pericles, the problem is that while our masters may be smart enough to treat us well, maybe they don't want to.

that's why we should be smart enough to get along without them.

Dear Doctor,

I read your piece carefully, in an attempt to determine what exactly it is that you're attempting to elicit (if anything) from the good readers herein ?

Apart from providing a synopsis of your past family member's involvement in the two major wars - and the individual sporting prowess of your grandfather. I'm at a complete loss as to what it is, that you're actually trying to say, Doctor ?

I see that you draw several references to the severe emotional disturbances occasioned (again) by members of your family. Using words and terms, such as 'battle fatigue'; PTSD ; and 'thinking too much' ?

I'm a veteran, and I'm being treated for PTSD at both, the Austin Repatriation Hospital, Melbourne and at the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service, also in Melbourne.

I must say there is nothing that gets up my nose quicker, than people who've never ever worn 'greens' telling all and sundry about PTSD and related conditions ! Of course I readily defer to your position as a Medical Practitioner. I'm sure that you have a pretty good handle on the condition too (from a medical viewpoint).

I'm referring to those banal academics who bore us all with their tedious rhetoric, generally about matters that they know very little about, save from what they've garnered from some weighty tome or other.

When it comes to such delicate emotional issues such as PTSD, these people endlessly pontificate on their chosen subject, as if what they utter, is absolutely incontrovertible ! Trouble is folks, when they go on about war, or the effects of war, most have never seen an angry man, ever ! As I said herein, it really gets up my nose !

Cheers...sungwu.

I think the author wanted to link 'bad' people as leaders caused most of the disasters in history...a few things should have been elaborated...and as a medical doctor I hope nobody minds...

Love is a 'feeling' that is on a scale of feelings...simply if 'middle point' is feeling 'normal' then on + side is 'liking' to 'attachment' to 'love' as extreme...on -ve side 'dislike' to 'hate' to 'fear' as extreme...

'middle point' is a hard one as we identify it as what is our predominantly usual state...but not actually at normal/middle...eg...imagine the feeling after years of being in a prison where everyone dislikes you...to being in a palace where everyone likes you...and yes...before anyone asks...most of us are in general state of -ve ie emotional pain in this world we have/allowed created...

Two more needed to generally understand this issue with people,;
-connected/disconnected to our situation ie dynamincally responding feelings in real time...or not(net search with psychology+affect will give more)
-current state of psychological funtioning leading to behaviour...ie normal range, compensated or decompensated...eg takes us all back to jungle without weapons...only the 'normal range' will survive...in our world even the 'deranged' escape detection by manipulative skills to survive...

So for example...childhood(especially under 6ie before psychological defence mechanisms reasonably developed)intentional and reckless psychological abuse for behaviour control with fear by dominant parent...leading child to 'dissociated defence' to seek relief from severe ongoing emotional pain eg create happier-make-believe world...this goes into adulthood as multiple social faces/personality...where the real person is lost in the falsity...and main drive is avoid fearfull situations...the best is be the controller of fearful states and voila...feeling better already...as dictator/queen witch...

Sam
Ps~those whom are 'disconnected' will find this difficult to relate to...bodies naturally responding feelings are very supressed...so harder to understand explanation on feelings...

Pericles,
Actually what Machiavelli said was “It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved." And I did read “the stuff”

When Machiavelli talked of ruling through fear he meant fear of the Prince himself. That is the prince was to be a ruler to be feared by all, subjects as well as other princes. He was not talking about making the subjects fear other princes etc.

I know it is the rulers exercising the love/fear. My point regards Saddam< Milosevic is still valid. If our leaders loved our enemies where would we have been? I just don’t accept your argument that the gov’t is trying to control us by keeping us in fear.

Most people aren’t afraid of terrorism because the gov’t is scaring them. They’re actually afraid because some people in our communities support the IslamoFascists and may be stupid or evil enough to try and emulate them. Most people are concerned that there are those who hate Australia/Australians and wish to do us harm, living amongst us. Since we have never faced a similar situation before I think that a cautious approach is mandated. If some of us have to accept a little inconvenience I don’t think that is to high a price to pay. I mean how many of you would prefer that they didn’t take swabs from clothing looking for explosives when you get on a plane? How many would prefer that baggage is not checked?

Fully support what you say about lawyers though.

Sam Said,
My background is in a highly technical field, although I have studied plenty of politics and sociology. What is clear to me is that when people use lots of large words they are normally lacking in a basic understanding of what they are trying to say.

Same here o sung wu. Not the PTSD bit, but the confusion over the message the author is trying to convey here. I wouldn't take the PTSD references so much to heart if I was you - the doc seems to have the best of intentions. I think. Maybe.

Gunn has a beautiful way with words but that's not an awful lot of good if you can't get the message across.

HD for brilliant use of linguistic resources, but to get a pass you need at least one clear argument.

Absolutely, but you have to agree that is not what you said Paul.L.

>>I know it is the rulers exercising the love/fear.<<

And I'm not quite sure how this works out when you were clearly addressing your remarks to Shonga...

>>My point regards Saddam< Milosevic is still valid. If our leaders loved our enemies where would we have been?<<

...because that wasn't what Machiaveli was saying either.

But no matter.

>>I just don’t accept your argument that the gov’t is trying to control us by keeping us in fear. Most people aren’t afraid of terrorism because the gov’t is scaring them.<<

The second sentence, if you believe the first, is redundant - if the government is not, as you say, using fear as the driver to control our activities, then how can they scare anyone?

But the level of propaganda, from the "alert levels" in the UK to the fridge magnets here in Australia are designed not to reassure, but to make sure people are fearful. If you tell people "be alert, not alarmed", what is the first thing you think? That there must be something to be alarmed about, of course.

It's largely a matter of trust. We don't trust them to do the right thing, so we are eternally suspicious of their motives.

Sometimes, with justification.