i'm wondering if it mightn't be connectedness--the transcendence of self toward an other (person, cause, ideal, etc). aloneness has more than one manifestation, i suspect. one can be alone because one feels utterly shut off from something beyond oneself, and that can produce miserable feelings. but one can also be alone because one's a roaring egoist/narcissist and has no room for self-transcendence. such a person may not experience up-close misery, but may suffer from the thoreavian malaise of quiet desperation.
Look, Mad Men isn't really all that profound. As much as I like this show, it would be helped by some comic, or at least upbeat, relief.
But Don is keeping a lot of secrets which forces him to keep his distance from everyone. Since Betty doesn't know his secrets, she's confused.
Oh, and it would have helped if Betty had used an "I" statement....I sense/wonder/feel that you think you're alone....rather than just telling him what is wrong with him. She, of course, has no idea what he feels.
I think the admonition to "use an 'I' feeling" emerges much later than 1962. That would have been terribly anachronistic.
And just for clarification, it isn't Betty who says that, it's his "ex"-wife, the wife of the man who died in Korea.
Connectedness or an immersive relational feeling is probably the opposite. I don't share Kerry's appreciation for the term "transcendence". I'm also not convinced a transcendent experience is required. Certainly, we can feel a sense of "togetherness" in other less profound (if that's the right word) instances and occasions. Feeling "alone" can be very mundane, and so that more mundane sensation is probably a more appropriate opposite.
all i mean by 'transcendence' is 'movement beyond'--in this case, the self.
Kerry
Which does not seem to be required. One can feel connected and/or have a sense of togetherness without "moving beyond" the self. Indeed, I'd hazard to say that in most cases, that movement does not occur.
C. Ewing: I think you're probably right that connectedness jdoesn't necessarily require self-transcendence. But I would think that transcendence is necessary if we're talking about whaqt might be loosely called a 'sick' self (kinda piggy-backing on W. James' terminology here): a self too self-absorbed, too narcissistic, to allow for genuine connection with an other; a self whose self-referencing is so totalizing that there's no room for an other; a self whose extraordinary self-focus excludes others and thus breeds isolation, but who then perversely complains of loneliness. There are, of course, differences in degree of this sort of self-absorption. But I suspect it's a wide-spread problem.
There is a lonely that you feel when you are alone, and a lonely that you can feel with other people. The latter is far more painful. Ann Carson said that loneliness isn't the worst problem. It is mundane. But it seems to be a pervasive Gen-X preoccupation, and I would guess culture plays a huge role. The US is so focused on the individual; whereas, in a collective culture (i.e. Turkey, India) this might be less of a preoccupation or concern.
Kerry
Wouldn't that be more a matter of kind rather than degree? Maybe I'm nit-picking here, but if we think of it like opening or shutting a door (allowing self access to other) then the example you give isn't merely a smaller access area, but it's the difference between closed and open. It's not a matter of "how much" access is granted, but rather access is even possible. That doesn't seem to be a matter of degree, but rather a matter of kind.
In that case, perhaps you are right, and transcendence is required to "pry" open the door, at least initially. That sort of "shock" might be needed. Otherwise, people keep knocking, but because you can't even peek through to see them, much less access them, there's simply no hope.
I hope that makes sense. It sounds right in my head. 
But then again, it always does.
But narcissists are not lonely. They have themselves, which is apparently all they need, and an audience to appropriate their brilliance. Neither are psychopaths.
Loneliness perhaps is created by the non-narcissistic impulses within in us. The recognized need for the other that is recognized as absent. So then the part that needs others gets mad at the part that is narcissistic, or the part it thinks is responsible for driving away an other.. Perhaps its not "a self whose self-referencing is so totalizing that there's no room for an other," so much as a self-referencing is so strong that there is not enough room for an other, where enough depends on the need for others.
If so, a person who has strong connections to an other can feel lonely precisely because something has interfered with that connection, and the less narcissistic you are the lonelier you can feel.
What is the opposite of narcissism? It ought to have an opposite. Self loathing?
Well, the narcissist certainly believes she's self-sufficient so long as things are going well. But when they begin to fall apart she recognizes otherwise. Take Aspazia's example of death-fear, for example. Most of us probably feel a lonely kind of forlornness at the thought of our own extinction. But to the extent that we come to a lived awareness of our own relative smallness, of our utter dispensibility, and of the fact that we're not the center of the universe but rather an entity which conforms to physical (and perhaps spiritual) laws beyond our manipulation, our mortality can make us feel less impotently alone. (I don't claim that this sort of self-transcendence necessarily eliminates death-fear, but only that it can ameliorate it.) I suspect that the narcissist who worships her self generally finds herself godlessly alone in moments of crisis. Her god's just not big enough to handle them.
I suspect that the narcissist who worships her self generally finds herself godlessly alone in moments of crisis. Her god's just not big enough to handle them.
and
If so, a person who has strong connections to an other can feel lonely precisely because something has interfered with that connection, and the less narcissistic you are the lonelier you can feel.
Possibly, but Kerry has a point as well. As an anecdote, my grandmother was a very narcissistic person, and for years was quite content. So content and self-serving that she drove everyone else away. Flash forward years later, and she becomes incredibly isolated, alone, and depressed. The loneliness can become palpable, when your god is insufficient to meet your needs. The more narcissistic you are it seems the more that it will pain you when you realize that it is insufficient.
Perhaps, the old folk wisdom is true, and you just shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Wholly on self or wholly on other, both seem to fail utterly when calamity strikes. Maybe the middle road is healthiest.
What is the opposite of narcissism? It ought to have an opposite. Self loathing?
Probably. I would estimate that as being less frequent though. Does anyone have numbers on that? If memory serves, greater self-estimation is far more common than undervaluing. Maybe that says something about the human condition.
80% of people believe they are smarter than average, better in the sack than average, etc. Of that 20%, how many take it to the extreme of the narcissist? No idea.
The narcissist as pathology blames anything on others, since they are perfect, if couldn't be their fault. As pathology, I don't think they do recognize their insufficiency. The self-loather, on the other hand, always does. Who will be more lonely?
C. Ewing points to his own example... but don't they become lonely when they were full of themselves, but only when the lose that. The self-loather is already there. I still suspect that it is not self-sufficiency that causes loneliness, but its opposite.
That does sound like a number I just made up, but I happened to be doing some research on narcissism, and came across it when the paper separated normal narcissism from the pathology. No idea where the paper got the number.
"What is the opposite of narcissism? It ought to have an opposite. Self loathing?"
I'm not sure in what context you guys are using "narcissism," but it doesn't seeem to resemble the DSM's narcissistic personality disorder. In the latter case, narcissism and self-loathing go hand in hand. Usually, the person has come to believe that they're supposed to be better and more special than anyone else, and so they become fixated on proving it to themselves over and over again, because they secretly (and understandably) doubt their superior worth. Every sign that someone else is better than they are, or even as good as they are, sends them into a spate of self-loathing and obsession with re-establishing their superiority. Either way, it's total self-absorption (lack of self-transcendence?) that characterizes the narcissist.
So, I guess you could oppose narcissism and self-loathing as two poles within the same disordered soul, but not as two separate "souls" (I'm using that in the Aristotlean sense)--the narcissist and the self-loather.
I
"excessive self-love" was probably the simple form we were working from, but "aloofness and avoidance of intimacy" I think is part of what Hanno was focusing on. The "island unto himself" phenomenon.
and so they become fixated on proving it to themselves over and over again, because they secretly (and understandably) doubt their superior worth.
Yet, when failure arises, it's not the NPD's fault; it's always the other guy's fault. That would seem to alleviate self-loathing (why hate on perfection?) and put derision on others, i.e. "you made us fail". Indeed, it alleviates your failings and ensures your perfection. Obviously, you didn't fail. That's impossible. It must be the other person who caused the failure.
but it doesn't seeem to resemble the DSM's narcissistic personality disorder. In the latter case, narcissism and self-loathing go hand in hand.
Where? I'm looking at it right now and I don't see "self-loathing" noted anywhere.
* grandiose sense of self-importance
* preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
* belief that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
* need for excessive admiration
* sense of entitlement
* takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
* lacks empathy
* often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
* shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Only five are needed. I do see how "excessive admiration" and "envy of others", if combined can potentially imply self-loathing (although, we'd need a specific case), but those two traits are not specifically required. I'll need more. A "need for admiration or adulation" is in the definition of NPD, but they do not add the term "excessive" in the initial definition, and many (most) people need/want admiration or adulation to some degree, and by itself that certainly does not imply self-loathing, even if it were to be excessive. Insecurity is not the same as self-loathing. I can want you to want me or even need you to need me, and even be jealous of you in some way, but that does not mean I loathe myself.
Even if self-loathing is the other end of the stick (for some), I don't think Hanno nor myself are going to hold that a given individual can't house contradictions. In short: what Hanno and I were discussing and what the DSM shows are not at all incompatible. At least, not according to the DSM. Indeed, it's rather easy to look at our previous posts and pick out specific traits, which were represented.
I still suspect that it is not self-sufficiency that causes loneliness, but its opposite.
I need you to define insufficiency in relation to self or at least give me an example or two to work from. Self-loathing is obviously not needed. Apathy can lead to loneliness, even depression, and so can disassociation.
Still, it ought to have an opposite, or perhaps the same thing manifested not as self-centerness, but its opposite. Since they view themselves as worthless, consciously, they work for others, and empathize with those they think are the way they should be. There is no balance, as they become other-centered. I am thinking of no one in particular, just that psychology comes in opposites: introvert/extrovert, etc.
If there is self-loathing behind the pathology, it is unconscious, and part of the theory of NPD. through therapy, you may uncover it, but therapy (and I do not mean this in a bad way) you may be making a new story, and hence the discovery of the unconscious beliefs and desires may in fact be the creation of a conscious belief and desire, but one that is helpful.
However, the ability of the mind to tell itself it is always someone else's fault, and hence the conscious protection from feelings of inadequacy must have limits. Or else, it would not be a recognized disorder. NPD is apparently "isolating, disenfranchising, painful," which sounds a lot like loneliness.
But then, those are the only ones that seek treatment. Perhaps the mind can deceive itself greatly, and the successful NPD never feels lonely.
Here's the opening paragraph from the mayo clinic website on narcissistic personality disorder:
"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism. "
I'm less interested in conceptual analysis of the term "self-loathing." I was referring to the second part of this statement and combining it with my personal experience of narcissistic types as self-loathers, except in the few cases where they felt buoyed up by an experience that gave them a sense of superiority. If we're on the same page with that one, then whichever terms you think fit are fine with me.
Given their desire for attention and refusal to accept criticism, etc., that's a perfectly reasonable description (IMO). In your experience you may have seen some as self-loathers. That's fine. Narcissism is often co-diagnosed with substance abuse. That doesn't mean a narcissist is automatically an alcoholic. That's why it's a co-diagnosis and not just part of the diagnosis of NPD. It may well be that some narcissists are also self-loathers, but that doesn't mean it's a part of narcissism per se, although there may be an association in some cases.
If we're on the same page with that one, then whichever terms you think fit are fine with me.
By second part do you mean the third sentence? No conceptual analysis is really necessary. Fragile self-esteem is not the same as self-loathing nor is such required. Being vulnerable to the merest slight can just be a form of ultra-sensitivity, and there are plenty of people who are hyper-sensitive and are not self-loathers.
I know I can be a little anal about the word choice sometimes (always). But that's part of me charm. 
Commenting by HaloScan
