Posted by: Sk | February 16, 2009

1 General frame of investigation

It’s true that it has some interest to do a little bit of everything and to jump with great easiness from one subject to another, but the whole will not get a proper interest but if hold by a general principle.Even if completely hypothetical, let us figure out that something happens when I’m 17 and I make of my life’s purpose to clear up what has happened at that moment. Studies are mainly concentrated in the structuring of understanding and the perception of reality as deriving from different structures (metaphysics and logics as available through philosophy). At the same time the attempt is made to integrate what seems to be traditional means of dealing with a certain number of phenomena into more abstract frames of thought.Thus, principally from 1992 and after, the developped metaphysical frames are used in order to study different psychic types and mainly schizoid and psychopathetic structures (as more or less developped in www.ideabstracta.wordpress.com ). Not only, the study of people who have no ordered language (Malamatula Tzelepi, Gianis Uzunis, Eleni, among other) does quickly allow to develop the so called theory of transfer: the very presence of someone does awake a certain number of impressions, thoughts, feelings, which are the result of the interaction a to b, and if ordered – compound linked to a – allow after a certain while to reconstruct an identity in interaction and thus a bridge of communication.Conclusions deriving of these observations allow the construction of a metaphysical frame which includes the possibility of thinking a ‘universal psychic mass’, some kind of meta reality linked to the physical reality somehow and communicating in ‘psychic languages’, called frequences.Thus, the human is ordered the following way: a structure of thought and a psychic logic that are in interaction through some kind of determined logic (logic of interaction). The structures of though, mostly unconscious, do present three to four levels: 1. what in thought is common to all human, usually the formal translation of the instinct of survival, impulses of love and death into ordered behaviour 2. what in thought is common to a nation acquired through tradition, experience and historical evolution 3. what in thought is common to a family or tribe as the expression of a link of blood into structures of behaviour and ways of dealing with reality 4. sometimes, an individual arrives to embed inside of the former particular ways of thinking and develops the former through particular acquisitions.The patterns of thought are formal. The psychic structures, more or less inside of the same categories, are ‘impulsive’. Psychology does usually call the first ’superego’ and the second ‘unconscious’ and places the ‘I’ in the consciously perceiving entity, contrary to some philosophical currents tending to situate the ‘I’ inside of the thinking entity. As the psychological definition is larger, as thought is parts of the conscious ‘I’, we may prefer their definition for the definition of frame as intended, although it causes some problems as there is no definition of the logic of interaction in most cases.Is this so, it may be thinkable that structures both formal and impulsive are more or less ’sane’, somehow interconnected and in any case ‘intelligible’. Which is to say, that even if most of them are unconscious, it is possible to ‘reconstruct’ the formal frame of thought or the psychic type through derived information: gestures, tones, behaviour, likings, where our theory of transfer becomes extremely helpful.If it were possible to define an almost hypothetical concept of ‘common reason’ it would certainly have to approach the following: the translation of the instinct of survival into an ordered behaviour integrated into a determined whole. Seen from this point of view, the ‘ill or insane’ appears in this that the attempt of translation has failed and is causing damage to the whole or the self.Strangely it is relatively easy to determine general types of distructered logics (ill) which do give general frames of understanding of most types of schizophrenia or psychopathia, which though seem to depend on national types: a Spanish schizoid is not a Russian schizoid, although schowing some common pattern, as if the very fact that nations have delt with those types for hundreds or thousands of years did have as consequences that some types are easily absorbed in some societies, and not in others, while others don’t, and this specifies even the very appearance of illness. The same can be observed concerning historical periods: psychopaths are not the same in the XIX than in the XXth, as the changing general social patterns of thought do condition behaviour and even appearance. To give an example: in periods where battles and wars are part of the common behaviour and attached to glories and honours, most psychopaths are deviated towards the army where they usually find an honorable death. If wars and battles become shameful, psychopaths refuse to join the army: their psychic type needs the attachment to glorious characteristics in order for something to become attractive. In these case you often see a demultiplication of series killers ravaging ordered societies; and many other similar conditioners.Studies of the so called psychopathetic lines (impulses attached and derived to and from a psychic type) give the following results: psychopaths use reverted logics in different frames, – they confuse in absolute identification love impulses with killing impulses – so that the intuitive perception of an ‘object of love’ has usually as consequence some horrible crime where death is the ‘translation’ of the corresponding sexual relationship into a way of killing. These people have no name: incapable of making a synthesis of identity of their ‘I’ the ‘I’ is shifted towards the frequency that is saying them in ‘love’ (to say: in death), and this frequency is usually encoded: it becomes intelligible in some tones which in their language may become syllabs or voice or colours. (Clear in ‘Glory’ a book whose author I can’t remember). A psychopath has usually some kind of ‘nickname’ which allows his identification in the lower realms of the unconscious and as ’sensor’ in order to detect a possible victim corresponding to his interactive logic.There are nations that have developped strong psychic barriers in order to avoid the passing of those signals (determination in identity for Spain, for example) and some type of passive psychopaths (usually women) who may use these psychopaths for their own benefit (called witches): very clearly exposed in ‘The headless knight’ (?) (O akefalos cavalieris), through means involving their capacity of determining in identity (impossible for a usual passive psychopath). Others, who can’t, tend to make of war a spring leisure: “Spring, when kings go on war.” (Psalm)

Seen from this perspective, it is perfectly possible a) to conceive a psychic interaction with someone who does almost not talk intelligibly, although the resulting ‘information’ not being ‘per se’ but the result of an interactive logic b) to conceive broadest nets of unconscious interactions (clear in ‘le silence des agneaux’, the movie with Jodie Foster).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: