Diving into the Mental Health
Apr 29, 2018 19:09:16 GMT
charlotte, superunknown, and 1 more like this
Post by justasking on Apr 29, 2018 19:09:16 GMT
One thing about psychopathy and sadism. It is said that psychopaths and sadists view others as objects, and so they also use others as objects. Of course, the "object" often means that they have no empathy for the victims or any positive concern for them.
But more literally...
Sadism is about causing pain to others, and the gratification derived from the act. Pain is an experience, feeling or a sensation, and there always has to be a subject to experience the pain. That's why it is their (subjects') pain, because they experience it.
But to view others as objects and to be able to enjoy their pain would be a contradiction if those others were actually viewed solely as objects, since the use of the term "object" here is put into contrast with "subject". To view others as objects is to disregard them as subjects.
The concept of "pain" has to be divided into two separate meanings: the pain as the experience of the subject to whom the pain is caused - and - the sadist's own experience of causing the pain, which is validated by outward signs of pain.
The sadist who views others as objects to whom cause pain is a sadist who can't consider the victims' subjective torment in itself as an aspect of his motive or gratification. For this kind of a sadist, the subject's pain doesn't even count as "pain". He may not even understand the concept. Instead, it is only about the understanding of himself as the cause of pain, and it's the outward expressions of pain which are the pain. Not the pain felt by the victim in her/his inner world. It's more mechanical, cause and effect. Similarly as young children observe the causes and effects in the world around them when they come into contact with non-human objects. When they do this, that happens. They are gratified by their sense of agency. So, it's similar with this kind of an "objective" sadist: no real understanding or connection to the others' inner world as subjects, but it's just that somewhere along the way they learned that this reaction they can see, hear etc. is "pain". And they noticed it gratified them to cause this reaction in those particular kinds of mobile objects (living beings).
But then there is the other type of a sadist, who understands the subjective dimension of pain. This means that he has to have some connection to the intersubjective human domain. These types of sadists are more psychological in nature, because the psyche of the victim actually exists for them, as an essential aspect. They need their victims as subjects so they (sadists) can gratify themselves by causing pain that is to be felt by the victim as a subject. They can mentalize their relation to their victims. JJD clearly belonged to these. Gratification about himself being the cause of terror, but this was mental and interpersonal in nature. He was the cause of their pain and terror, pain and terror the victims felt.
For Joseph DeAngelo, it wasn't just this objective, impersonal "terror" he caused, as if the victims were musical instruments with which to play "terror" and "pain" - and this is his difference to someone like Dennis Rader, for example. Dennis Rader was primarily gratified by the sensation that he murdered his victims. But for JJD, there had to be a subject. When he raped and murdered his victims, it was important to him that they were raped and murdered by him.
So, I'd say that JJD has something more than pure psychopathy going on with his personality organization. The pathology is Other-related, negatively "social". He is psychically dependent of the human world, not outside of it, and his brand of others as objects are subjects.
But more literally...
Sadism is about causing pain to others, and the gratification derived from the act. Pain is an experience, feeling or a sensation, and there always has to be a subject to experience the pain. That's why it is their (subjects') pain, because they experience it.
But to view others as objects and to be able to enjoy their pain would be a contradiction if those others were actually viewed solely as objects, since the use of the term "object" here is put into contrast with "subject". To view others as objects is to disregard them as subjects.
The concept of "pain" has to be divided into two separate meanings: the pain as the experience of the subject to whom the pain is caused - and - the sadist's own experience of causing the pain, which is validated by outward signs of pain.
The sadist who views others as objects to whom cause pain is a sadist who can't consider the victims' subjective torment in itself as an aspect of his motive or gratification. For this kind of a sadist, the subject's pain doesn't even count as "pain". He may not even understand the concept. Instead, it is only about the understanding of himself as the cause of pain, and it's the outward expressions of pain which are the pain. Not the pain felt by the victim in her/his inner world. It's more mechanical, cause and effect. Similarly as young children observe the causes and effects in the world around them when they come into contact with non-human objects. When they do this, that happens. They are gratified by their sense of agency. So, it's similar with this kind of an "objective" sadist: no real understanding or connection to the others' inner world as subjects, but it's just that somewhere along the way they learned that this reaction they can see, hear etc. is "pain". And they noticed it gratified them to cause this reaction in those particular kinds of mobile objects (living beings).
But then there is the other type of a sadist, who understands the subjective dimension of pain. This means that he has to have some connection to the intersubjective human domain. These types of sadists are more psychological in nature, because the psyche of the victim actually exists for them, as an essential aspect. They need their victims as subjects so they (sadists) can gratify themselves by causing pain that is to be felt by the victim as a subject. They can mentalize their relation to their victims. JJD clearly belonged to these. Gratification about himself being the cause of terror, but this was mental and interpersonal in nature. He was the cause of their pain and terror, pain and terror the victims felt.
For Joseph DeAngelo, it wasn't just this objective, impersonal "terror" he caused, as if the victims were musical instruments with which to play "terror" and "pain" - and this is his difference to someone like Dennis Rader, for example. Dennis Rader was primarily gratified by the sensation that he murdered his victims. But for JJD, there had to be a subject. When he raped and murdered his victims, it was important to him that they were raped and murdered by him.
So, I'd say that JJD has something more than pure psychopathy going on with his personality organization. The pathology is Other-related, negatively "social". He is psychically dependent of the human world, not outside of it, and his brand of others as objects are subjects.