s.  Somebody suggested that Catcher in the Rye ws his way of dealing with the war.  Not somethihn gI can see but it would be interesting to haear how it fits.    



Peace in Israel?

Trump said if the hostages weren't returned to Israel by the time he took office all hell would reak loose in the Middle ast.  OK, usually he is good at geting things done that need to be doneand the treturn of the hostages held by Hamas to Israel is long overdue.  But there's a lot more to this than geting the hostages back, this involves a deal that does't sound good to me.  Mark Levin laid it out on his show today.  This is a plan for the war to cease, not just a plan for the rturn of the hostages, it's a plan to end the fighting and involves an excahnge of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prinsoners.  If I'm getting this right.  


But it's ninety eight hostages, and some unknown number of rhtme are dead so the actual living hostages are a smaller nuimber than that,  But on the other side it's THOUSANDS of Palestinian prinsonesers, terorists who would fight for Hamas against Israel if let out.   According to Levin such an exchange was made some time in the past and the freed prisoners mounted an attack on Israel as a restul.  What kind of a deal is that?


Trump seems to be happy with whatever deal was made, and Charlie Kirk on his program tonight is lauding it as a great achievement.  really?    


I'm a strong Trump supporter but I was already a bit shaken by some things I heard about how his tarif plan might not be such a good idea.  On that one I have a wait and see attitude since I've also heard that in some scircumstances a tarif works very well for America.  Wati and See.    But I'm more shaken now about his Trump action if it is as I've been hearing.  he's a staunch supporter of Israel so how could he be happy with a deal that would force Israel to stop before fulfilling her objective of taking out Hamas completely, besides forcing her to give back THOUSANDS of prisoners who will only join forces with Hamas and continue the usual reign of teror.  


This is a very disturbing idea.  How can Trump supporters be happy with it?

Thursday, January 9, 2025

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Steven Meyer almost gets why evolution doesn't work

 In his interview by Joe Rogan, Steven Meyer says he believes in microevolution but is skeptical about descent from a single common ancestor.  he is really saying what I've been saying about how there is variation tht is built into the genome, but he's calling it evolution and eseems to leave it open although he says he's skeptical about itg.  What he actually says, however, affirms what I've been saying abourt variation though he uses different terms for it.  I've been making it a major argument against evollution lately and he doesn't quite do that, but his terms are nevertheless desdriptiove of the same processes that make evolution impossible.  All that is possible given what he acknowledges, is variation, or what he is claling microevolution, which really isn't evolution at all.  variation is not evolution.  SIt's simply different combinations of genetic codes that allows for many different versions of given traits, but the traits are built into the genome and the variations can't do anything but p[roduce different versions of those traits.  You can get many varities of dogs or cats or horses or cows or bears or birds or fish, but you can't get anything BUT a dog or a cat or a bear etc.  That's something that should be clearly enough recognizable by anything one who gives the facts an honest thought.   There is no way for variation to get outside the genome as it were.


Meyter puts it in different terms but he is saying the smae thing.  

Paraphrasing someone else, he says that the mutation[ selection model sdoes a goot job of explaining the modigifation of preexisting forms,  but it can't explain the orgin of any of the gidffernet groups.  So it can explain how the different beaks of Darwin's finches are formed but can't explain how birds got here in the first place.   Mdodification yes, innovation no.  


So you can make changes in what already exists but to get something new, some entirely new function, say a new way of digesting food in the difference from one animal to another, you chave to have new code.  but all we have in the genome is a given code with built in alternatives that cause the variations.  this can never lead to something entierely new, some completely new function or gtrait which would define the difference between one animal and another.   He points tout that the method of darwinism is random changes in the code, but that it is well known that random change only degrades the function of code, it doesn'[t lead to new functions.   


Seems to me threr is enough evidence already that mutation doesn't do anything but degrade fucntion.  the supposed beneficial changes that coulde supposedly lead to new forms are extremely rare and all we really ever hear about are the vast majority of mutational changes that either make no clearcut change in the protein product or lead to genetic diseases, of which there are now thousands.  


I've arrivesd at the point of thinking it's silly thereat there is aoso much discussion about this when it seems obvious that the genome olimits all that change to mere variations or different versions of the same thing and that th you can never get anything new  from a genom.  I also think it is obvious that the variations are built in, that it's all a product of the fact that each gene has the two different versions known as alleles, that bring about different products, the most familiar one beting the blue eyes versus brown eyes.  It's all about homozygosuity versus heterozygosity.  All the variaqtionsz amount to shifts in these forms of a gene from generation to generation.    Mutation has nothihgn g to do with any of it.  that has always been merely an assumptiona and it doesn't work at all.  Not at all.  They dstick it in because they have rjeected the creation model which has the GENA  created whole for each Kind.   They have to imagine it being formed and there is no other way than mutation although it doesn't work at all to anything of the sort.  


It's high time this obvious fact was recognizined.  It's the undoing of evolution and it's right in front of your face.      


yTurns out I am unable to capure the URL but this disscussion occurs fairly early on in the interview of Meyer by Rogan so it should be easy enough to find.


Listening further I find him taklking about a regularory system that determines the body plan of a given animal, and one oint I've been making is that body p-lan for each kind or species appears to be particularly stable and unot amenable to variation or changes of any sort.  This seems to be forne out by the studies Meyer is talkoing about.  The amount of change that would be required to get a completely new body bplan or a new species from a different apecies is simply undoable.