fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au
Sat Aug 24 03:11:24 EST 2002
"Nick Medford" <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think the idea of "latent pathology" is conceptually questionable in
> context. Certainly stressors may exacerbate pre-existing tendencies, one
> example would be PTSD, where it is often claimed that people do not
> develop PTSD unless they had some neurotic predisposition before the
> traumatic event. Personally I don't believe this is always true but it is
> certainly true in some cases. But- whether it is useful or even accurate
> describe such a predisposition as "latent pathology" I'm not sure. We get
> onto dangerous ground if every psychological quirk or vulnerability is
> held up to be "latent pathology".
After all that fidgety, pussy-footing, postering pondering - I need *not*
ask why such 'sophistication' is one of your AEVASIVE (note that I did not
derogate by writing "neurotic") ways of *maintaining your own equilibrium*.
I bet you are mentally muddled about *your own* implicitly purported
meaning, in the above context, of the expression "neurotic predisposition"!
When you are moving in as definitionally messy a terminological territory as
this one (at and around "neurosis", PTSD, trauma, psychological pathologies,
etcetera) it is very easy to make a mess of one's own subliminally motivated
message - if ever there was one worth mentioning to start with!
I know this from first-hand experience! %->
This post of mine was, as my posts almost always are, stingily sponsored by
EAIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty., and *not just* jotted in justifiable though
author-image jeopardizing jester, but - by jove! - also with some equally
well warranted serious intent.
More information about the Neur-sci