February 1, 2005,
Ninth Letter to Sam
Vaknin from Stephen
McDonnell
Dear Sam,
I am sorry but this letter is going to cover a disparate number
of subjects. It may not be as coherent as my previous letters
as I am covering a lot of territory. Please bare with me, or
is that bear with me? Freudian slip?
Sam:
(Laughing)
I love intermezzos. Go ahead ...
Stephen:
"Red Carpet NPDs" subspecies
In the past week I have observed the actions of several people
I think suffer from NPD. My conclusion - that they were NPD-
did not come quickly. It is easy to jump to conclusions when
people first hear about narcissists and see them everywhere.
No, my decision to label these two came only after years of observing
them. After all, many normal people act like narcissists and
vice versa.
They could be male and female twins because they act the same
way and I often cross their paths at official functions. These
two are the "red carpet" variety of NPDs. One always
tells me that he was going to show up with the Prime Minister
or the Prime Minister's son. He gravitates to the important people
like the sycophant he is. On a smaller scale, he could be the
proverbial moocher who hangs around receptions, with his pockets
stuffed with celery and dip. The second person is someone who
always sits at the head table when there is an important speaker,
runs up to the microphone to make introductions, and is in general
a blow fly buzzing around with a sanctimonious air. She poses,
like all narcissists, as if she is the queen of the ball and
she gathers a coterie of people who either are impressed with
her or who think she will make them look better. The two people
should be married to each other.
Sam:
Yeah, I know the type (sigh). If you can't be them - be around
them. It sometimes is eerie. Some narcissists imitate their heroes
- their mannerisms, mode of speech, vocabulary, even hairdo.
It's like the narcissist is an empty shell, a receptacle which
assumes the shape and traits of the narcissist's idol. These
narcissists are like the moon - their glow is reflected.
But I must say that most narcissists would rather be famous
themselves. To become a celebrity
is, by far, their predominant drive. Being famous encompasses
a few important functions: it endows the narcissist with power,
provides him with a constant Source of Narcissistic Supply (admiration,
adoration, approval, awe), and fulfils important Ego functions.
The image
that the narcissist projects is hurled back at him, reflected
by those exposed to his celebrity or fame. This way he feels
alive, his very existence is affirmed and he acquires a sensation
of clear boundaries (where the narcissist ends and the world
begins).
There is
a set of narcissistic behaviours typical to the pursuit of celebrity.
There is almost nothing that the narcissist refrains from doing,
almost no borders that he hesitates to cross to achieve renown.
To him, there is no such thing as "bad publicity" ñ
what matters is to be in the public eye.
Because the
narcissist equally enjoys all types of attention and likes as
much to be feared as to be loved, for instance ñ he doesn't
mind if what is published about him is wrong ("as long as
they spell my name correctly"). The narcissist's only bad
emotional stretches are during periods of lack of attention,
publicity, or exposure.
The narcissist
then feels empty, hollowed out, negligible, humiliated, wrathful,
discriminated against, deprived, neglected, treated unjustly
and so on. At first, he tries to obtain attention from ever narrowing
groups of reference ("supply scale down"). But the
feeling that he is compromising gnaws at his anyhow fragile self-esteem.
Sooner or
later, the spring bursts. The narcissist plots, contrives, plans,
conspires, thinks, analyses, synthesises and does whatever else
is necessary to regain the lost exposure in the public eye. The
more he fails to secure the attention of the target group (always
the largest) ñ the more daring, eccentric and outlandish
he becomes. Firm decision to become known is transformed into
resolute action and then to a panicky pattern of attention seeking
behaviours.
The narcissist
is not really interested in publicity per se. Narcissists are
misleading. The narcissist appears to love himself ñ and,
really, he abhors himself. Similarly, he appears to be interested
in becoming a celebrity ñ and, in reality, he is concerned
with the REACTIONS to his fame: people watch him,
notice him, talk about him, debate his actions ñ therefore
he exists.
The narcissist
goes around "hunting and collecting" the way the expressions
on people's faces change when they notice him. He places himself
at the centre of attention, or even as a figure of controversy.
He constantly and recurrently pesters those nearest and dearest
to him in a bid to reassure himself that he is not losing his
fame, his magic touch, the attention of his social milieu.
Truly, the
narcissist is not choosy. If he can become famous as a writer
ñ he writes, if as a businessman ñ he conducts
business. He switches from one field to the other with ease and
without remorse because in all of them he is present without
conviction, bar the conviction that he must (and deserves to)
get famous.
He grades
activities, hobbies and people not according to the pleasure
that they give him ñ but according to their utility: can
they or can't they make him known and, if so, to what extent.
The narcissist is one-track minded (not to say obsessive). His
is a world of black (being unknown and deprived of attention)
and white (being famous and celebrated).
No one knows if pathological narcissism is the outcome of
inherited traits, the sad result of abusive and traumatizing
upbringing, or the confluence of both. Often, in the same family,
with the same set of parents and an identical emotional environment
- some siblings grow to be malignant narcissists, while others
are perfectly "normal". Surely, this indicates a genetic
predisposition of some people to develop narcissism.
It would seem reasonable to assume - though, at this stage,
there is not a shred of proof - that the narcissist is born with
a propensity to develop narcissistic defenses. These are triggered
by abuse or trauma during the formative years in infancy or during
early adolescence. By "abuse" I am referring to a spectrum
of behaviors which objectify the child and treat it as an extension
of the caregiver (parent) or as a mere instrument of gratification.
Dotting and smothering are as abusive as beating and starving.
And abuse can be dished out by peers as well as by parents, or
by adult role models.
Not all celebrities are narcissists. Still, some of them surely
are.
We all search
for positive cues from people around us. These cues reinforce
in us certain behaviour patterns. There is nothing special in
the fact that the narcissist-celebrity does the same. However
there are two major differences between the narcissistic and
the normal personality.
The first
is quantitative. The normal person is likely to welcome a moderate
amount of attention ñ verbal and non-verbal ñ in
the form of affirmation, approval, or admiration. Too much attention,
though, is perceived as onerous and is avoided. Destructive and
negative criticism is avoided altogether.
The narcissist,
in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is
insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life,
to obtain these pleasurable titbits of attention. He embeds them
in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses
them to regulates his labile (fluctuating) sense of self-worth
and self-esteem.
To elicit
constant interest, the narcissist projects on to others a confabulated,
fictitious version of himself, known as the False
Self. The False Self is everything the narcissist is not:
omniscient, omnipotent, charming, intelligent, rich, or well-connected.
The narcissist
then proceeds to harvest reactions to this projected image from
family members, friends, co-workers, neighbours, business partners
and from colleagues. If these ñ the adulation, admiration,
attention, fear, respect, applause, affirmation ñ are
not forthcoming, the narcissist demands them, or extorts them.
Money, compliments, a favourable critique, an appearance in the
media, a sexual conquest are all converted into the same currency
in the narcissist's mind, into "narcissistic supply".
So, the narcissist
is not really interested in publicity per se or in being famous.
Truly he is concerned with the REACTIONS to his fame: how people watch him, notice him, talk about
him, debate his actions. It "proves" to him that he
exists.
The narcissist
goes around "hunting and collecting" the way the expressions
on people's faces change when they notice him. He places himself
at the centre of attention, or even as a figure of controversy.
He constantly and recurrently pesters those nearest and dearest
to him in a bid to reassure himself that he is not losing his
fame, his magic touch, the attention of his social milieu.
And then
there is the third variety. These narcissists get off on humiliating
celebrities. This interview I gave to a Brazilian magazine describes
them:
Mistreating Celebrities - An Interview
Granted to Superinteressante Magazine in Brazil
Q.
Fame and TV shows about celebrities usually have a huge audience.
This is understandable: people like to see other successful people.
But why people like to see celebrities being humiliated?
A.
As far as their fans
are concerned, celebrities fulfil two emotional functions: they
provide a mythical narrative (a story that the fan can follow
and identify with) and they function as blank screens onto which
the fans project their dreams, hopes, fears, plans, values, and
desires (wish fulfilment). The slightest deviation from these
prescribed roles provokes enormous rage and makes us want to
punish (humiliate) the "deviant" celebrities.
But why?
When the
human foibles, vulnerabilities, and frailties of a celebrity
are revealed, the fan feels humiliated, "cheated",
hopeless, and "empty". To reassert his self-worth,
the fan must establish his or her moral superiority over the
erring and "sinful" celebrity. The fan must "teach
the celebrity a lesson" and show the celebrity "who's
boss". It is a primitive defense mechanism - narcissistic
grandiosity. It puts the fan on equal footing with the exposed
and "naked" celebrity.
Q.
This taste for watching a person being humiliated has something
to do with the attraction to catastrophes and tragedies?
A.
There is always a sadistic
pleasure and a morbid fascination in vicarious suffering. Being
spared the pains and tribulations others go through makes the
observer feel "chosen", secure, and virtuous. The higher
celebrities rise, the harder they fall. There is something gratifying
in hubris defied and punished.
Q.
Do you believe the audience put themselves in the place of the
reporter (when he asks something embarrassing to a celebrity)
and become in some way revenged?
A.
The reporter "represents"
the "bloodthirsty" public. Belittling celebrities or
watching their comeuppance is the modern equivalent of the gladiator
rink. Gossip used to fulfil the same function and now the mass
media broadcast live the slaughtering of fallen gods. There is
no question of revenge here - just Schadenfreude, the guilty
joy of witnessing your superiors penalized and "cut down
to size".
Q.
In your country, who are the celebrities people love to hate?
A.
Israelis like to watch
politicians and wealthy businessmen reduced, demeaned, and slighted.
In Macedonia, where I live, all famous people, regardless of
their vocation, are subject to intense, proactive, and destructive
envy. This love-hate relationship with their idols, this ambivalence,
is attributed by psychodynamic theories of personal development
to the child's emotions towards his parents. Indeed, we transfer
and displace many negative emotions we harbor onto celebrities.
Q.
I would never dare asking some questions the reporters from Panico
ask the celebrities. What are the characteristics of people like
these reporters?
A.
Sadistic, ambitious,
narcissistic, lacking empathy, self-righteous, pathologically
and destructively envious, with a fluctuating sense of self-worth
(possibly an inferiority complex).
6.
Do you believe the actors and reporters want themselves to be
as famous as the celebrities they tease? Because I think this
is almost happening...
A. The line is very thin.
Newsmakers and newsmen and women are celebrities merely because
they are public figures and regardless of their true accomplishments.
A celebrity is famous for being famous. Of
course, such journalists will likely to fall prey to up and coming
colleagues in an endless and self-perpetuating food chain...
7.
I think that the fan-celebrity relationship gratifies both sides.
What are the advantages the fans get and what are the advantages
the celebrities get?
A.
There is an implicit
contract between a celebrity and his fans. The celebrity is obliged
to "act the part", to fulfil the expectations of his
admirers, not to deviate from the roles that they impose and
he or she accepts. In return the fans shower the celebrity with
adulation. They idolize him or her and make him or her feel omnipotent,
immortal, "larger than life", omniscient, superior,
and sui generis (unique).
What are
the fans getting for their trouble?
Above all,
the ability to vicariously share the celebrity's fabulous (and,
usually, partly confabulated) existence. The celebrity becomes
their "representative" in fantasyland, their extension
and proxy, the reification and embodiment of their deepest desires
and most secret and guilty dreams. Many celebrities are also
role models or father/mother figures. Celebrities are proof that
there is more to life than drab and routine. That beautiful -
nay, perfect - people do exist and that they do lead charmed
lives. There's hope yet - this is the celebrity's message to
his fans.
The celebrity's
inevitable downfall and corruption is the modern-day equivalent
of the medieval morality play. This trajectory - from rags to
riches and fame and back to rags or worse - proves that order
and justice do prevail, that hubris invariably gets punished,
and that the celebrity is no better, neither is he superior,
to his fans.
Stephen:
Velcro Mothers
In your letters I have found some real nuggets of truth. The
inverted narcissist rings in my being, especially since I also
had a narcissistic mother who liked to 'pull my strings'. She
was always trying to merge and take over whatever I did; she
had no respect for personal space nor did she care about my boundary.
She would always repeat to me that I could never 'repay' all
that she had done for me. One of her favorites was to act hurt
and huffy till I was forced to ask her what was wrong. "You
know what you did wrong," she would reply, which prompted
me to do a soul searching guilt trip till I either found out
something I should feel guilt about or I invented something to
assuage her.
NPDs are masters of guilt and manipulation. If you believe
them, and that is the rub, then you fall for all of their guile
and maliciousness. They are good at mixing it up, a little bit
of truth with a few lies. They count on you eating it up 'hook
line and sinker', till you create this voice in your head that
lives on after they are gone or have died. Only with professional
help can you finally get rid of the garbage they stuffed into
your mind. Ultimately the victims develop coping methods to handle
them, but in the mean time the damage is done; a NPD parent makes
you less willing to believe in the goodness of others, while
they instill their paranoia in your head, ultimately that is
the worst thing they do. You no longer trust other people, so
you build up barriers to normal human relationships, and the
NPD parent has left the back door open so that other NPDs can
come into your life. Parents are not trained to be parents; that
is the shame of our society that we assume that all mothers are
innately good mothers, and fathers as well. Which brings me to
the next conclusion:
'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
a different result', is attributed to Albert Einstein.
Is this what a victim of a NPD suffers from? A hopeless desire
to change the narcissist? And does the narcissist also repeat
the same game plan? Charm, capture, denigrate and then start
over? Sometimes I see narcissistss as 'Velcro' people, trying
to always attach/attract admirers to gain Narcissistic supply.
The danger for a NPD is the victim suffering from Border-line
Personality disorder who may become attached in a malignant -
I love you, go away - pattern.
Sam:
It is called "approach-avoidance repetition complex"
and is described at length in my work.
I would like to balance the picture somewhat by presenting
the narcissist's take on things.
The narcissist is a person who is irreparably traumatized
by the behavior of the most important people in his life: his
parents, role models, or peers. By being capricious, arbitrary,
and sadistically judgmental, they molded him into an adult, who
fervently and obsessively tries to recreate the trauma in order
to, this time around, resolve it (repetition complex).
Thus, on the one hand, the narcissist feels that his freedom
depends upon re-enacting these early experiences. On the other
hand, he is terrified by this prospect. Realizing that he is
doomed to go through the same traumas over and over again, the
narcissist distances himself by using his aggression to alienate,
to humiliate and in general, to be emotionally absent.
This behavior brings about the very consequence that the narcissist
so fears - abandonment. But, this way, at least, the narcissist
is able to tell himself (and others) that HE was the one who fostered the separation, that it was
fully his choice and that he was not surprised. The truth is
that, governed by his internal demons, the narcissist has no
real choice. The dismal future of his relationships is preordained.
The narcissist is a binary person: the carrot is the stick
in his case. If he gets too close to someone emotionally, he
fears ultimate and inevitable abandonment. He, thus, distances
himself, acts cruelly and brings about the very abandonment that
he feared in the first place.
At the risk
of over-simplification: narcissism tends to breed narcissism
- but only a minority of the children of narcissistic parents
become narcissists. This may be due to a genetic
predisposition or to different life circumstances (like not
being the firstborn). But MOST narcissists have one
or more narcissistic parents or caregivers.
The narcissistic
parent regards his or her child as a multi-faceted Source of
Narcissistic Supply. The child is considered and treated as an
extension of the narcissist. It is through the child that the
narcissist seeks to settle "open scores" with the world.
The child is supposed to realise the unfulfilled dreams, wishes,
and fantasies of the narcissistic parent.
This "life
by proxy" can develop in two ways: the narcissist can either
merge with his child or be ambivalent about him. The ambivalence
is the result of a conflict between the narcissist's wish to
attain his narcissistic goals through the child and his pathological
(destructive) envy of the child and his accomplishments.
To ameliorate
the unease bred by this emotional ambivalence, the narcissistic
parent resorts to a myriad of control mechanisms. These can be
grouped into: guilt-driven ("I sacrificed
my life for youÖ"), counter-dependent ("I need you, I cannot cope
without youÖ"), goal-driven ("We have a common goal which we can and must achieve")
and explicit ("If you do not
adhere to my principles, beliefs, ideology, religion, values,
if you do not obey my instructions ñ I will punish you").
This exercise
of control helps to sustain the illusion that the child is a
part of the narcissist. But maintaining the illusion calls for
extraordinary levels of control (on the part of the parent) and
obedience (on the part of the child). The relationship is typically
symbiotic and emotionally turbulent.
The child
fulfils another important narcissistic function ñ the
provision of Narcissistic Supply. There is no denying the implied
(though imaginary) immortality in having a child. The early (natural)
dependence of the child on his caregivers, serves to assuage
their fear of abandonment.
The narcissist
tries to perpetuate this dependence, using the aforementioned
control mechanisms. The child is the ultimate Secondary Narcissistic
Source of Supply. He is always present, he admires the narcissist,
he witnesses the narcissist's moments of triumph and grandeur.
Owing to
his wish to be loved he can be extorted into constant giving.
To the narcissist, a child is a dream come true, but only in
the most egotistical sense. When the child is perceived as "reneging"
on his main obligation (to provide his narcissistic parent with
a constant supply of attention) ñ the parent's emotional
reaction is harsh and revealing.
It is when
the narcissistic parent is disenchanted with his child that we
see the true nature of this pathological relationship. The child
is totally objectified. The narcissist reacts to a breach in
this unwritten contract with wells of aggression and aggressive
transformations: contempt, rage, emotional and psychological
abuse, and even physical violence. He tries to annihilate the
real "disobedient" child and substitute it with the
subservient, edifying, former version.
Stephen:
NPD and Post Modernism
Last weekend I went to see a newly released movie entitled,
"What the Bleep do we Know!?" The actual sizzle, the
substance of the interviews, took up about a half hour. This
was serious business they were talking about; quantum mechanics,
the brain and spirituality. The people being interviewed were
not Nobel Prize winners. Not that it mattered as an award is
not a guarantee of quality of insight into everything or of someone
knowing how to change your spark plugs. Not withstanding the
lack of Nobel prizes, after the movie I did look up the web site
and discovered that the participants were not light-weight intellectuals.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
But I had a strange feeling listening to Ramtha who was channeling
a Guru; the woman allegedly had a lot of plastic surgery and
a masculine deep voice. You can find more at http://www.ramtha.com/
Was it dÈja vu? The movie sounded like Post Modern
Philosophic sophism in other words a bit of science, a bit of
spirituality and all mixed up to sound appetizing if not confusing.
There was no logic to the movie nor to the arguments; any BBC
TV science program would be more logical. So much money spent
on convincing us of what? When I quit my Doctoral studies, I
left behind an academia that was infected with Post Modern 'tripe'.
Or as an editorial in the New York Times called it, 'The mini
skirts of the mind.' Someone finally burst the balloon of postmodern
hype by having an article that made no sense published in a journal.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
If you want to publish your own tripe you can find a post
modern generator page here:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern
Now, my own experience with NPD has shown me that they operate
by obfuscation and confusion. Reading certain post modern philosophers
is like wading through a swamp of different concepts all thrown
into a soup; something like the legend of the 'stone soup' that
was made to fool people into seeing and tasting something that
was not there. A lot of what NPDs put out is just malarkey. In
Postmodernism, there is also a lot of malarkey, although I hate
to tar everyone in academia with the same brush, yet they all
seem to be infected with postmodern speak. The intellectual also
likes to appear more intelligent by quoting obtuse references,
much like the NPD, and puts forth a superior front. In some cases
there is solid wood behind the writings but in other cases, it
is so much froth. Of course I could be accused of the same thing.
Let us hope that I will steer clear of such foolishness. Let
me rephrase that, let us steer clear of obfuscation.
Sam:
Narcissists are attracted to certain
professions, the "public intellectual" being one
of these. But what you describe is part and parcel of a larger
phenomenon - the narcissist's misuse and abuse of language.
In the the narcissist's surrealistic world, even language
is pathologized. It mutates into a weapon of self-defence, a
verbal
fortification, a medium without a message, replacing words with
duplicitous and ambiguous vocables.
Narcissists (and, often, by contagion, their unfortunate victims)
don't talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade
and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary
unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they
perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches.
The ensuing convoluted sentences are arabesques of meaninglessness,
acrobatics of evasion, lack of commitment elevated to an ideology.
The narcissist prefers to wait and see what waiting brings. It
is the postponement of the inevitable that leads to the inevitability
of postponement as a strategy of survival.
It is often impossible to really understand a narcissist.
The evasive syntax fast deteriorates into ever more labyrinthine
structures. The grammar tortured to produce the verbal Doppler
shifts essential to disguise the source of the information, its
distance from reality, the speed of its degeneration into rigid
"official" versions.
Buried under the lush flora and fauna of idioms without an
end, the language erupts, like some exotic rash, an autoimmune
reaction to its infection and contamination. Like vile weeds
it spread throughout, strangling with absent minded persistence
the ability to understand, to feel, to agree, to disagree and
to debate, to present arguments, to compare notes, to learn and
to teach.
Narcissists, therefore, never talk to others - rather, they
talk at others, or lecture them. They exchange subtexts, camouflage-wrapped
by elaborate, florid, texts. They read between the lines, spawning
a multitude of private languages, prejudices, superstitions,
conspiracy theories, rumours, phobias and hysterias. Theirs is
a solipsistic world - where communication is permitted only with
oneself and the aim of language is to throw others off the scent
or to obtain Narcissistic Supply.
This has profound implications. Communication through unequivocal,
unambiguous, information-rich symbol systems is such an integral
and crucial part of our world - that its absence is not postulated
even in the remotest galaxies which grace the skies of science
fiction. In this sense, narcissists are nothing short of aliens.
It is not that they employ a different language, a code to be
deciphered by a new Freud. It is also not the outcome of upbringing
or socio-cultural background.
It is the fact that language is put by narcissists to a different
use - not to communicate but to obscure, not to share but to
abstain, not to learn but to defend and resist, not to teach
but to preserve ever less tenable monopolies, to disagree without
incurring wrath, to criticize without commitment, to agree without
appearing to do so. Thus, an "agreement" with a narcissist
is a vague expression of intent at a given moment - rather than
the clear listing of long term, iron-cast and mutual commitments.
The rules that govern the narcissist's universe are loopholed
incomprehensibles, open to an exegesis so wide and so self-contradictory
that it renders them meaningless. The narcissist often
hangs himself by his own verbose Gordic knots, having stumbled
through a minefield of logical fallacies and endured self inflicted
inconsistencies. Unfinished sentences hover in the air, like
vapour above a semantic swamp.
In the case of the inverted narcissist, who was suppressed
and abused by overbearing caregivers, there is the strong urge
not to offend. Intimacy and inter-dependence are great. Parental
or peer pressures are irresistible and result in conformity and
self-deprecation. Aggressive tendencies, strongly repressed in
the social pressure cooker, teem under the veneer of forced civility
and violent politeness. Constructive ambiguity, a non-committal
"everyone is good and right", an atavistic variant
of moral relativism and tolerance bred of fear and of contempt
- are all at the service of this eternal vigilance against aggressive
drives, at the disposal of a never ending peacekeeping mission.
With the classic narcissist, language is used cruelly and
ruthlessly to ensnare one's enemies, to saw confusion and panic,
to move others to emulate the narcissist ("projective identification"),
to leave the listeners in doubt, in hesitation, in paralysis,
to gain control, or to punish. Language is enslaved and forced
to lie. The language is appropriated and expropriated. It is
considered to be a weapon, an asset, a piece of lethal property,
a traitorous mistress to be gang raped into submission.
With cerebral narcissists, language is a lover. The infatuation
with its very sound leads to a pyrotechnic type of speech which
sacrifices its meaning to its music. Its speakers pay more attention
to the composition than to the content. They are swept by it,
intoxicated by its perfection, inebriated by the spiralling complexity
of its forms. Here, language is an inflammatory process. It attacks
the very tissues of the narcissist's relationships with artistic
fierceness. It invades the healthy cells of reason and logic,
of cool headed argumentation and level headed debate.
Language is a leading indicator of the psychological and institutional
health of social units, such as the family, or the workplace.
Social capital can often be measured in cognitive (hence, verbal-lingual)
terms. To monitor the level of comprehensibility and lucidity
of texts is to study the degree of sanity of family members,
co-workers, friends, spouses, mates, and colleagues. There can
exist no hale society without unambiguous speech, without clear
communications, without the traffic of idioms and content that
is an inseparable part of every social contract. Our language
determines how we perceive our world. It IS our mind and our
consciousness. The narcissist, in this respect, is a great social
menace.
Thank you for a refreshing interlude and for the timely reminder
above!
Sam