Posted by: Sk | February 19, 2009

11 Clearing up refracted lines

Bridging philosophy to psychology



Thought is not just a result, it is mainly a process. This process may have different goals and causes, and though it is an evidence that results may have little meaning if there is no understanding of how someone arrived to a determined conclusion or view of reality. These different texts are the attempt to reconstruct a process of thought that started at the hypothesis zero: no warrant for evidence anywhere. From this shattered mind, whose reference was a copy of the psychopathetic psychic type (serial killer), a weakened ‘I’ tries to find back a path to ordered and rational thought. This process does generate alternatively two categories of texts in alternation: those referred to personal experience and those arriving to general results as the consequence of the first, while both do try to find the link from one to another.

Of help: (Manual of a soldier)


Hannah’s murder

You really never know what your unconscious is carrying, nor exactly what your mind is pursuing in its depth. Thus, most of the movements you make, seem to be the response to some superficial purpose you establish as, let us say, official goal or aim, while thousands and thousands of little gestures and tones of voice, steps and directions, which can hardly be explained by the goal in question,  do leave marks on the skin of memory in order for you to understand, perhaps, one day, much later, when all is finished, what you were really seeking for. Sometimes, you try to give an answer to hundreds of questions and problems at the same time, condensing in one simple presence the solution in different perspectives for many even contradictory matters. It is very difficult to find one single principle which may determine convincingly your general behavior, and it is not without surprise that you have to discover sometimes, that your ‘official goal’ was nothing but an intelligent mask in  order to hide away your real intentions, which may be as bad … as good. Why did Hannah’s death become such an obsessive matter, that it finished by determining all my behavior for years, blindly and stubbornly, as if life itself would be suspended on the possibility of an answer to this question, making me even break all rules of my usually quiet and discrete movements through reality? Such honorable words as ‘fidelity beyond death’ would have shocked my common functional mind, and were it not, in truth, I think, that the fact of knowing the murder alive made my existence tremble constantly of the possibility of a new murder, covered as well as the first, I would perhaps not have made any movement whatsoever. Or perhaps the second reason was nothing but an excuse that would satisfy my research for plausible causes and justifications, knowing well that our world does little understand of noble feelings and that it would rather not fit otherwise in my general block of explanations. At the end, it doesn’t matter if she died at that very moment. Her death was in any case the result of this first attempt of murder, and thus the guilt much more than an intention, it was a torture of 20 years were the understanding was losing forces from moment to moment, until it finally vanished. Had I given deeper belief to her sayings, I would have been perhaps less shocked by the number of very surprising happenings that would mark my path through existence ever since I decided to keep my word, when I said, ‘I would go for a third time toIsrael.’ If I see back now, I can clearly distinguish the superposition of her soul on my understanding, where the very force of her presence and her will ‘to go back home’, did blind my eyes to reality, while, at the same time, I must have been pursuing my own personal goals, which were nothing, apparently, but revenge. Or the depth of the instinct of survival, who knows.  How near the realm of death is filtering our common world, I may understand now, now that what seemed to me theoretical results were confirmed one by one by an experience which, though difficult to share with anyone, has left thick layers of memory in some part of the psychic system, so as it to be impossible to function otherwise but in knowledge of these elements, which do even regulate the functioning of understanding and ordering of information as transmitted by senses.  She knew that the world of the death is intelligible for an intelligent mind, visible and organized in codes and messages and information paths, that psychic currents do link souls one to another, and that these currents were infected by the presence of death. She said: “I know, because I was dead.” (Which I did never really give credit to.) And though I was drown slowly to the kind of world she was living in, simply by copying the muster of the grammatical structures of her language, so that I was confronted to the most surprising inner experiences a human being may think of, I was convinced in my functional understanding, that it was nothing but a result of the conjunction of reason with images, which is to say, fantasy, though not illusion, as it was still related to thought. Some kind of illustration in blundering, synthetic images of extremely complex theoretical thoughts. “I was writing a novel,” I said in the tones of utter conviction to the toll agent, although at that time this was still true for my conviction at the arrival, much less for the evidence I had been cumulating during my somewhat tormented stay.  How did my novel characters become living people walking in front of me, making the same gestures they made in my fantasy, using the same tones, the same words, the same expressions? If this is true, I told to myself, is the other true, too? All the horrible stories of mafia bosses and international organized crime, of tortured political plans and free psychopaths terrifying the world? If I had taken the risk not to give credit enough to Hannah’s sayings, could I take the risk of doing as if the rest be just a fantasy? My mind was already structured in such way, that it opened little doors in hypothesis, for different possibilities. Thus, when I left for Israel ‘to confront myself to evidence’, as I had put it, I was almost certain that I would just be confronted to the fact that it was all nothing but a very interesting story, to my understanding, resuming theoretical questions in adventures much more exciting to the mind than ‘Alice in wonderland.’ I just wanted to put the characters somewhere, where the geographical precision would give to the whole a more credible allure. Thus, I intended to stay just for one week.  The possibility that Hannah be true, was slight, but had given a whole number of necessarily following consequences, were it because the hypothesis in itself was so interesting that it merited a novel for itself. “If all this is true, than you have to switch over to the automatic program.” The automatic program which had been a construction that had taken almost months to be ready, was based on the following principles: My poor mind would be incapable of assuming the evidence and thus would certainly fall into some kind of inner shock, paralyzing body and understanding. In order to avoid this, the concentration had to be kept fixed on a whole number of unbelievable stories, which were programmed almost with second’s precision. The whole was embedded in some kind of general hypothesis which maintained that a foreigner appearing at times of coming war (Irak) was necessarily suspicious, and thus had to be put under observation. Thus, it was possible to share all these very incongruous stories with someone who eventually may get a clue out of them, whatever it was. Whether the latter happened or not, I will certainly never know, the fact being that I was to keep myself inside of my program if I did not want to loose my mind. Seeing backwards it seems obvious to me, that the whole stories did nothing but spell Hannah’s identity in some kind of inner symbiotic relationship whose nature and logic was to be established, perhaps later. Be it my understanding, that my personal ‘I’ was nothing but making visible a character which necessarily would attract on itself the same aggressions she had been the object of 20 years before, and thus, get the ‘lines’ or the character of the possible murder. The extreme superposition of characters does though not allow to establish clearly who is intending what, as at the same time, it is obvious that the evident hole in time, created by the imposition of a hypothesis referred to events having happened 20 years before, would necessarily create highest psychic disturbance to the environment, and thus aggressions I had to deal with wisely, if ever possible. The mechanisms of defense, which were included in the program, did necessarily pass through bridges to socially integrated psychopaths, to say, as they were the only ones which could assure this without creating too much disturbance, for the while, which implied that the depth of the intention had to be kept so deeply hidden that it not be detectable even for the most intelligent of them. That the plan did work out, and the ‘lines’ of the murder reassembled from microscopic pieces of memory, became obvious the day I left. Someone called ‘Zilverman’, another toll agent, does transmit the whole psychic character of the murder in presence. That a murder is never alone, and does belong to interrelated groups of murders who do cover each other defending and aggressing territories, does it never make easy to find the one who is guilty. Even more so if you are as much interested in the material criminal as in the logic that was at the origin of the murder, the social cover and intellectual author.  The psychic character of someone called ‘Zilverman’ (who does have certainly little to do with the murder in question except as for being the recipient of the same type for some seconds), is thus synthesized and called ‘heroic’ for a while, all over Europe. The ‘heros’ thus localized, would certainly don’t mind to show their noses to the surface, and give the general configuration being at the origin of Hannah’s death. Strange happenings all over
Europe do finally link Hannah’s death to a certain ‘ideology’ implying banks, law, psychiatry, education, politics, mafia. The intellectual author does seem to be somewhere in

Switzerland. A whole way of thinking, having its roots far beyond history, is slowly defined.  The ideology thus determined is put on my consciousness as a mask, that does attract the similar to the similar. The ‘very low lines’ (or Hannah’s psychic currents involving the under world) do show lines of connection passing through Spain to

Ecuador. How easy could it be to find the murder while having the apparent consciousness concentrated on some kind of anodyne work?  I remember that I saw myself in prison, where I had put myself in order to avoid myself committing a crime. There was emptiness in the room, and only some kind of yellow, soft light irrigating it, as in some kind of medieval prison. There was a desk, and I had put my elbows on the desk, while my face was resting on my closed hands. And there was an infinite peace. Then I had to go out of prison, which was a whole of strange stories involving many ghosts and many judicial mistakes.  The day I arrived at the Hotel Oroverde in
Cuenca, I read a card, where the name of the general manager was written on, and I read ‘Zilverman’, a Jew, although it was Zimmermann, which is not a Jewish name. That very day, I saw again the psychic type I had seen when I left Israel, about three years before, while my consciousness was distracted by thousands of other little problems, all linked, somehow, to what I knew of Hannah’s death. The quarrels with her uncle or cousin, finances and banking. Although my immediate awareness was conscious of the incredible danger, the weakness of my position, the irrationality of the whole seen through common eyes, some kind of almost sadist disposition I did not know of myself, did take a horrid pleasure in playing the mouse the cat’s way, so that I didn’t leave. Scotched to the presence of the one I had been searching for years, trying to involve his unconscious through my apparent ‘non chalance’ into a plan which would be a punishment enough for what my heart did know, without proofs. If I had been aware at that moment, if I had put the word ‘murder’ beside the association of Zilverman to Zimmermann at that very moment, I would have killed him with my own hand and torn his eyes off his face, with my own hands. Luckily, some deeper movement of preservation of myself, which involved the completely chimerical thought of someone possibly falling in love with me, who would be eventually shocked by such a monstrous behavior in common eyes, even if he may have agreed in the depth of his heart, if ever chance was given to expose fully the reasons of such misbehavior, kind of thought which for years had stopped on the other hand hundreds of psychopaths to pass over to action, did made a horrible effort to transform what could be called an almost instinctive reaction to a somehow more ordered path of action.  In the depth of my soul I was searching for someone who still may have Russian blood in his veins. Insisting, almost obsessive, the questioning for someone whose psychic roots may still contain traces of those social mechanisms that do trap the murder in ‘Crime and Punishment’. The custom of distinguishing the murder from the rest, leaving some kind of mark on brain’s cells. It seemed that it could not be, although someone in prison, heavily ill of some kind of schizophrenia and thus confusing all kind of information in a puzzle whose codes I would though slowly break, had told me that there were Russians somewhere, some people called Ruilova. Of course all the rest of information was wrong, confusing real elements with false ones to the point that it was difficult to know even if the name was correct. But that very point, that there could be a Russian descendant somewhere around, did open again a slightest glimpse of hope. Only a Russian would intuitively understand the depth of my request and the absolute need of taking any kind of action whatsoever, as quickly as possible. I knew Natascha very well. You never say the truth to a Russian. If you do, they do never believe you. If though the truth is conveyed in the heaviness of tones, they capture the meaning in extremely complicated and sophisticated logics involving social mechanisms of greatest extension, and do what they have to do, whenever they can. Differently to psychopathia, where under lines do invade upper lines (the understanding is coded in some kind of ‘sexual’ ‘charabia’), schizophrenia is a jungle where the pieces of information are put together in the most incongruous ways, creating some kind of link between the information as given and mechanisms of attention, so that the unconscious, while keeping the information exactly as given, is driving the movements in reality from one place to the other until the attention falls almost accidentally exactly there where the origin of the referential information is to be found. I knew this language very well, so that I did not even make the slightest effort to correct the information as it had been given, just waiting for it to lead me to the right place. Which happened a little later. About ten days. My marveled eyes discover a shield, just in front of a place I used to visit, I had never paid attention to, saying something and then ‘Ruilova’. A lawyer. I remember that day, moving my steps towards the place in question, my soul being invaded by a strong spirit, an impulse pushing me to the psychopathetic lines, where all hidden crimes are committed. And a stronger hand from far beyond, ordering the impulse into a reasonable disposition, leading me up the steps. Only that day I established the conscious link between Zilverman and Zimmerman, two or three minutes after having found, to the appearance at least, a more reasonable solution than to allow myself being pushed to a judicious crime, whose type did not exist in penal codes worldwide.  One day, I had promised myself that I would tell this story to
Sask. After all, my bad consciousness after having transgressed Israeli laws of immigration with an illegal stay of more than three months did justify even such a fantastic story, did I ever want to put my feet in
Israel again. I didn’t matter even if she didn’t believe it. At least the toll agent, who I was sure had given credit to my justification at that time, that I was writing a novel, would not be deceived in her somewhat childish faith in my explanation. And it was a good reason to write a story, too. At the end, perhaps, she would eventually ask what happened to Zimmermann. But that was still to be established.  


Refractions in language

It would be rather difficult to get the clue of what has happened, and if I want it or not, I will have to play the psychologist for myself while trying to avoid at the same time the side effects of a somewhat ‘strange’ behavior as appearing to the social surface. There are things you rather have to solve alone, even more so if you are conscious of the fact that there is no one all around who may possibly help. It would be so nice to be allowed to think that there could be help coming from outside, and in a certain way there is, even it is taking the figure of a lawyer and not, as others would think, a psychologist or other torturers of the human soul.

It is not that you can’t say things in your own ‘language’, where they have an explanation and their reasons, it is that this language has become incomprehensible to the environment and you never know what they may be possibly understanding of what you say.

If I see back now, and I think I would still be needing time in order to get the comprehension of the whole situation, I see myself in a world (inner), which is organized in schizoid and psychopathetic language. It is about 2001. That both languages do refer themselves to a rational reality in a certain way, is obvious, but at that time the possible ‘translation’ is not yet determined. On the other hand, what I do determine as rational (preservation of life as such), is not a common definition for the rational, which does touch more the notion of a somehow defined normality. Normal does vary from culture to culture, from nation to nation.

I suppose that the craziest of all hypotheses, the inclusion of technology in the analysis of the flow of information (2001), is the one that drives things to the borders of madness. In fact, considering the situation from 1994 to 2000, it is obvious that the effort is concentrated in the isolation of soul from the influence of technology, so as to keep alive traditional ways of information transmission including symbols, undertones, images, and constructed situations (inheritance of the resistance against Ottoman Empire). The techniques thus given new life have enormous success, leading to the discovery of the responsible of the attack on my house in 1999. Not only. The flow of information does create alterations in psychic dispositions leading to fundamental mistakes of criminals or terrorists (17 N), thus allowing for them to be easily trapped.

How does this ‘system’ get inserted into a net of information transmitted by technology and how does this finally have as result a complete alteration of the coordinates of reality?

The rationalization of this phenomenon is widely lacking. It appears though this way in situation: I walk around the town of Cuenca talking from one to the other and saying that the situation what the organization of justice is concerned in Guayaquil is horribly bad. After a few days or weeks, I walk into an internet café, almost by accident, at a time where I usually don’t go, and where there is a switched on tv. The only news that falls under my attention is the one saying that the ‘general’ fiscal of Quito is naming 14 new fiscals in Guayaquil, who should do their work respecting Constitution, Penal Code and Fiscal Instructions (words Ruilova).

For a normal mind, this is rather a ‘happy coincidence’. I do though know that there is no coincidence at all: the disposition that leads me to the café just at this moment is what I call ‘rationalization of psychopathetic lines’, some kind of mood which leads you somewhere the same way the psychopath is driven to the victim, though exactly the other way round. Seen from my point of view, I would say that it is as if the psychic lines connecting the murder to the victim had been transferred to the machine or frequencies or waves or what ever (studies on the ‘language’ of frequency transmission from 1999 to 2001).

Globally, I could say that this system, whose rationalization is lacking, is the one I’m moving in from 2001 and after, so that it is for me possible to establish links between ‘solutions’ worked out in my ‘laboratory’, and real happenings as transmitted by mass media. How though is one thing linked to the other?

Is there an interconnection between two systems through some kind of ‘logical device’ that does make the one join the other? How does, on the other hand, this strange reality construction interfere with other reality constructions as given? Why does this progressively lead to a kind of outer realization of inner mechanisms that do obviously disturb the normal functioning of social life?

From a psychological point of view, that would consider my normal way of working and reacting, it seems obvious that the fact of being confronted to a phenomenon that does have no explanation, leads to the decision of clearing up the process by reconstructing the happenings in an outer order that does allow to establish the temporal succession and thus the causes.

The fact that disturbs me the most is that it seems as if the ‘lines of death’ were getting confused with the ‘technological information transmission’. I remember some kind of movement of panic in 2002. “Sask, there are very strange things happening. You don’t have the metaphysical body allowing these kinds of interactions. It is disturbing fundamental functions of the nervous system. I have to do something. I have no choice.”

The thing is that even these kinds of thoughts are thought in schizoid to psychopathetic language, so that it is difficult to know, not only what they are actually aiming at, but what they really mean.

Let us say that a nervous system is not what a common human would understand under a nervous system, it is the logic of the functioning of the nervous system as it is explicated in word. What am I then seeing? A logical consequence? A real disturbance? A possibility?

What are the ‘lines of death’ and how can they possibly be linked to the ‘technological information transmission’?

In the theory as developed from 1994 and on, feelings, impulses, impressions can be localized in there interaction with the human mind through bracketed compounds of words or images. Which is to say that a certain feeling is linked to a certain number of words or pictures that appear to fantasy or understanding, and it is possible to specify the impulse or feeling through the compound linked to it, which is not necessarily rational. This way, it is possible to bracket also a compound which is called ‘of influence’, which would be the effect of the presence of some one else on the subjective disposition. If the sum of the impressions bracketed as belonging to ‘z’ are synthesized in principle, the give the so called ‘lines of identity’, which on the other hand do contain ‘general lines’ (tribal, social, etc) and ‘personal lines’. The ‘general lines’ do link someone through a certain number of codes of interaction to members of the same family, tribe, social sphere, working group, political organization, etc. The ‘personal lines’ do specify the situation of the individual inside of the whole depending on general inner or outer criteria.

It is possible then to determine general lines of communication, which are based on the determination of fundamental codes of interaction. In fact, from 1996 and later, communication does not anymore need of outer links. The proofed effect of the information transmission through the synthesized identity codes in silence (on Malamatula, a non speaking tzarakatzan), does allow to establish further lines of communication with deeper historical layers or more distant populations. Thus the tzarakatzan do lead to a synthesis of the ‘Chinese psychic type’ through the alterations observed from a ‘mother soul’ in secondary related tribes going from some kind of tartar to the tzarakatzan, with widest Byzantine influence.

People belonging to the nearest environment as the Karalis are related to Russian origins. Others to Turk (Uzunis) or even French (Dalakoura), German (Raptis) or other populations. Taking into consideration the alterations provoked by the influence of the environment, it is possible to establish the main core of the psychic type and thus direct lines of communication to the populations of origin.

These observations do concern until 1999 rational compounds of organization including law, justice, administration aso. From 1999 and on, the rational compounds are given up in favor of the so called marginal languages in schizoid and psychopathetic structures. These observations do slowly lead to the conviction that there are logics determining as much the causes of death than those of sexual interaction (low lines). It seems as if general organizations which are intelligible would produce energies that do result either in death either in sexual interaction. And it is possible to interact with these energies through the synthesis of identity of the logics producing the energies, which are on the other hand, compounds derivable from the observation of general situations.

Strangely, whole blocks of organizations appear which are linked through the same lines and are commonly said mafia. These lines are though not the psychic lines as considered before. They do leave recurrent signs in mind or on the outer world, which are always the same if corresponding to determined lines. These signs are codes which do configure a language, and the language does tell the ‘projects’. As in the example in psychopathetic language, as it is determined by sexual association: word (as thought) is associated to semen and this to something else, as tooth paste, or other (depending on lines). As an agreement is a sexual interaction, the very fact of brushing his teeth symbolizes an agreement. As the codes are reverted, a sexual interaction is an agreement of killing, while a murder is a romantic proposition. The ‘clouds’ of language thus composed do transmit most of the lines for crimes as committed whether terrorist or financial or other. It composes some kind of ‘international psychic tribe’, with slight differentiations.

Analysis on the ‘Twin tower attack’ do show that the so called ‘lines of aggression’ or logical compound at the origin and thus supporting the attack do come from France with a deviation mechanism towards England. The interaction between the logical compounds and appearance do show that financial and political support is given from upper class French to Al Quaida linked Syrian Arabs.

Analysis on the Spanish ‘11-M’ attack do show much more sophisticated lines of connection between French state related ETA support and accidentally formed Muslim terrorist groups. The deviation system used in 1999 has been now doubled by a deviation of the terrorist group as appearing being at the origin of attack.

It is thus possible to establish direct lines of connection between main mafia activity (Salif) and established political or national groups, or even to follow the attempts of invading territory by one or the other.

How is this though linked to the so called ‘realm of death’ or ‘very low lines’? (Comment: “Sask, you are introducing very low lines into the upper lines, you are going to create such a mess that it will be difficult to find any kind of solution after. Are you hell going to stop dong this?” But, what is going on?)

The language of the psychopath and the ‘ghost’ is exactly the same, with the difference that the psychopath’s language is somehow attached to empirical environment and thus considers factors the ‘ghost’ does not consider. It is not necessary to believe in ghosts in order to understand the functioning of the ‘theory of very low lines’. If you consider that you can establish codes of identity both based on the appearance or behavior and the language of the individual, it is perfectly possible to think that you can get these codes through the reading of a book or through the attentive observation of a very old building. Whether you think that a lower realm exists or not, it is always possible to think that memory does transmit in very condensed synthesized ‘chips’ the historical experience of a people or population, which in my understanding does even materialize itself in proper matter as neurons or other. It is thus thinkable that the codes of identity of bracketed past does interact even physically with a human being.

Indifferently thus whether you consider these ‘clouds’ as ghosts or just ‘synthesized information’ they use the same ‘language’ than the psychopath’s, though without any link to empirical reality except if related by the same codes to some kind of building or other. Example: the theory of the six wings, somehow translated from very deep Chinese ‘chips’, does show itself in the pagodas. The language it appears in, though, is not a psychopath’s language, though this language does allow to establish the relationship between the former and the pagodas.

Apparently there is a link between the ‘very low lines’ theory and the ‘technological transmission of information’. In a certain way, you can consider that most of the ‘historical memory’ is transmitted through tones.

Analysis of tones used by Macedonian populations of the northern Greece or FIROM, do show that these can affect even the body (nausea, headaches, loss of concentration), in what we could say ‘magic’ having possibly even death as consequence. If you separate the words as such, from the tones, and you search for the inner logic determining the meaning of the tones, you discover whole blocks of logics which seem to transmit ‘historical memory’ in different ways.

Are tones anything but waves or frequencies? How different are technological frequencies from tones? How much is it possible to ‘communicate’ with surrounding waves or frequencies? Or put differently, if the human psychic system does absorb masses of psychic information through the analysis, mostly unconscious, of tones, how much does it not absorb also other types of frequencies?

Consider the 5 types as put in universal organization:
First refracted: word considered as conveying meaning in the others understanding (bridge to oligofrenian , Mongolian, schizoid and psychopathetic languages)
Second refracted: word as considered conveying the meaning in the same’s understanding (rational language)
Third refracted: word as refusing to convey the given meaning in tones and interacting with the unconscious through mechanisms of repression
Fourth refracted: word as building a different world in meaning from the one conveyed by tones
Fifth refracted: tones as conveying meaning in a logic of interaction with the psychic reality of another

If you keep yourself in a fifth refracted, appearance is kept though it is a slight façade that does allow deeper interactions mostly in the attempt of blocking effects of a third refracted; which is to say, that most of the interaction is based on tones. Bridges of communication do pass through border line associations in identity, as for example to explain the word ‘tone’ or ‘meaning’ through the more empirical ‘frequency’ or ‘wave’. But a frequency is not a wave. In lower intelligences (second refracted) it is impossible to understand the assimilation from the ‘tone’ to the ‘frequency’, as the one is referred to a phenomenon associated to voice and psychic reality, and the other to technological scientific facts. For him, this association does have as a consequence the fusion between space (the second) and time (the first), and this fusion is exactly the territory where ‘very low level transmission’ does happen, reason why such kind of misbehaviors were punished to death in OT, for example (magic and necromancy).

For a normal human being, it is of need that concepts are ordered in ‘spaces’, so as to maintain the clear separation of time and space, for he gets lost otherwise. Associations that do break the volumes of space and time are dangerous and create deepest confusion, and are though the only way to establish relationships to people using logics in low or very low lines (first refracted).

It can be said, in a certain way, that the progressive negation of the factual realm of soul, does lead to the disappearance of the notion of time in consequence and further to shifts in the general organization of reality, so that it appears as almost necessary to establish links to the low and very low level of reality in order to maintain the existence of psychic reality.

How does though the organization of the logics in low and very low level affect the interaction with outer reality so as to produce situations as the one described above? If the disturbance produced by the confusion of languages (use of fifth refracted in second refracted reality) does allow to have an insight on probable phenomena as observable, it does not explain why there is such a configuration possible involving outer reality. (Observation: “There is a superposition of inner reality on outer reality. The psychic nature is imposing itself on biological reality.” 2002)
Dialogue with Sask: “A frequency is not a tone.” “You just said that a tone was a frequency.” “I said that you can figure out what a tone is if you know what a frequency is.” “What is the difference between the one and the other?” “The one establishes an identity, such as ‘white to snow’, or ‘animal to lion’, or in a real synonym, while the other does revert a logic. In a different logic the impression left by a notion is understood as a different notion in a common logic, and thus in that logic and only there is an identity between the mark left by the use of a word in it’s meaning, the notion, and something else.”

In a certain way it should be possible to think that matter has it’s own logic, too, and thus a determined language. If this is true, than it is possible to understand that someone may be guided by impulses ordering at the same time outer and inner reality (instinct). Further developments of this language in its technological variations may explain situations as the one described above.

Is this so, though, the whole does build up a new tone, which is the result of the condensed mass of thought as implied by the very realization. Is it than the same to ‘make experiences on tones at home’ (third to fifth refracted in music, for example) or to have ‘new’ tones transmitted by the very fact of being under observation? How does the ‘new tone’ react in an ‘illegal’ situation? It does certainly leave strains on memory, and is transmitted in a metaphysical context that does not allow its appearance.

Is it now possible to explain the appearance of a ‘strange phenomenon’ through an empirical realization from 2003 to 2006? What does Hannah’s murder have to do with the disturbance in the apprehension of reality or the obvious social disorder caused by uncommon behavior? It needs further thought, because it is not easy to determine.


On psychology: Sask in conversation
I don’t have elements enough, and in any case, observation is lacking objective parameters. How could a conclusion have any value whatsoever, this way? If you consider, Sask, how different your perspective is, you will have to admit, that even the slightest attempt of intervention, were it by mistake, may have disastrous consequences. You can’t pull soul’s strings too hard, as they may break. Were it to show the difference between a possible observation of yours and a possible observation of mine, you do just have to consider the principles. Whether you want it or not, your strategy does reduce itself to push someone to some kind of ideal representation of what you consider ‘normal’, thinking that this normality synthesized in a ‘common’ behavior and resulting in an register of things to say or not to say, to do or not do, is enough to warrant someone’s ‘being sane’. If I did laugh so much with you all these years, it was certainly and mainly, because wisely considered your criteria to determine a ‘psychopath’s character’ were horribly similar to the methodology you tended to use. Not that you were wrong, in a certain way, as it is certainly extremely difficult to get into the depth of things and we are supposed to warrant first a social balance or more general peace, than to torture ourselves with the possibilities of someone being happy. And though, the main desire of a human being is to be happy, and a sheer illusion to pretend that this may be obtained by an apparent integration in a context. You see how opposite currents may be, and even, how contradiction may create quarrels there where you could think that you may establish complementarities. Of course I could take a very decisive tone to explain, that the proof of the absurdity of some of your positions does appear clearly through the fact, that psychopaths are very rarely trapped quickly enough, and that they are as easily absorbed by a social context as water in sand. Or the other way round, that you finish by determining psychopaths there where there are none.
I would take the same tone in order to explain, that language would be the only proper mean to determine where a psychopath really appears, if inserted in the proper schemes. And though, you see, I would never do. It is an evidence that however bright the proof, this has no value outside a given social context, which is to say, I always said, without your (for me) quite bizarre way of thinking. Say, that, if you don’t even consider such a ‘monstrous’ word as happiness, and you just aim at some kind of inner balance, which you could define as ‘calm’ or, even worse ‘not anxious’, you will quickly discover that even the basic needs of a human being can be so radically different, that it is almost impossible to have general criteria in order to define something which could be said ‘normal’. In any case it seems to me absurd, that even thinking there could be a ‘normality’, all of us have to submit to the absolute rule, or that, not being normal, you are necessarily ill. (See the funny Hebrew structures that do influence my English while ever trying to get some lines of communication …) Because I will have to try to get the interaction between different kinds of thinking if the continuous crashes between both are to take an end. It is an evidence, that logics that did have as finality to restore psychic systems, can never be used as socially organizing, as there would be rather a fusion between the inner and the outer world, which would have catastrophic results. On the other hand, it is an evidence, that I do not accept main principles of organization as given now, which does not mean that I would impose my way of thinking, rather to insert it, somewhere. If confusions are ever to be made clear, it appears in the case Ordoñez bluntly.
It is rather normal that the aim does determine your acquaintances and your behavior, even your sayings. I could not find Hannah’s murder if it were not by seeming to share a certain psychic character, which would put him in confidence. It is thus obvious, that the psychic character in question has to be doubled very slightly by a justification, invisible to the murder’s eyes, and though strong enough not to make someone loose the marks of the moral identity you are supposed to betray through your somewhat contradictory behavior. To say, can a psychopath be still moral? (I remember an image where I saw Angel Michael fighting in psychopath’s soul for survival …) Or can we assume with certainty that we can consider illness outside of its moral implications? Further, does language, yes or not, convey morality? You see how easily, if you define morality through the admittance of a certain number of social rules, you are obliged to leave the worse types of murders free. Of course you did never understand what I did understand under ‘moral’, as for you the word was so much suspended of a certain number of ‘obligations’ (in thought or behavior) that it could hardly catch the swiftness in meaning deriving of a definition where the living principle of the person’s identity as submitted to itself, first, and integrated with order in a whole, did warrant morality in freedom. I have never derived morality of the necessity of doing something or not doing something else, as I did know very well that the first principle of morality, which is to my understanding, the quick response to signs of highest alarm coming from someone in psychic or physical danger, does stand first, and this answer may often infringe codes which I would rather qualify as ‘image’ than as defining moral identity. My somewhat ‘anarchic’ definition of morality did crash against yours with such heaviness, that I could not but laugh. And though, it causes further problems. I knew, strangely, that your strange perspective towards reality, in my eyes, would finish by integrating as moral a certain number of facts because for you, in deeper levels of understanding, morality is suspended to some kind of far reaching brilliancy. Turn of thought: as Mozart’s music is beautiful his behavior is moral, as you can’t understand (well put as problem in the movie, on the other hand), how beauty can be derived of something immoral. (Finally, you are quite platonic, but it is a perverse argument: beauty, as such, in Plato, is moral only if it conveys truth, and truth is only conveyed by reason. Aristotle objects clearly, that beauty appears to some eyes as such, because it is ‘similar or familiar’, which is to say, not depending on reason, and thus it is easy to think, that if Mozart builds up ‘beauty’ it is nothing but the expression of some kind of irrationality, and thus immorality, of our soul, we feel familiar with, and derive pleasure of it just because we can share this immorality with someone or the general without necessarily having to be confronted to the inherent irrationality, as it is not said. More so with someone like Wagner and others.)
In no case, and that was the turn of thought you could never clear up, a fact is in itself moral or immoral. Thus, behavior is never in itself moral or immoral, it becomes immoral through the intention or the context it is embedded into. That would make us fall back to the tenth century, you would have said, which is to say, to the Inquisition, whose aim was fundamentally no other than to clear up intention. To tell you the truth, I had always some kind of inner and secret sympathy towards these kinds of arguments and organization, but you may agree on the fact, that the insertion of tenth century morals into a twentieth century morals was quite a hard task to do. It is a fact, that my wanderings through the wild forests of soul, which would have made Tarzan green of jealousy, did take little care of social organizations and structures precisely because the response to signs of highest alarm were so low, that it seemed to me priority to give answer to these first, before thinking of my more personal image and social integration. I would, telling you the truth, have preferred to have a more quiet life in a society where I would be assured of the fact, that vital needs were covered by social dispositions, rather than to jump around from branch to branch in order to locate, isolate and eliminate the main factors avoiding proper response. (One of them, yourself, by the way, but I did rather not consider you as dangerous, simply heavily oppressing my social image as pushing it to the margins of value, while it could have been some heroic Wilhelm Tell or even David image, fighting against mad Saul from upon the mountains… But this is another question.) See how my structuring of reality, which does imply a coded or ‘codable’ soul or psychic system referable to language and thus intelligible, does imply the possibility of inner connections and information transmission, and paths of communication which may, necessarily, break lines inside of established society. If considered this way, it is extremely funny to follow the lines of interaction that lead through apparently anodyne movements to the encounter of very specific individuals situated in the most relevant strategic social positions which do involve in their influence sphere millions of people. On the other hand, it is a fact, that these lines of connection are established on low or very low lines of interaction, which is to say, in what would be irrational to common eyes, even if highly rational to mine. This gives you the blocks, which can be said ideological, which do encounter one another provoking highest frictions for years.
You may appreciate now, why an observation of mine is absurd: my general logic is irrational to common eyes, and thus the result of observation irrational in its consequence for the majority of people. As far, an observation is rational because it is submitted to general rules of logic or reason, so as to become comprehensible for a whole. The evidence, that in cases of ‘disaster’, where the rules of reason are given up, and we keep looking up the sky to see how to get an order resulting of erratic, irrational movements, the ‘irrational logic’ may comprehend the elements of solution, is no further justification. On the contrary: it turns things up side down whenever you try to make of it a system of order when the danger is over. You see where systems crash, even solar systems. Seen from my very subjective point of view, I may have aimed from the beginning at nothing but my very stupid and boring peace, as I figured it out. It looked somehow like a home, where there was place for some one else, quite a lot of time and many interesting questions. How does this apparently very common goal, lead to the attempt of solution of wars, universal economics or the foundation of psychology? If I see at things from the perspective that was given by existence, I may say that it is not that we determine ourselves somehow, but that our identity is integrated such in a whole, that we can derive a certain respect from the very fact of keeping ourselves as we are as long as we can proof that this is profitable to the whole. Far from that, my very singular nature, which does involve in its early years nothing but the desire of knowledge in its confrontation or argumentation, does find no place anywhere. Intuitively I may have fought for a place where my nature may have some value, so as to warrant through the respect derived from recognized activity, the stability of the interrelationship to people I may consider family or friends or whatever. It does not need many years in order to discover, that the very refusal of recognition of my specific activity, is at the origin of gravest disasters, as the rational activity is given up in favor of aggressive instinctive interactions. What seemed so simple, does have enormous involvements. My personal peace does seem to involve the possibility of a change in the general way of thinking and behaving.
With greatest concentration, I do conquer for years territories of the unconscious, which seem to be apt to agree with such changes, while developing strategies of attack against those refusing. In fact, organizations implying economics, justice, politics, psychology, even army and police, and other, are nothing but the progressive development of the consequences of such fundamental changes. Though it is obvious that around 2001 the constant frictions between two possible worlds, do make tensions grow so high as to make it almost unbearable, and thus the aim, be nothing but resistance or simple survival, it becomes visible, that it is of need to transform the conquered inner territories into active interactions in reality, which does imply to find Hannah’s murder. There may be many explanations for the latter, and though, the most comprehensible of all, is that the transformation of irrational elimination of dangerous individual (through the so called refracted lines in action) into an elimination through social mechanisms involving police and justice does create a whole where the identity I stay for finds an environment where it is secure, and thus the principal goal obtained, while knowing on the other hand, that such a real progress in human behavior is necessarily spread itself in some kind of wave movement, assuring general security. The type of psychopath thus ‘caught’ being of the worse species, it can be said with certainty that the whole range of psychopaths aggressing psychic interaction is definitely eliminated, leaving one or two free for the pleasure of your personal intelligence. This does though not change anything on the fact, that as a logic having being put under highest pressure for so many year, the identity I was getting a territory for, is not anymore the same. The rationalization for the effect of logics in interaction is further lacking. In fact, the ‘conquered world’ does not fit me anymore. It is impossible to integrate rationally a logic whose essence does comprehend at least 6 main possible psychic types, getting up and down the social scale, in 7 main national territories and probable time variations of over 3000 years. As such I’m as bizarre to common eyes as you are to mine. But you are lucky enough not be bizarre to common eyes, which is an advantage. You see how careful you have to be, all in all. May you ever attract someone to your personal universe, knowing that this may have as immediate consequence that this person be socially isolated through the fact of loosing the common parameters? I wouldn’t, just for reasons of ethics. On the other hand I feel rather alone, though this could be said a common illness.
If you consider all this, it may be easier to understand the perspective under which certain things are analyzed, or the view that determines a certain number of conclusions. Because the main difference between you and me is that I do consider things as in interaction, and thus depending on my own personal situation and goals, while you do put names on things which determine the identity of the other, thing I would never do. What does your schizophrenia have to do with mine? If there is a link, and there is certainly one, it is that the group of people I do study are said schizophrenic by people like you. Instead though of determining these the way you do (which I can’t, as not having the same studies), I do try to establish whether they have some kind of language in common, or further characteristic in behavior (in cases of grave schizophrenia, where they do hardly speak), which could be said ‘general spirit’ or disposition. Slowly, patterns of language, involving main structures of understanding or interrelationship to soul are defined, so that some called ‘schizophrenic’ in your language are rejected as such, as not having the said characteristics, and others not identified by you, are considered as such through the similarity in language. Being the same, it is not anymore the same. The very perspective of analysis does differentiate the fields. The main groups of schizophrenia, or varieties considering main functions do certainly cross general common observations. What does differ completely though is the way of approach.
It is certainly more diplomatic to consider someone is talking a different language than to say he is not normal, or ill. The fact not to understand the specific language does not imply any kind of judgment, while the fact of not considering someone normal, does. The fact that someone speaks a different language does not make him dangerous, and the very fact of understanding him, does not imply that he may not be submitted to moral obligations. The very difficult balance that is to be kept by entering someone else’s world, even more so if this person lives in complete isolation for years, does produce most singular situations, which can’t be considered in isolation but just as pieces in a general process. In any case it is of evidence, that the sayings of someone ‘in another world’ are to be taken with care. Though intelligible in some context, they do certainly not fit into common understanding, and this is why the problem becomes urgent: how far may sayings of this kind be taken seriously as witnesses or inserted in any kind of process of justice? If you take a language in superposition (most schizoid languages), it does structure the subjective psychic impression in series of non empirical sentences, which do though refer themselves to empirical facts, which have a value or weight in the subjective understanding of the one who is talking. In the Ruilova exemple:Diana says: a man went to
Russia for studies and got married there with a Russian who came here, and they had two sons. The name of the man was Ordoñez, and thus the children’s name Ordoñez Ruilova. Reality though seems to look differently:Perhaps a Russian arrived here three generations ago and had at least one son. The son had a daughter who got married to someone called Armijos, and they had three daughters. Some relatives went to
Russia for studies and never came back. The little sister is fascinated by Russian culture.
If you consider that the latter version may have some ‘social’ adaptation, which is to say that for reasons of social integration some facts are slightly altered and presented their own way, the relationship between the first information and the second can be called ‘crossed’ (somehow corresponding), but in no case the first can be considered as reliable, although it may help you to find the second. If you say that Diana is telling lies or bullshit, you will never find the right information. On the other hand, you can’t consider the first information as reasonably reliable as such. Which opens again the question of the source of information and how much it can be reliable or what its proper value is. The great advantage of the studies of schizoid language, is that you have the clue that leads you from one information to the other. Now consider the case Ordoñez, a very singular construction that is extremely rare.
As said, usually the schizoid does put psychic impression into some kind of disordered puzzle, which seems to have a relationship to empirical facts. In this case though, you have a language that does put the psychic ‘reaction’ in words, first, and goes on to refer itself to outer reality. Which is to say, an almost psychopathetic organization. Two exemples, which are:a) to a phone call from prison searching for a lawyerwhy do you phone here?b) to a requestdo we leave it here? It is obvious that both are reactions to some kind of inner progress of situation whose intelligibility does not appear at all to someone who just makes a request to a lawyer in a situation that does justify such a request. What does it mean?It is an evidence that in both cases my answer does restore a plausible link to rationality (first: I was given your phone number, and second: I have written some other stories), which is though nothing but a desperate attempt to mask the evident incongruity of response. What has happened?
If you restore the general situation of acquaintance, it may give a light about the possible stress causing the superposition of structures. I’m sent to Ordoñez by Misacango. Misacango though has appeared in the lines of Zimmermann, which links the psychic character to quite a dubious situation. On top of it, he is put in links with the Rothschild hypothesis, which seems to indicate a similar character than the one referred to the general disposition being at the origin of Hannah’s death. Asking where I can leave a pen for warrant in order to get some money, I’m sent to Ordoñez, being said: “I’ve already said to other people to do so, and they have never come back. I don’t know myself, though she told me herself that if someone needed something she could be of help.” What is Misacango’s intentionality? Is he trying to trap Ordoñez? Is he masking personal illegal activity by deviating attention on her? Is he in love with her and using me as link? If for me the request seems normal as I don’t know how things work here, it does rather put Ordoñez into an uneasy position, which does alert me respecting Misacango’s intentions. Consequently she says that she is a lawyer, which for me does not imply any incompatibility whatsoever, but something in her reaction does struck my mind. It is not ‘normal’. My register of information does function in the localization of type and establishes ‘possible victim of psychopath’ in widest possible range. Consequently I try to get the ‘lines’ or codes of logics in interaction by insisting in asking questions about points of law, she does always answer to, without though wanting to get involved.
By trying to determine the lines, I meet her accidentally in the street, which means that she is actually moving on psychopathetic lines. Border line schizoid character does mostly revert already psychic information: danger is translated into pleasure, and pleasure into danger, reason why they become very easily psychopath’s victims, because they revert exactly the same way. If, by putting lines of ‘danger’ I cross her on the street, it means that she is already reverting the information. Consequently I build up a strategy using a psychic type that may possibly attract her attention in the attempt of restoring normal lines, while I try to block possible lines of murder, which would imply to get the essential codes of identity which are very difficult to get. As the schizoid does turn everything up side down, it is of evidence that the only way to get lines of identity is some kind of well planned ‘love proposition’: she will get furious, and the tones of anger do reveal the codes of identity. Consequently the lines of aggression are blocked. How far is it though possible to restore the rational lines? It is of evidence that she does not integrate psychic information into a different case than the ‘social’ information or of understanding, as she puts them at the same level. The reversion (negation) of psychic space explains the up side down in ordering the information. Which means that she orders soul in outer space. How far is it is possible to open major soul dimension? It is an evidence that only language can. The re-situation of the given information into a determined block of interpretation, may convey the ordering of what is referred to soul and open lines of ordered communication between soul and understanding. Otherwise, the possibility of a complete vanishing of the lines of understanding in favour of the psychic world is very high. In any case it is an interesting case. But how, Sask, do you get further elements as your completely blind and archaic conceptions would understand any kind of interaction in erotic concept, that would make her absolutely furious? It is an evidence, that if I get angry, she will understand that I like her very much. The question is how the environment does not condition disasters by the complete misunderstanding of … foreign languages


The theory of middle lines
Based on Plato’s division of the human soul, the psychic activity is divided into upper lines (nous) middle lines (synaesthima or thymos) and low lines (epithimia).Plato does understand the soul (psychi) as a different entity than the body, although he does not establish it’s exact nature nor relationship to the body. His general theory says that soul does wander somewhere in heavens and falls down to the earth as a kind of punishment, where it is imprisoned in body for a lifetime.
Plato seems to think that there is life before and after biological existence, reason why his theories are adopted by Christian thinkers in order to justify and explain the possibility of eternal life.
The nature of soul will cause theoretical questioning all over the Middle Ages and specially in the XVIIth century (Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza), but it’s existence will be finally rejected as a theoretical subject of thought. Based on Hume’s results, Kant does not even consider the possibility of definition of the concept, even though he is able to think other a priori concepts.
The concept of soul is reconsidered in the XIXth century and early XXth from a medical point of view as designing the source of mental illness, and then rebaptized ‘psychi’, in order to differentiate it from the religious eternal soul. Definition lacking, the most extensive approach in order to determine the logic of functioning of the same will be made by Freud in his theory of the unconscious.
The problem in the definition of the concept appears while considering different theories of knowledge, having as a result different approaches of what can be known, and consequently of the possibility of existence of something.
It is an evidence that an empirical approach does not allow to think the existence of something whose reality seems not to be depending on senses. The empirical approach though does show quickly limits, as Kant proofs, as it has to consider in order to establish these very conclusions a logical process of thought which can hardly be perceived by senses either. It is though strange, that Kant restrains the a priori (not depending on senses) field to the knowledge of understanding without considering a broader territory of application.
In fact, it is obvious that the biggest problem is to think the relationship between the ‘I’ as identity, the concept as conveying meaning and knowledge, and the empirical senses. The two main currents do just show the extreme complexity of the problem: Plato thinks that knowledge is somewhere, fix and eternal and perceived by the ‘intelligence’ (nous), while Aristotle, who refuses to think the world of ideas, does derive all knowledge from senses.
Neither the one nor the other approach does allow to properly think the soul. In the first, you can almost imagine a detached soul somewhere in heavens, and in the other, it can hardly exist.
Although Kant does seem to touch a solution with his frozen Prussian fingers, he gets stuck when he defines ‘universal and necessary a priori forms of sensitivity and understanding’. His great step, to transfer the forms of organization of reality to the subjective human intelligence, and thus, neither in heavens, neither directly empirical, reaches the abyss when he fixes these forms in universal and necessary forms, which do allow to talk of scientific truth, but do confine this truth to objective sentences concerning only subjects related to outer senses. If considered in a symbolic way, he gives the final struck to soul, which dies in a conceptual trap a little earlier than Nietzsche’s God.
Freud, who is no philosopher and does little care about the accuracy of definitions, does though use of a main logical tool, the demonstration through the absurd, in order to establish the validity of the unconscious. ‘As the effect is,’ he says, ‘the cause is.’ Which can be considered as valid. The problem is that his theory is not depending on a theory of knowledge, on the one hand, nor on determined definitions. How does he define the ‘I’, and how valid is his definition? Where is the realm of the unconscious and how is it linked to the consciousness or understanding? The lack of a proper metaphysical context does make of Freud’s theories a little boat in the middle of the ocean, with two or three logical demonstrations as only guides through the waves.
If the mind takes a certain distance in order to consider the problem, it does soon discover that the whole problem in the determination of the phenomenon is the difficulty in introducing the notion of ‘process’ or ‘time’ in a general theory of knowledge. Thinkers do tend to want their knowledge eternal and absolutely valid, which is to say, timeless. If it is though timeless, the very fact of wanting to think a process in the getting of knowledge does make it relative to the process and thus it seems ‘less true.’ Aristotle, who thinks knowledge as the result of a recurrent print left by empirical impression on the brain, admits that this kind of knowledge is relative and can’t be said true in such, so that he is obliged to transfer eternal truth to mathematics and logic and eventually to the realm of stars, which, to his understanding, do divinely move in mathematical order and thus escape the apprehension through process, as they can only be thought through ideal mathematics.
In all cases it seems clear that the thinker either refuses either is incapable to think the relationship in process between the knowing ‘I’ and the known object. And this mainly because of the extreme difficulty in thinking an ‘I’ as separated from the mass of empirical impressions which does configure the body linked to the determined ‘I’, although the very logic should very quickly impose such separation. ‘I’ is a word, and as such in nature can only be linked to other words, so as to understand the ‘I’ as the relationship of a determined identity (name) to a whole number of words and sentences that can be said belief or conviction, or impression, or whatever. The ‘I’ thus considered is obviously empirical, as the human consciousness does allow the awareness of thought.
In main thinkers the incapability of separating the ‘I’ as word from a sum of empirical impressions which appear in the mirror in a whole body, does make the solution to the problem of knowledge impossible, and does thus put heaviest barriers to the definition of soul. The only thinker trying himself on this direction, Descartes, saying ‘cogito, ergo sum’ (I think, thus I’m), linking for the first time the verb ‘to be’ to the ‘I’ through thought, does not solve the problem of how then to link his thoughts to the empirical impressions they are somehow related to, restraining himself to the association of his thinking ‘I’ to a certain number of logical conclusions that can be said, for him, true.
The possible solution to this extremely complex problem, consisting in relating an empirical ‘I’ as perceived by consciousness in thought to senses through a ‘factor’ which is derived through the absurd, called spirit, and having as a result a ’synthesis’, does cause an enormous amount of shifts in the definition of concepts as traditionally transmitted. A synthesis is the word resulting from an operation or process which does need of an ‘actor’ in order to appear. Considering the difference between an impression as left by senses and a word, the essential difference can be said that the second has an identity the first has not. Consequently the ‘actor of process’ or spirit can be said ‘conveying identity’, and is extremely easy to be associated to the principle of identity, which is thus not formal (Kant) but an active principle appearing only in determined biological configurations (brain) to the extent to allow thought.
Logically, the very fact of introducing a process in the very acquisition of knowledge, whose most simple form is the word as linked to something through a certain number of criteria, does seem to avoid the thought of universal truth as such. Why should a human being make the same synthesis than another, using the same criteria and parameters? A priori there is no reason, which makes it of need to introduce a new factor in order to explain why usually though, human beings do use at least similar criteria or associate the same meaning to words: understanding.
Contrary to what seems the consequence of Plato’s thought, where necessarily knowledge is an enriching of the personal soul in order to get a good visa for the other world (knowledge as related to the self in self realization), this approach does oblige to think knowledge as a bridge of communication to others in order to configure an ordered whole (society). Why does Plato’s world become tyrannical for the people of Syracuse, who sell him as a slave? Because he thinks that he can impose knowledge on others, those can not get by themselves. The impossibility of thinking knowledge as means of communication does necessarily lead while confronted to the other obligation of establishing social order, to tyrannical imposition, people do naturally reject.
As such, knowledge seems to be a precarious balance between a synthesis made by a human and an agreement with others in it’s use, which does slowly lead to the determination of formal criteria allowing clearing up in cases of confusion, this criteria being certainly based on most common subjective forms (Kant), which on the other hand does not allow to say that they are universal. It is thus true that a human being as a concept does have two hands and two feet, which does not imply all human having them. Thus, it is possible to say, that the human understanding does in concept function on given logical structures which are proper to his nature, which does not necessarily imply that all have them, on the one hand, nor that they are the only one’s universally possible for the organization of reality.
Is this accepted, than it is easier to understand what human beings have understood as soul for hundreds of years, in an undetermined cloud of definition, making reference to aspects which can be summed in a definition as possible through a new approach. If the human being considers himself as an ‘I’ in word, he will be able to make the difference between two kinds of words he keeps to determine his identity: the one’s that do allow him to order outer reality and the one’s that do affect his mood or inner disposition. The second compound of words seems to need of some kind of ‘container’ in which they can be effective. Although I know that the thought ‘it’s not that bad’ is much more positive than the one saying ‘all is horrible’, it is an evidence that even if I make an effort, I can’t believe the first if it is not embedded somewhere. This somewhere seems to be a general compound of logics, thoughts, memories, stories that do make the field that allows something to be believed or not. As this compound though does affect the affectivity and even the lower realms of desire, it can’t be thought just as a logical compound as situated in brain, for example. It is possible to think that the very intelligibility in it’s meaning of all these words and stories and logics does configure some kind of very fine almost immaterial reality which is though in interaction with the body altering even biological data through neurobiological interactions.
In fact, it seems easy to understand the relationship between the new defined soul and body the same way the human relates the word to its meaning. Not to the object it is referred to, but to the meaning as appearing to consciousness. Though many thinkers do associate meaning to some kind of image appearing through the faculty of fantasy, it is obvious that this can only be the case for empirically determined objects. Someone saying: “This has strictly no meaning” is searching in his understanding for some matching impression to a sentence or word or situation, which for him does configure the impression or notion of meaning, independently of the logic he is using. Meaning is as important to thought as the series of words put in a certain order in the mind, even if it is less ‘empirical’ than thought, as it can’t be transcribed into sounds, or letters or other symbols.
Further analysis does show that the notion of meaning is not preserved by logic, which is only a tool in order to convey knowledge, but by soul.
If this were so, it is an evidence, that reality as such is not met by general theories that do refuse an autonomous entity to soul, or even the existence of it. It can be generally said, that if there are things that do belong to the subjective organization of the human (most of beliefs concerning soul), there are concepts whose lack can produce major disturbance in the attempt of organizing reality as such, as there are phenomena that have no ‘case’ where they can be ordered into. If you refuse to consider holes, you will quickly fall into one, and if you don’t want to assimilate consistency or heaviness to a wall, you will crash your head against the first wall. The fact of not thinking properly a certain number of concepts is certainly at the origin of great psychic disturbance, such as anxiety, stress, aggressivity, depression, aso, and also at the origin of the incapability of proper appreciation of general situations, such as concerning social, political, even religious life, etc.
The organization of reality does mainly depend on the definition of concepts and there assemblage as shared by a group or a nation. Changes in definition and assemblage do alter the configuration of reality and thus the very behavior inside of a whole. In how far the side effects of bad definition does fall on a certain number of people who do not share them, is rather to be established.
In any case it is possible on this basis to determine which would be the general body of thought as conveyed by contemporary society, it’s side effects and the interrelation to other possible bodies of thought.


Balkan war
It should be possible, after all, to get a clear notion of the main hypothesis provoking the fundamental crashes.
Let us point out two of them:1.) the problem of direct execution of justice through banks2.) the problem of the use of the principle of identity as sole vector of rationality(1992)
The first has nothing to do, directly, with my subjects of study; it could be thus be considered a personal engagement. The second though, is. In 1992 there are three main theories which do occupy people’s minds:- the theory of the “bleu/vert.” Or the thought that it should be possible to consider the change in time of what could be said an adjective. (Which implies that philosophy has already lost the difference between the noun and the adjective, between essence and accident: logically you consider the change of color of a leave, for example, as being part of the characteristics of the noun, as an accident. The question whether an adjective may change in time is as absurd as wanting to consider that a number may change it’s nature in time.)- The theory of knowledge depending on reference: there is no possible link that could be established between the noun (concept) and the object, except by pointing at it with the finger (consequence of radical empiricism).- Rational truth is the result of logical consequence in symbolic logic, which can though not imply universal results (in two), but only general results, and if embedded in one, only formal results.
Complete loss of the rational use of the principle of identity is already observable in 1992.
The principle of identity does need in order to be effective outside of formal sciences (logic, mathematics) of another concept, ‘the faculty of judgment’, which is the subjective ability to order a series of impressions under a concept, which does necessarily need of proper definition in order to obtain a validity. The faculty of judgment, still main concept during the XVII Century and widely developed by Kant, does progressively loose importance in favor of empirical psychological concepts, which do not allow in any case, to substitute this one, thus having as consequence the loss in the effort to promote the ability in question.
The concepts as defined by main streams of the philosophical world, und thus underlying as metaphysics the whole scientific world, do neither allow rational activity nor the development of fundamental theories assembling complex phenomena.
It could be possible to establish a relationship between this problem and the power obtained by banks, which is to say, between a certain number of deviations in thought and a social effect involving finances, commerce, aso. Who could be finally interested in obscurantism? And why?
It is obvious that the strangling of thought, which can only grow inside of the principle of identity, does forbid the possibility of the maintenance of rationality in politics, education, science, finance. The loss of rationality does always work in favor of irrational instinctive logics of prevalence of some on the whole, or on others if foreigners, which is to say, it is a logic of war and of dictatorship.
The very imposition of irrational theory at highest levels of structures of education do implicitly imply the political and social logic governing the whole, and in a certain way also, the very way of functioning of the logic as synthesized in a determined irrational compound and not another. Consequently, the holes allowing counterattack on different basis.
Why does it seem that an attack on banks could be the most fruitful one? Because their logic is ill on a territory which is not there own. It is never easier than to attack a judge on basis of commerce, because it is not his field, and he will certainly make mistakes, while he will not as a judge (he will certainly, too, but he will protect himself through hundreds of mechanisms developed in order to cover mistakes in a determined logic he doesn’t have in other fields). The very attribution of the function of fiscal and judge by being ‘part’, is a mistake that does blind awareness in a certain number of areas, mainly the credit area. (You can make a parallel between the credit given to a person, and a credit of money: the misuse of power does lower the faculty of judgment, and this does destroy the possibility of evaluation whether someone is reliable or not.)
A logic of war and dictatorship can only be destroyed by provoking a financial crash. This can only be obtained by attacking softly, in order not to awake awareness, the obvious error in appreciation deriving from a general logic. You need 10 years in order to provoke a financial break down: exactly the time of your ‘punishment’.
It is an evidence that you should always think twice about saying to philosophical results that they are ‘subjective opinions’.


The treatment of ambivalence and the proper social response
If there is problem in the attempt of inserting a certain number of results into a given social context, it is because there is a tendency to confuse justice with psychology and psychology with justice. The confusion and invasion of territories is nothing but the result of lacking definition of fundamental concepts, which do configure a general reality being possibly understood as symbiotic from inner symbiotic to outer symbiotic).
That this confusion has its roots in the lacking differentiation of understanding and soul, of man and woman, at the end, can be considered as obvious, and thus, there is little probability a global solution be found in the time to come.
What does differentiate the moral from the just? Again a puzzle for Sask. Justice is a social organization which does only consider crimes from the apparent side. Whether there is moral justification or not, justice has just to consider a certain number of proofs or facts, involving the possibility to be established of an accident or self defense (eg), which are the only justified crimes in most legal bodies. It does certainly not have to get into the question whether someone is bright enough to provoke someone’s aggression in order to justify a crime in self defense. It does not have to get into the question of justification of the murder, although it may consider factors that do diminish the weight of the crime. In other words: it does not have to consider the moral aspect of the crime, but just it’s appearance on the surface of social reality.
Morality on the hand, a vague, dubious concept in our times, almost starving through the strangling made on it by modern psychology, is an inner disposition that does rule human’s behavior from the point of view of inner law, and not of social law. The difference that did never appear clearly to
Sask, is that you can’t say for example, adultery is immoral. The fact of breaking a contract (of marriage) is not just (and should be suspended to civil punishment as such), the possible morality or immorality is though of difficult determination. As such, you could say that there is immorality in the disposition to break law or contract, which means, that the disposition can exist even if you never break the contract for reasons of convenience or image, and thus, you are immoral while you look just. On the other hand, you can never say that there is immorality if there is a justification which seems strong enough so as to convince the one you have made the contract with. Even if it is a tacit agreement.
I did often consider cases where I saw men in some kind of meeting where they had to give in to pressures pushing to a marginal language involving some kind of ‘dirty agreement.’ Dirty agreements, even if commercial, do have a rather dirty sexual expression, which usually follows. Were it then to be preferred that this expression fall on a common house wife, or to find some other kind of expression? Considered from this point of view, I would not have considered the kind of adultery as immoral but as … highly moral. Being immoral the general situation or context that does not allow a restoration of general moral behavior. On the other hand, immorality appears where someone does justify this kind of adultery by saying that ‘the general context is like this’, which is to say, letting the context justify gravest inner dispositions. There were certainly times where the human being did wisely differentiate both aspects of his nature, and did as well punish through law (justice) as through social exclusion (moral) depending on the character of the crime. Thus, someone who ‘doesn’t keep his word’ is not submitted to legal punishment, should though be punished through social exclusion, as it is an obvious lack of moral disposition.
The other terrible misunderstanding having been brought up by ambivalent psychological theories is resting on the concept of ‘punishment’. For a modern psychologist, the very use of the word may imply sadist dispositions, which on the other hand, does nothing but reveal his very strange concept of justice.
Well considered, justice, and thus the necessarily following concept of punishment, is nothing but a socially integrated tool of education. Human beings do learn two ways: either through understanding (very rare, Aristotle said), either through fright. And the basic education of a human being is the possibility of understanding himself as a being submitted to law, which is to say, to reason, and not to instinct. Strangely, it is surprising to discover, that most of the ‘punishment’ is based on the cloud of meaning surrounding words like ‘police’, ‘judge’, ‘prison’. Taking the last, you will soon discover that by putting under the word ‘prison’ a meaning involving: ‘most agreeable place where you have holidays for free in a most interesting tribal organization’, the whole weight of the supposed punishment disappears. If on the hand, you push sadism to the limits by conveying that a society is ‘brutal means of making prevail injustice favoring bastards’, you will soon think that you have arrived to a paradise by having been put to jail. Of course this is a limit construction, possible precisely when the very meaning of justice is disappearing from common understanding.
Taking justice as means of education appears quickly, that it defines the ways that do allow concepts to prop out in minds that are still fighting between instinct and reason. For an animal, the concept of ‘robbery’ or ‘stealing’ does simply not exist. It takes what is in front of him, and does usually restrain himself to a very large notion of territory. This means, that one of the basic notions differentiating an animal from a human being is the notion of property as such, as property can only be defined through law, and law a human concept, much more developed than the notion of instinctive rule. The fact of attaching something to someone through a law is the foundation of the notion of property and this notion, (which on the other hand is the basis for the development of the notion of the ‘individual’ or person, as a certain number of thoughts, words, creations are attached to a singular, thus differentiating the one from the whole differently to animals or even tribal organizations, where all is from all in a certain archaic way) can only be developed through clearest definitions of the concepts of stealing, robbing, undue appropriation, etc. From this point of view, it clearly appears that justice is the only means to allow the very configuration of concepts there where the context does not allow the formation of these concepts by themselves.
As well as for other fundamental concepts supposed to determine the human being as such.
Punishment is thus not a sadist’s tool in order to get rid of repressed anger or even irritation. It is nothing but the force of opposition to instinctive forces allowing through its very presence the formation of concepts, which are at the origin of the possibility of the becoming of a particular identity. In this sense, justice has to deal with more sophisticated crimes or deviations of the rule of reason, if it has to deal with populations which are supposed having acquired already a certain number of fundamental concepts. It is obvious, that in more archaic societies there are behaviors that are not even considered as crimes, just because it is so sophisticated that it can hardly be of general danger as it can’t be understood in it’s consequences, and on the other hand, the legal can be defined otherwise, because the common mind does accept proofs which are rejected only by more developed constructions.
In fact, justice is the clearest proof showing the differences in development of the human species. Ruling over main concepts as good and bad, just and unjust, determining by its presence social ascension or rejection, it builds the core of concept’s assemblage a human being builds his existence on.
You would understand now,
Sask, how difficult it is to build up new thought. Metaphysics, defining concepts in different ways, assembling them in different logics, does govern fundamentally over all aspects of human organization as it does alter and change the very basis of the understanding of justice. It is the smallest and most sophisticated babuschka inside of a whole series of many babuschkas which do order human’s life.
Fundamentally the different babuschkas are put one inside the other the following way: Metaphysics, justice, administration (with army and police), economy, science, politics, art.
Usually, metaphysics is nothing but the description of a given order, reason why it becomes so difficult to understand when time passes. If you want to understand Spinoza, you would have to study the social organization in
Holland in the XVIIth Century. Or Descartes, or Kant. Rarely a thinker does go beyond the given structures, exactly because the incompatibility in concept would destroy him (Socrates). He just gives the definition in universal terms of concepts as conveyed by the society he is living in.
What happens though if someone is crazy enough to try to develop metaphysics that do not fit into the general social order as established? Either he goes mad (Nietzsche), either he uses as reference something much deeper than what is conveyed by social organization, as he necessarily needs a referential in order not to loose the very order of words, and this can only be life in itself. Be it thus, though, the metaphysics in question will only refer itself to the mechanisms of understanding and never to the social organization as such. It would warrant the appropriate understanding of what is given, and in no case, involve changes of the established. Clearly, it would position itself against those ways of understanding which do bother an appropriate understanding, which on the hand, may involve social changes in positioning (loss or acquisition of importance and thus of remuneration), but it would never be at the origin of revolutions or of violent disturbances, which would be caused by those thus relegated to second positions.
Or put in other words: things are never bad as they are, because they are (justification through existence), what may be bad is the way we look at things. That the social is not only determined by laws, but also by the movements determined by our way of looking at things, does explain why the very fact of conveying changes in understanding may have as a result violent interactions. If you have been investing in lies for 20 years, it is quite difficult to assume losses in social and economic position from the very fact of the lies being revealed, and thus, you will violently try to suffocate the possibility of another understanding becoming common. On the other hand, lies having as consequence the systematic oppression of main parts of population, it is difficult to see why to give in to the pressure of the few against the wellbeing of many.
Another basic difference between you and me would be that I don’t mind letting the human being shout and cry, get drunk or ill, get lost in the desert or land in prison, if this is to have as an effect the possibility of acquisition of fundamental concepts. In no case I would say that someone who is in prison is necessarily immoral, I would just say, that he is going to life’s school. Whether he learns something or not, is his own problem, the question is to give him the means of doing so. This is why my ‘judgments’ may seem so hard, while I do consider them the last expression of pity.
Look for example at the possibilities of quite harsh dealing with ambivalence:
In fact a schizoid character is the most unhappy person in the world. Incapable to synthesize or give name to feeling, and thus to refer his life’s path to a determined construction based on the fundamental feeling of well being, he just floats behind objects or situations that have been referred to him as being the mark of value, what ever they are.
If you shift from the conveyed appearance (you are necessarily happy), to the references in language for identity (believe to his sayings), you will soon discover that the very fact of considering him in identity does allow him to show himself as he is. The inner logic that does organize the perceptions of reality is thus revealed, and may quickly bring to the light the most contradictory foundations, while precisely, the very fact of doing as if you thought that it is certainly the best way of doing, does keep the schizoid in complete confidence.
Usually there are two possibilities: either the schizoid is already involved in criminal activity (Aguilera, Chiriboga, Zimmermann), or the logic does involve a cover for a certain number of illegal activities (Villarreal, Ordoñez). In the first case, the confidence acquired through the belief given by someone, does confront the schizoid to justice. In the second case, you may break the links to crime through financial and social pushes to the social borders which oblige to a consideration of fundamental ways of thinking. To cover unconsciously a certain number of crimes is not illegal, and though dangerous.
You may ask yourself, why a schizoid is necessarily involved in criminal activity. Because the very foundation of social organization is the preservation of the notion of ‘home’ in feeling, and all law is based on this. As the schizoid is unable to guide himself through feeling, he converts the feeling into an ‘image’, which does on the other hand break all law through the very shifting of the notion from inner reality to outer appearance. Consequently, the very logic of transformation of the feeling to a determined image does give the logic of cover for a variety of crimes, he may not be aware of, as for him , his very social integration is the warrant of legality. Thus, by pushing the schizoid to the limits of survival, he is obliged to consider himself as ‘illegal’ or in his own terms as ‘immoral’. For a schizoid a ‘poor’ is always immoral, because he doesn’t keep ‘appearance’, which is for him the passport to the legal. It is an evidence, that to say ‘someone who smokes is immoral’ is schizoid logic, as it can hardly be attached to any inner moral disposition whatsoever.
Could it be thus thought that a social mechanism could oblige the schizoid to attach his thought to his feeling at least in some way? Although there are many types of schizoid structures, most of them involving sharp contradictory identities in parental environment (race, social position, nationality, culture, custom etc) or from family to social environment, as the block of thought (let us say generalizing as transmitted by father) does not fit the inner movements (as transmitted by the mother), the lack of possibility of transmission from one to the other provoking sometimes a cut between the understanding and the psychic life, it is obvious that most of the schizoid characters do come from homosexual environment, as there is a real impossibility to think the nature as given, and even less, the social integration of the given nature (no general compound of insertion). Logically the individual does badly choose between a social marginalization keeping his nature, or a social integration refusing his particular nature. The first makes of the homosexual a criminal, the second, a schizoid.
It seems impossible in actual ‘ideology’ to think of a solution which would avoid either the one or the other, as there is no place left for a nature whose logic has simply no bridges of insertion to another one, whose fundamental aim has been for hundreds of years the elimination of those.
The construction of an alternative logic is not excessively easy, though partly possible. In any case you could say that the very fact of restoring the link to feeling, even if this involves strange social behavior is already more than covered criminality through repression. Of course Sask would never agree with that, but the schizoid with certainty.


Thanks to Sask
On ‘Manual of a soldier’ and the possible link to reality
It becomes thus clear, thanks to Sask or my imaginary Sask, to understand exactly what happened between 2003/2006, which is to say, the exact clue to the answer of the question how psychopathetic logic is built up.
Situation:A human being does build up his structure of reality on empirical basis, in order to avoid a shift towards illusion, which does quickly lead to madness. The human understanding does though have a dimension in which he treats ‘hypothesis or possibility’, faculty whose development depends on the different subjects. He does also have a dimension of fantasy, in which psychic movements are treated through images, symbols, metaphors and other. The three dimensions are usually separated through their very belonging to one reality or the other.
What happens if one understanding has to put under one sole concept (reality) the three dimensions? Reality is ordered in a fusion of dimensions, which does structure happenings in a mixture of hypothetical, imaginary and real events.
The psychopath is incapable of structuring reality in three dimensions, due to his incapacity to synthesize abstract concepts.
Relationship between ‘Manual of a soldier’ and reality:The probable cause of the fusion is the incapability to absorb a certain number of events and to submit them to any category, so as to have to deal with reality in an ‘as if, for the three possibilities’ sphere. These events starting in 2001 are linked to the appearance of a certain number of information, names, situations, words, whose consciousness is hardly explainable through empirical context.
Even if there is an incredible amount of those, those appearing in ‘Manual of a soldier’ are limited in number (probably basic or essential pieces of the whole).People: Doris Wilheim, appears in Greece as linked to the hypothesis of the ‘Challenge’ made to the US, ‘that it is not worth living for money but for a home as justifying the acquisition of wealth’, thus her name ‘Will Heim’ (wants to go home, or will going home) is part of a chain of codes involved in this hypothesis. Further linked to a derivate hypothesis involving a group of Germans including someone called Lanze. (Now I have the lance, but I will need the shield.) Related to the insertion of French tones into German language. (Verlain and other.) Her son is involved in a hypothesis considering the theory of the possibility of existence of mars men. (The ‘do you want to become a hero,’ hypothesis).
Leya appears during the attempt of rationalization of the so called ‘psychic layers’. Type of conversation: “I’m Leya.” (inserted in the psychic layer suite of letters). “Who are you?” “I’m a chip.” “Where do you come from?” “From
Japan.” (You are not Japanese, you come from
Thailand.) “You will solve the question of the false passports?” “In six months?” “Yes. So that at least something has happened when I go to
Israel.” Code words: Mayflower. (Linked to the Chinese prostitution mafia)
The soldier (banana split), appears in the hypothesis of the incapability of discerning two meanings of the same word (the ‘Benjamin’ hypothesis, or sons of blood). Symbol colours: white and red. In
Greece, he falls in love with ‘I’ and has a picture in his room, of his ‘idol’.
Douna and Shanee appear in a hypothesis, where the lieutenant general decides to put people suspicious of being homosexual under military observation, in order to determine whether there are differences in behaviour. Shanee appears in a very sad hypothesis where a child is mistreated by her father belonging to the police, lost and having run away from home, she is sent to ‘King David’.
Mini Minoulis, Hannah’s son, appears at ‘King David’ linked to a hypothesis of ‘intuitive intelligence’, while incapable of forming abstract concepts. Type of conversation: “Where are you?” “There are many heaters here and columns.” “Wood heaters? They are heating with wood?” After a while. “No. They are not in use anymore.” “And how do they heat such a big place in winter? It must be quite expensive.” “There are tubes there. Probably with water.”
The dragon is ‘Hannah’s sister’ in refraction. Linked to the gamble mafia in the
US, leaves the country in order to escape tax control. Appears in the hypothesis of the use of refracted lines in upper levels of society. Friend of Salif.
Rafael, called Ariel, is the lieutenant general’s husband. Involved in an affair of high treachery to the nation, pushes the lieutenant general almost to suicide, as the latter is incapable to detach personal responsibility from responsibility deriving from marriage.
Baruwth, (possibly Taluwth??) is a general,
sask’s friend. Playing chess, smoking cigars and watching pornographic films, he appears in the hypothesis of ‘adultery’, as it being essential or accidental. Thrown out by his wife, he sits for weeks in order to solve the question whether to watch an x film is some kind of adultery or not. Finally he goes back to his wife.
Baruwth and Sask do compose the couple in interaction of the ‘law of army’ (Baruwth) and the ‘meaning of this particular law’ (
Sask), putting a string of understanding on general social misbehaviour. As such, they are nothing but concepts.
The lieutenant general’s son has some kind of problem with drugs (heroin), also symbolic for a certain schizoid disposition. The relationship between both is tense.
The novel, as thought of in Greece, does materialize a certain way of thinking that forbids synthesis of identity and strains heavily marginal intelligence through a certain number of characters in interaction (the dragon, Salif, the Chinese mafia boss, the ‘rat’), which is fought against through the decisive intervention of a certain number of ‘rational or rationalizing characters’ (Sask, Natascha, Baruwth, D. Wilheim) in an organized whole involving three platforms in time (the grandmothers, main character being Avital’s grandmother, the parents, and the children, in the generation of twenties: the Hassiden, Avital, Mini Minoulis, Shanee, Douna, etc).
This could be said “thought reality”, whose extension would be unlimited.
The relationship to empirical events appears in crossed language:The Challenger is the name to the ‘challenge’, is deformed in perspective and gives the ‘Challenger’ hypothesis, involving Doris Wilheim and her son. The relationship to reality is psychopathetic: burned in greek (kameno) ‘determined in essence’, ‘smelling sulphur’ (coming from hell, or linked to the devil), ‘fallen from heavens’ (without determined origin), is nothing but myself.
Doris Wilheim ‘dares’ the conversation with the ‘burned’. (February/March 2003). Until this causes trouble with the Dragon (?!) and Wilheim is involved in the realization of the ‘Zimmermann’ hypothesis. (I accuse you of something you haven’t done, and in order to wash your name, you find for me the real responsible.)
Shanee is put into relationship with the ‘antiquity business’ through a coin (“Is it possible to have intuitive awareness of law even if you don’t know the laws of the country?”) and the Organ Traffic Mafia (“Who in the police is covering this?”)
Leya appears in the realization of the false passport affaire.
The fusion appears on two levels:In order to restore the national psychic identity, I usually work with couples (women, in male female differentiation: level of intention). These ‘characters’ do have nothing to do with real identity, but are referential. Consequently, as confronted to the reality of some characters, the ‘general type or referential’ gets confused with determined identities (psychopathetic).
The other may be linked to the incapability of discerning the relationship between
Sask and a real person. If it concerns Sask, it is because she is the only one who may have a direct contact to ‘I’ in
Greece. In hypothesis: is ‘I’ another person, whose psychic type I know through psychopathetic lines, and who is in direct contact with
Sask? Is ‘I’ myself and under observation by
Sask? Is ‘I’ a logical system (linked to telecommunication or computering) which has been developed by
Sask and whose logic I work out in order to alter psychopathetic communication lines?
The image as appearing in
Greece, shows the following:‘I’ is accused of terrorism and psychopathia to
Sask, who observes the ‘subject’. A confusion between my brother Jorge and me, does not allow further specification regarding gender, age, etc. Confusing information does allow to think a Russian origin or other (the hypothesis of the Russian prince, etc.).
Sask is fascinated by the ‘misbehaviour’ of the subject and treats ‘I’ as a child (I have two children and sometimes three, she says). The affective involvement is though on the sphere of illusion (I will never know you).
The sphere of illusion of affective involvement is the passport to a travel toIsrael. ‘Sask is covering’. (Illusion is the only territory where all these happenings may have a place.)
It is though impossible to attach the image as it appears in Greece to any reality whatsoever. The crashed Greek image against a new reality does again configure a new reality: ‘Manual of a soldier.’


Rational logic, symbolic logic and marginal logics

What is logic?
Logic is the form in which a group of words is embedded. It does assure the intelligibility (possibility of being understood) and further, eventually, the possibility of attaching the character of ‘truth’ to a certain number of sentences or statements.

Logic is inherent to grammatical structures and does thus derive from language. It is thus possible to establish a formal logic (symbolic), which does abstract the main forms determining intelligibility by forming a ‘system’.

It is though impossible to talk of intelligibility outside of a more general context of language, or of the more subjective context of the individual as understanding in a given social or national context.

(The question whether it is possible to talk of intelligibility in itself is in fact a fake question. A word, the only entity which is intelligible, although it is possible to talk about virtually intelligible for everything we may think we can eventually name, is not but in a general context, and although we may detect phenomena whose name is yet not –which does explain on the other hand why nations do have words of their own-, the lack is given as a general lack, and not as a subjective inspiration: in the latter case the appearance of a new word may quickly seem as absurd or irrelevant.)

It is a fact that a kantian logic does presuppose that there is some universal form embedded somewhere and ruling on rationality, but it is easy to see, that a form is nothing but an abstraction from a whole, through probable criteria of time and space. Which is to say, that the human has the faculty, shared with no animal, to separate in his mind an empirical impression or perception in what belongs to space (not moving) or to time (moving), so that he abstracts the moving element (matter) from the non moving element (form), through the before mentioned criteria. Which confirms Kant’s thesis that ‘time and space are the forms of sensitivity’. Doing the same effort on language and not anymore on objects (separating the ‘cube’ as form from the ‘wood’ as matter), we discover quickly that there are stable elements called ‘formal’ that are easily to be distinguished from those which can be substituted inside of a certain range of possible variables without disturbing the notion of intelligibility.

It can be thus said, that the determination of forms governing the whole functioning of language, is suspended of the principle of intelligibility, which, on the hand, seems to depend on the principle of identity in its three variants. Intelligibility can though have two meanings which may alter subsequently the extension of application of the principle. Intelligible means nothing but to be understood. A human being may understand even the most irrational statements, depending on his general structuring of reality. Intelligible and rational are thus two very different things.

(Even if it possible to refuse the before mentioned principle, in the case that other definitions are given to fundamental concepts, it becomes quickly visible that this perspective does cover all possibilities even in contradictory definition, thus allowing to further an explanation for the widest range of phenomena possible, which is the principle of rationality we submit to, without though imposing it.)

What means rational?
This strange concept deriving from the Latin word ‘ratio’, touching semantic fields going from rate, parts or share (Spanish ración), measure, reason, is somehow related to the Greek ‘nous’, and is though almost an opposite. The Greek ‘nous’ is a faculty of intelligence that does allow the intuitive apprehension of meaning, of the relationship between word and circumstance, of the implication of an idea, while the Latin ‘ratio’ is the weighing of reality in a given body of law, whether it is formal or social is indifferent. The Greek, following a more intuitive ordering of reality, which finds its most purest expression in the concept of ‘kairos’ developed by early Plato (Socrates), as the ‘being at the right moment at the right place following a spirit or demon’, does understand the human as submitted to moving forces (Gods that are the essence of different passions and orders), and does thus understand the same as moving freely, on the one hand, and subjected to different needs, on the other. For the Greek, the thought that everyone should be given the same amount of food (Latin ratio), is absurd, except in latter Plato, who does thus go to
Italy with his theory …

The concept of reason, shifting heavily from one notion to the other for hundreds of years, does have serious problems to find a proper definition. It seems though essentially to be linked to the notion of order as determined by some faculty of higher apprehension, whether it is an intuitive order or an order as submitted to a given body of law.

The consideration of the changes of the concept through hundreds of years does allow to attempt a definition which may include most of variables: in a general frame that separates the human from the animal through the faculty of determination of notions in concepts, it may be said, that reason is nothing but the absolute submission of the notion to the prior reference as existing, which is to say: instinct. Is instinct the fundamental reference, it is possible to maintain the referential subjective reference (feeling) in the development of concepts that do take birth in the very faculty of conceiving, and which can not be attached to instinct in itself anymore. It means that the concept of survival does enlarge itself until it becomes the concept of life, concept that does imply the possibility of the organization of existence through thought, principle and law, in the determination of the self as such and related to others.

Logically we can say that there are many things we say, which do attack life, survival, notions and concept as such, are thus intelligible, but to a certain extent, irrational. (It is always difficult to evaluate the irrationality of something, as what seems ‘shocking’ to a superficial view, can be in fact ordering internal structures, thus maintaining reason in a more general approach.)

From this point of view, it is possible to say, that word, or all virtually intelligible, does keep the principle of rationality in given forms. We may also affirm that the fact of not respecting these forms, may have as consequence the destruction of vital functions of intelligence, the loss of apprehension of reality as a whole, and consequently death, subjective, or a more general disaster.

Forms though are not enough. The statement as given may be ‘formally correct’, but needs of a subjective disposition in order to be ‘true’. As much you give to the Romans (formally correct), you will have to give to the Greek: a statement has to be appropriate to situation in order to disserve the title of ‘truth’, so that it becomes of need to say the truth ‘subjective’, and this only, when submitted to the formal criteria as given.

It appears clearly that a statement does first have to have a certain number of formal characters, and then, to be rationally embedded in a certain context. The first is of reason, the second of wisdom. To differentiate the one from the other you may use the distinction in language offered by the differentiation of rational and reasonable.

The formalization of logical structures
Probably the most difficult of human activities, the formalization of logical structures does appear very lately in history and does progress very slowly.
Starting with Socrate’s use of dichotomy (to cut in two) as tool of demonstration, it arrives with Aristotle’s theory of definition and demonstration to a stuck for more than two thousand years.
Dichotomy is a technique that does allow proving a certain type of statements through the confrontation with the contradiction in essence or through the similarity in essence. Used by Socrates only to establish the essential identity between just/good/beauty/truth and the essential difference between those and other concepts as interest, pleasure, etc. which is to say, between a realm determined by ideas and one determined by the submission to physical impulses, it does though hardly allow to establish scientific statements. Aristotle does develop the theory of definition in categories (the essence is not thus ‘what must be in common with itself in order to allow it to be named that way’ as in Plato, but ‘the belonging to a larger concept to which it is absolutely submitted’, a tiger to the category of animal, eg), and further through syllogisms the possibility of general statements concerning mainly the empirical areas. Taken this way, you may not say that Plato and Aristotle are contradictory, just complementary. It is obvious that Aristotle makes fun on Plato when he pushes the theory of ideas (only applicable to abstract notions) so far as to want to apply it on empirical concepts (argument of the third man). Plato does never counterattack by revealing the inconsistency of Aristotle’s abstract concepts, but he could have done so.
Syllogism is an archaic way of ordering demonstration through essence. It consists in the differentiation of ‘All’, ‘Some’, and ‘One’ (one of Kant’s categories of understanding), and the submission of the one to all through the essence. The most known example: “All men are mortal. Peter is a man. Peter is mortal.” In modern symbolic logic it would be formalized as follows: a & b > c. Or said otherwise: The group of men has as an essential character to be mortal. Peter belongs to this group, and consequently (logical proof) the essence is his, too: he is mortal.
What seems very simple, is though extremely complex, as Aristotle does formalize the possibility of attaching a particular (Peter) under a general concept (man) through an essence in a determined group. In a certain way, it does give the formal steps of what is the function of what Kant calls the ‘faculty of judgement’: the possibility of attaching an abstract concept to a particular case, situation or object.
For hundreds of years, if not for thousands, rationality will be suspended of these three formal mechanisms.
In simple words we may say that reason does base itself at that time on 1. non contradiction (dichotomy as way of demonstration) 2. definition through essence and accident 3. grouping of objects in categories having something in common and allowing to order empirical impressions in the different groups through the category or through the essence.
Aristotle is the first to observe that the grammatical structures have main formal structures, conveying intelligibility, but does still not formalize these structures.
We will have to wait until the end of the XIXth Century until a progress is made in the formalization of proper logical structures. Attempt is made in order to substitute the heavy grammatical interactions by symbols. Together with Wittgenstein, it is finally the
School that does the main work of formalization (Russel, aso).
The result is that for the first time in history, we can see the formal bones transmitting intelligibility in very simple structures and in a so called rational frame (depending on principles, laws and definitions). And becomes thus &, a statement is an ‘a’, v means ‘or’, etc. The statements (a, b, c) are linked one to another through a restricted number of connectors (or, and, thus, equal to, not, only if), and their validity is determined by the function: if ‘a’ is false and ‘b’ is true and you say ‘a & b’, you must say = f (false), aso.
Some thought to have produced a machine in order to make eternal truths prop out of nothingness, forgetting that you have to fill in the variables in order to produce intelligibility, and that the very filling in of the variables did generate more problems than to offer solutions. In fact, though a monstrous effort of abstraction and a universal step forward in the attempt of simply understanding the extremely complex mechanisms of human understanding, symbolic logic does quickly show an extreme weakness.
It does intelligently reduce the grammatical functions to three or four logical ones, instead of getting lost in little nuances of ‘but, instead,’ etc, but it does not make on the first hand the consequent differentiation of functions, which are all connectors, and it does forget, on the other hand, Aristotle’s essences when the time comes to fill the variables. It does further forget to introduce the notion of hypothesis as differentiating statements of different types of reality.

The different logical functions
If it is easy to understand that a connector it a symbol that does connect one statement to another in a certain way, it becomes difficult to follow why ‘no’ should be a connector, as it is not connecting anything to anything, but just putting a sign on the character of the statement (positive or negative). Not only, the sign = (is equal to) is not connecting either, it is identifying something to something through a value (true or false in a given logic), thus b & c = c & b, is not connecting but identifying. This differentiation does allow to better understand the = put in front of v or f in the metalanguage of laws. The law is not connected to a v or an f, but identified to them taking into consideration a certain number of criteria as given.
What is then the difference between a character, a connection and an identification?
The character does affect the nature of the statement. (is a or non a)
The connection does put two statements into relationship without saying anything about the nature of any of them. (a & b)
The identification puts two statements into relationship through an essence or value implying the nature of both in a certain logic. (a or b = b or a)
What is then the function of the famous ‘thus’ symbolized by >? Strangely it is the only function symbolic logic does consider in a hypothetical state: if ‘a’ than (or thus) ‘b’, which is not necessary, as you could consider ‘a’ thus ‘b’, as in the example: It is raining, thus I become wet. Why saying in a general ‘natural’ (consider here ‘natural’ as saying not hypothetical) context, that the function > is to be put in a hypothetical dimension? On the other hand, what kind of connection is produced by the use of the function? There are two similar functions: > and the same underlined, which means, only and only if, to differentiate statements of the kind: If it rains I become wet (true), Only if it rains I become wet (false), only if I get in touch with a liquid, I become wet (true).
Apparently, it is more than specifying a character (no), more than connecting (& and v), less than identifying (= or the same with three lines for absolute equivalence). What is this function showing exactly? It is relating a statement to another through an INNER characteristic of both, which is to say, through a semantic characteristic that is not formal: Aristotle’s tool of proof in syllogism or developed syllogism.
As symbolic logic does forget to introduce Aristotle’s theory of essences into the general theoretical frame, all statements depending on > are inconsistent. > is a logical consequence as demonstration that does need of the theory of essence in order to be valid.
The purpose of symbolic logic, wanting to establish a form of ‘truth’ as warrant for all scientific statement without semantic dependence, does empty symbolic logic of the possibility of establishing consequence as proof. Ironically, people working with symbolic logic will finally be obliged to fall down to Aristotelian theory of knowledge in order to validate scientific results: “Most cases observed do show that people who smoke have cancer, consequence: smoking is cause of cancer.” And this although most thinkers do agree on the fact, that it is impossible to obtain a universal statement out of general observation. (Aristotle said, that the notion of the ‘universal’ is born from the recurrent print left by an impression on mind.)

The origin of the universal and the confusion with empirical general statement
It can be said in simple words, that the notion of ‘universal’ can only and only be referred to concept or to any statement made through the use in variable logics of the theory of essence. It can never be said that a ‘universal’ can be used in an empirical context of observation. This is so because the word is the product of the human mind in the use of the determining principle of identity, so that he can say ‘for all things falling under the concept of … animal … either they have these characteristics or they are no animals’. It is obvious that it does not depend on observation, but on the ability of the human to form groups of things through essential and accidental characteristics, so that he can say without any shame ‘all’, without being obliged to know them all or to have seen and touched them all. ‘All’ thus, as potentially submitted to the concept in question is timeless and spaceless, but as such, only referred to the concept and never to the object. Consequently, a universal statement is the one that does operate in these particular sphere, where concepts are put in relationship one with another through essence and accident and logical operation, without considering the empirical observation as such, although this must have proceeded at a certain moment. This realm is the so called ‘a priori’ realm of Kant. Strangely it does allow, contrary to what he says, universal statements also on subjects concerning matters linked to the empirical world, as it is possible to determine the governing logics of a process (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc), to define in essence a certain number of concepts and logically to state something in universal terms.
For the problem of cancer and smoking, the logical mistake appears as follows: Most of the people who smoke finish up by having cancer. LACK: which is the characteristic, physical, psychic or other, that does differentiate those who finish having cancer of those who don’t? STATEMENT: People who smoke and … (lacking specification) do have cancer. (A priori statement)
Or: Smoke does contain this and that element. This element has this interaction with the human cells. This interaction may deteriorate a certain function of cells, thus being at the origin of cancer. The possibility this to happen is much higher if the human cells do have these characteristics, or the smoke does contain these and these elements. (empirical statement).
It is obvious that the so called ‘scientific’ statement above does fuse in irrational manner both modes of establishing a statement. It does mix up the a priori sphere with the empirical sphere, and does thus not allow to obtain clear intelligible statements.

The absurd of the f & v > v law
Considered this way, we quickly see how absurd the f & v > v law can be. In no case, a false statement may have inherent an essential characteristics that may allow to link it to a statement that is true. If you can say, ‘elephants are animals, and thus, they reproduce themselves’, how do you say ‘elephants are cucumbers and animals, and thus they reproduce themselves’? The human mind will necessarily conclude that the elephant has to be a cucumber in order to justify reproduction, which is absurd.
On the other hand it seems to suspend logical consequence of a possibility, which is absurd, too. ‘It could be that elephants are cucumbers’, and ‘they reproduce themselves’, is not ‘true’, but ‘could be true’.
It is obvious that for reasons that should be established, the symbolic logic confuses hypothesis as premises of scientific demonstration and established statement, as if it confused the process with the result. It is different to say: “If I make this and this experiment, and the experiment does match in results this and this thesis, it can be said, that the general theoretical frame is valid for this and this phenomena”, than to say “Test have proofed that the substance ‘xcf’ does have as side effect this and that, so that the chemistry has to be forbidden to children under four years”, both valid, if considered separately.
In any case, it is obvious that the only rational law could be v & v > v.

The validity of given logic
It can be said, that symbolic logic does govern most of the structures of main languages as given. It is though certainly observable, that there are languages that do not have enough level of abstraction so as to comprehend main complex abilities involving consequence as proof or definition through essence. To say thus, that it is a ‘universal’ logic is true only if referred to the concept: “for all human using this logic —if corrected as said—it warrants rational statement”, but in no case it could be said, “results deriving of symbolic logic are valid for all human beings.” As there are many human beings incapable of following the demonstrative process, foundation of understanding. On the other hand, there are many deviating logics, too, whose validity is more restricted, but also acceptable. It would be interesting to know how far these deviating logics have not, in fact, avoided a general disaster consisting in the disappearance of fundamental rational functions as a consequence of the so called ‘evidences’ deriving of symbolic logic as given before.


Sask falls in love with Natasha in Sos del rey Católico

An attempt to fight against irrationality

We can distinguish three types of statement. A statement referred to empirical reality and the theoretical frame depending. A hypothetical statement and the frame depending. A symbolic or metaphoric statement and the frame depending.
Hypothesis // Understanding // Fantasy or Myth (soul)
What is a hypothesis? ‘En pura hipótesis me encuentro.’
Hypothesis is a statement whose validity has not yet been verified. Usually the mind does activate a certain number of mechanisms in order to verify a statement, whether logical or empirical. It does order in memory statements depending on them being verified or not. The mechanisms of verification vary. It can though be said that the usual vector of verification is a notion as transmitted by a certain tone as most of the people can’t follow the process of demonstration or further verify. It is thus not ‘verified’ as such, but ‘reliable in general’, the realm most people do move in.
How does Fantasy differentiate itself from Hypothesis?
Fantasy does shoe two different aspects. Either it is the realm of myth, where extremely complex and abstract situations are represented through human figures or every day situations that do synthesize the whole, showing different modalities: insertion of metaphor in empirical context (AT), representation of complex psychological functions through a simple history (Herodote), symbolization of general rules of human behaviour through mythological figures (Hesiod), or it is the realm of finality, where the consequences of general thought or behaviour is shown through images, pictures, movies, literature, even architecture, sculpture, decoration etc. The first is different from the second, in this that it does refer itself to the very functioning of soul, while the second is a function of mind in its ability to represent in image a certain circumstance.
Hypothesis though is subjected to the logical part of functioning of the understanding. It works through formal mechanisms and has to be submitted to a certain number of admitted processes of verification.
The human activity can be understood in its three aspects of intention, modality of realization and finality. Intention does move itself in the realm of myth. Realization in understanding and finality in fantasy.
Association in couples to functions in human behaviour and national equivalences
Ff = Myth = Greece
fm = understanding = Italy
mm = fantasy = Spain
In a logic as determined from 1995/2003
Hypothesis of existence = Greece
Possibility of understanding = Israel In ‘frozen’ soul = Russia
Insertion of ff in mm = Ecuador

General frame of thought:
The tone conveying ‘reliability’ is dead. In order to recreate the tone in question it is of need to build a device that allows it to be re-established without the possibility existing of it being destroyed again.
Greece is the realm of myth (ff). As no ‘truth’ is attributed to myth, it is generally associated to fantasy in illusion (no determined link to soul): fusion of ff with mm. Thus, a hypothetical ‘state’ is created: it could be that myth has validity in itself.
The hypothetical state is the point of departure, needing though of further verification.
Who is Sask? Sask is a forth refracted, who does convey the contrary to what is said. In Israel, (possibility of understanding), what is said does impose itself on what is meant.
Who is Natasha? Natasha is also a forth refracted, but being in Russia, there is no vertical cut between the said and the meant, but a horizontal superposition in word between the meant and the said, so that it is impossible to know, which realm the word is referred two.
Both belong in hypothesis to the category hr, but in very different modalities.
Sask is a normal ‘f’ who is pushed through circumstances to an ff sphere, in male nature for Russian eyes (through the structures of understanding)
Natasha is a female in ff in a social context that does absorb ff in the ‘Benjamin’ structure. (Benjamin is the man without connection between understanding and soul. Born from Rachels reminders of Laban’s idols, is the cause of her death. It is visible through history that this type, general prototype of some kind of psychopathetic behaviour as described in judges for the tribe of Benjamin, is absorbed by an undetermined couple of ff, getting married to the female, while the male stays free in order to create the necessary erotic tension, see ref ‘Medea’, and other).
Sak and Natasha meet in Sos del Rey Católico.
Sos del Rey Católico is a Spanish Parador.
(Kind of hotel). And a game of words:
SOS: signs of highest alarm
SoS: Secret of State
Sos is possibly another old word for hostal, or place to stay.
As we are in Spain, we move in the realm of finality.
As we are in Sos del Rey Católico we move in a wordgame with three possible interpretations based on the ‘tanto monta monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando’ (equality of power of the king and the queen of the Catholic Monarchs.)
How do Sask and Natasha communicate in the realm of finality?
Natasha understands what Sask means and does not hear what she says.
Sask does consider everything Natasha says as empirical facts.
These lines of understanding do build up a current (psychic line of communication) that does separate the ff realm from the mm realm. The evidence of ‘confidence’ is the evidence of meaning, and the evidence of meaning the evidence of a determined language conveying its proper values.
As such, it does not save ff, but at least the symbolic nature of women’s language.
Mm realm gets lost for rational parameters.
If I’m Sask and Natasha in logic, in the given lines of communication, what happens in Ecuador? The given logic does make the mm logic explode. This explosion does shatter the given logic differentiating man from woman with greatest double advantages for mm (social recognition through marriage, freedom through male advantage for ‘adventures’, and largest social development in arts, culture, etc.), and none for ff, by introducing the male and the female in all scales on psychic levels, restoring the differentiation ff and fm, eliminates mm if not in ff, and opens the possibility of reinsertion of ff in active social life (takes literature, arts, general organization and command).
How though does the Natasha/Sask ‘love affair’ in Spain restore the rational tone of reliability?


Therapy for schizoid understanding

The relationship between logic and sanity
If it were necessary to establish the link between a determined logic and a certain rational behavior, it would only be possible if we admit that all behavior, all understanding is governed by a determinable logic.
In this sense, logic would not mean the very determination of parameters that do define rational discourse, but a scheme of functioning that does on the one hand determine the apprehension of reality, and on the other, behavior as such.
Necessarily there must be a relationship between the first and the latter which can be established through a general model inserting prototypes of understanding and behavior, allowing to determine how far or near one model or the other stands from what could be called an ‘ideal’ rationality, and thus, how much behavior can be affected by the incapacity of dealing with information coming from the outer world or from the psychic realm, as the schemes or forms used in order to organize the information are not adequate enough to allow proper registration, organization and understanding.
As such we can say, that behavior is nothing but the result of a certain number of information ‘falling’ on deeper forms and determining the reaction or lack of reaction. Of course this is a simple way of considering things, as the forms in question must necessarily be differentiated in those who are intelligible and those who are potentially intelligible (most of instinctive reactions), and those who are intelligible, can be separated in two other categories: the intended one, and the pretended one, as well as other small categories which are of no interest at this precise moment.
The bridge, that allows to determine which ‘compounds of word or thought’ are susceptible of leading to some kind of insanity or being the representation of one type of insanity, is language. Language alone, and considering only logical parameters, would very soon show that 99,9 % of human kind is insane, as rational logic is very rarely used, and when it is used, in synthetic way, so that it is of need to follow procedures of reconstruction in order to establish the link between the said and a rational process. As given example: “It’s raining, thus I go for a walk,” seems irrational, because we omit to insert a law or belief (subjective law) inside of our statements: “It’s raining, and as I have been said that walking while it is raining does some good to health, I go for a walk now.” Of course many people would say that such a belief is irrational, and thus the consequence, but it is possible to observe rationality deriving from the fact that there is submission to some kind of authority, though lacking from the fact that the subject does not further verify, and this submission, if ordered under a certain number of criteria, whose rationality is variable, too, can be said mark of rationality.
This means that the rationality can not be only the consequence of rational discourse, but of what we said reasonable before, and as logic and rationality are rules of order (psychic or intuitive and of understanding) determined by principles, such is the reasonable.
It is observable, on the other hand, that up to 90 % of reactions are the result of extremely complex logics whose link to reason or order is very difficult to establish, though possible. The ‘normal’ is taken as general parameter, as it is practically impossible to rationalize side behavior with enough accuracy so as to differentiate the ‘insane’ from the ‘sane in exception’.
In order thus to make an attempt to categorize understanding, or to determine general parameters of what can be said most generally reasonable, it is of need to define first the finality of such an attempt, and in order to do so, we will have to establish the relationship between a determined model of the human being and a possible positive consequence of such an attempt.
What is a model?Many people confuse a model with reality which can be at the origin of great confusions. In fact, we generally understand that reality is a compound of impressions and the words linked to these impressions as directly deriving from senses. The human mind does though perceive whole lots of phenomena which are somehow linked to senses, but whose intelligibility can not be put into direct relationship with senses. Whenever we use of an abstract theoretical frame based on the very structures of understanding or sensitivity (geometry, logical categories, derives images) in order to organize ‘diffused’ phenomena, we can talk about a model. The representation of matter through electrons, neutrons, etc. is a model which is linked to reality through the fact that it allows to explain a whole number of phenomena indirectly, without it being though possible to ‘see’ directly what is affirmed in the model.
In a certain way it can even be said that ‘systems’ as ‘compounds of laws’ governing certain phenomena, are nothing but intellectual ‘models’ and nothing further. This becomes obvious in physics with the almost incompatible approach of classical physics (Newton) and modern physics (Einstein) on the same phenomena: the fact of altering principles in organization, as the use of space as absolute parameter (Newton) or the use of light as absolute parameter (Einstein) does naturally change the view or perspective and thus the organization of information with sometimes contradictory results. In order to explain these contradictions physicians do limit the field of application of classical physics to ‘earthy’ phenomena, and do recognize validity of modern physics for ‘universal’ phenomena.
This means that neither systems nor models do say ‘truths’: they order a certain number of concepts in a very determined way that allows to deal with a certain number of phenomena clearly and easily. This is why the determination of finality is essential if we want to warrant general rationality by asserting a certain number of statements. Limiting the field of observation to ‘earthy’ phenomena, in the attempt of rationalization of forces (mainly), we can say that
Newton’s physics is, up to a certain extent, adequate.
That a metaphysician would have objections because Newton does allow himself to make of space an ‘absolute’ (impossible, objects metaphysics, because related to natural phenomena, space can not be an absolute), will no bother
Newton very much. His theory does certainly not allow to explain the origins of the universe, but it allows to invent electricity 300 years later.
As such, the rationality of most theories is derived from their efficacy, although the moral finger of a wise metaphysician would certainly remind of the fact, that the frame of theory showing hints of fundamental irrationality, the consequence of the same will certainly have bad side effects it will be necessary dealing with.
The referential model of the human beingNaturally, our model of the human can not be but exactly that: a representation allowing to deal with a certain number of phenomena and eventually correct certain mistakes allowing to ‘heal’ someone who may have been defined as ill.
Being a model it takes its validity from the fact that it does allow to deal with the phenomena in question, or find a proper explanation for side behaviors or ‘not normal’ appearances. It will never say: things are like that. It will say: with this representation you can deal effectively with this and that or find an explanation for different complex phenomena.
If this model takes the human from the point of view of what he says or believes, maintaining that even the deepest layers of the unconscious or even instinct can be somehow put in words and thus be intelligible, it is because of all, language and word are the most interactive and thus most effective tools in the determination of the human and thus in the possibility of action on basic misunderstandings or mistakes in structure.
A behavior can be said, and in a certain way, even the cause of the behavior and the finality, which does order behavior already in an easy rational frame. Impressions as left on the psychic system can be said, too, grouped in words and ordered in general frames which will always be subjective, and though of importance: if someone does not ‘like’ a patient, because there is incompatibility in language, may he force himself to make abstraction of his rejection? We may say that perhaps efficacy in interrelationship and thus in therapy depend on the ‘general sympathy’ towards the patient, as indifference may put barriers of understanding that may even avoid recovering.
In evidence, we may never have a comprehensive and analytical overview of all structures of the human being, neither of all the possibilities deriving of logics. It is thus of importance to introduce a notion of ‘gap’ in a specific approach: “If I maintain myself in a mood that can be called rational and reasonable, the interaction with the other will show moments where the listener does simply not understand. If though the subject does keep his mood, this mood will determine his reaction, independently of what he actually understands. The reaction will restore the interaction on a more intelligible level, so that the gap is filled.” If a listener does keep himself in this disposition, in consciousness that it is impossible to understand everything, he builds ‘bracketed information’ in some part of his memory. While stopping the conversation, and some time later, he may try to understand what escaped him at that moment and try to determine its logic or meaning. If he does so, he will have built up the bridge of comprehension to the other subject.
Fundamental aspects of the model of the human as allowing to deal with subjects having been generally typified as schizoid
The human being does believe a certain number of things.(Horizontal) Two categories: the rational depending on understanding deal fundamentally with two aspects of his life: knowledge as compound and organization of existence through the understanding of the organization as given in a determined societyThe psychic depending on symbolic structures ordering events in schemes or prototypes embedded in histories that allow dealing with the affective aspects of existence and the intuitive perception of reality, as well as the general frame of interpretation of reality as a whole and its evaluation.
(Vertical) These categories are embedded in traditions that are usually not explicated depending on national, racial, historical, sociopolitical etc. criteria.
It can be thus said that reasonably, the understanding may have developed a structuring of concepts that does allow dealing with psychic phenomena. Is this not the case, it can be said that the tension between psychic forces and structures of understanding will be at the origin of anxiety, stress or fright, even of eventual psychotic crisis (incapacity of understanding to deal correctly with repressed masses of psychic forces.)
The same can be said in cases that the structure of understanding does not allow absorbing events as being the natural result of human life or possibilities of psychic disposition.
We may than say, without yet getting into differentiations as those given by conveyed information through tones and intonation or other subliminal ways (movement), that the human being is some kind of machine absorbing information from the outer world, ordering it into forms as given, reacting to those inside of given laws as believed in (social interaction) and dealing with another complex of information generated by inner psychic logics that are either the result of the absorption of information from the outer world or of the understanding/soul interrelationship (feelings).
It is possible to think thus, that there are what we will call lines of communication between one thinking this and another thinking the same, as belief is not only the holding of frozen word, but a psychic interaction between a subject, and thus of a psychic mass, and a given word or belief. The fact that the psychic mass interacts with word does allow conceiving that there may be some kind of connection between subjects ordered through the same belief. (This theory, which needs of deeper concretization if the world of psychopath is to be understood, does not yet need of further specification in the case of schizoid language.)
(Theory of the intercommunication of soul in ordered psychic masses.)
It can be said that the schizoid is most largely the subject whose psychic reality and symbolic ordering has invaded the understanding, or alters moments where consciousness is fixed on understanding with moments where it is fixed on psychic reality. Consciousness is though generally ordered through the parameters of understanding in order to be able to deal with reality. The overflowing of the psychic logic does have as effect that the impressions of senses are ordered in some kind of ‘mythological’ film where the people appearing do symbolize a general psychic type inside of an inner process determining events, causing even in the effort of restructuring impressions a superposition of fantasy with outer reality (vision). The incapability of dealing with reality is cause of anxiety and this of psychotic crises or other proofs of fright (paleness, sweat, abstraction, etc.)
Intelligent schizophrenia is a rare phenomenon where the subject having the same symptoms than the precedent masters appearance well enough so as not to show the slightest symptoms of anxiety. Mechanisms that do allow doing this are determinable.The schizoid does mainly react to repressed psychic masses that are not absorbed by a rational system, either personal, either social. As he is incapable of structuring his behavior through understanding he reacts to general psychic currents as not dealt with by common reason. They become thus in a certain way ‘images of the general unconscious’ and were very often considered as ‘saints’.
As their somewhat erratic behavior does cause generally disturbances, it is of need to structure their reality inside of a given frame avoiding the necessity of very destructive neuroleptics.
There are three different types of approach to schizophrenia:
1. in little affected subjects: reinforcement of rational structures and maintenance of a certain number of range of ‘tones’, warrant of the rational lines
2. in very affected subjects: construction of a socially ordered frame of expression of their ‘inspirations’
3. frontal confrontation provoking psychotic crisis in cases of intelligent schizophrenia in order to allow the determination of the depth of illness and further 1 or 2

There are cases of voluntary schizophrenia (moral involvement) that can not be healed.
For the causes of schizophrenia, we will have to consider later.



In order to view better a difficult theoretical problem, it is sometimes an advantage to introduce it into a symbolic perspective of history, in order not to be excessively submerged by too many abstract concepts.
The changes occurred in the organization of what we wanted to call ‘refracted lines’ were illustrated through the so called ‘hypothesis of the fall of
Constantinople (1453)’. This way of treating problems was taken out of Herodotus, who does often present through somewhat schematic historical events deeper psychological or even moral teachings (the inherent inherited psychological character of children, for example, the link from dream to reality in its interpretation, etc.). It is possible to affirm with some restrictions that people did understand the name of ‘people’ at that time, not as much as filiations of blood, but as people grouped under a certain principle of behaviour, principle which of course was as well transmitted by blood as by custom, in their own understanding.
This interesting way of understanding, which we observed being a way of proceeding existing still in our days, although less developed, among common people (Spaniards do still use the word ‘Catalan’ in order to design someone who is very gripped, and find some kind of link between these and the Poles, as they are often said ‘polacos’ — the implications should be studied …), was the point of departure of a series of transpositions which did mix historical events with accidental or essential characteristics, allowing thus to illustrate very difficult theoretical problems.
Whether the transpositions have any historical foundation or not, is in fact, quite indifferent. It is not our purpose to defend theses whose proof is difficult to find, but to show clearly how certain internal mechanism do work.
The ‘Constaninople hypothesis’ started in fact with the symbolic image given in OT, where Assyria and Egypt are compared to the wings of the eagle, whose body is Israel (Prophets). As Assyria is the political descendant of Sumeria, and Sumeria the place of birth of a myth who may easily be understood as having heavy male homosexual implications, the ‘Gilgamesh’, and using this excuse in order to find elements which may have the same, though female, homosexual connotations in Egypt, we saw the first drawings of the so called ‘six wings logic’ somehow inspired in the OT. Prophets say that God would persecute Assyria (mm) and Egypt (ff) for many years, but that at the end, they would be sitting at the right and the left side of Israel (mf), who was representing the heterosexual couple, and was to be for thousands of years as politically correct as possible.
This first extraction of the ‘six wings logic’, based on the other hand on the possibility of distinguishing three types and levels of language, interacting in order to compose a complete vision of reality, lead quickly to other historical comparisons: the sons of thunder of the NT, Jacob and John, were assimilated to Assyria (Jacob) and Egypt (John: who was understood as woman, not only because the Turk still say ‘Yuana’ to him, but because it seemed to us that the fact that Jesus does give him the responsibility of his mother, may be a clear hint in this direction, as it appears strange that this responsibility be given to a man), and as John went to Asia Minor and Jacob to Spain, we soon established again our national identifications by associating Greece to Egypt, Spain to Assyria and Italy to Israel (Peter and Paul). Of course we went later on finding traces of the same organization even in South America: the Aztecs were Assyria, the Maya were Israel and the Inca were
Egypt. And other examples that can be found, with the Chinese exception, where it seemed as if the three types were integrated parts of one nation allowing thus to eradicate through segregation deviating organizations of reality (Vietnam, Thailand, Korea, Japan, for organized structures, and Mongols, Tartars, Huns and Turks for erratic structures.)
In any case it was astonishing to observe how many interesting possibilities of interpretation on historical events did open themselves by operating these assimilations. One of them was the ‘fall of
Constantinople hypothesis’. By analyzing the structures of psychic defence and thus of national defence, we arrived to the conclusion that the psychic support needed in order to defend a people or individual from hardest attacks was generated on levels ff, who had the strongest lines of inner or psychic communication. This meant that the fact of keeping the sphere of intention ‘clear or pure’ allowed clearest vision on strategies of attack and thus of the development of strategies of defence and this task did correspond to the ff individual.
We operated the same comparison with a sole individual, which much later did allow us to rationalize properly the psychosomatic interaction. The possibility of confirming through historical happenings this hypothesis, we took from the fact that all the Greek prophets, ‘pythias’ or ‘priests of Appolon’, were women, and not only.
How the sphere of intention, whose language and logic is extremely complex as being the sole that implies the notion of variable in the composition of meaning, which is to say, that it works in hypothetical apprehension as what is perceived has not yet happened, is kept in the structural composition so as to allow the vision of consequence, we may talk about later. Let us though just point out for the moment that the core of national defence does weigh on this part of the population and that logically people more or less intuitively in knowledge will certainly aim an attack on these individuals in order to provoke the destruction of a composed whole.
Taking elements of the events as nourishing popular mind and scientific understanding, we meant to understand that it was exactly what happened in order to provoke the fall of
Constantinople. Our reconstruction of the given events was the following:
Taking as basis the fact that the so called psychopathetic type of Benjamin (as briefly described in “Sask falls in love …”) is absorbed by the lines ff in some cultures, and that this fact does alter the very constitution of apprehension of reality as it is possible to think the ‘murder’ in a determined social integration, which means that impulses of death (suicide or assassination) can be transformed into ordered lines giving determined social structures (justice or war). This must have happened extremely late in human history and must have partly marked the difference between the civilized and the savage. (We did situate this event at the time of Jacob as we tended to understand the double marriage as an ff tension, Rachel and Lea, absorbing a Benjamin type.)
It seemed thus that the very architecture of justice and ordered war in the clarity of vision needed in order to keep the perfect balance was warranted by this mechanism or logic absorbing the Benjamin type in lines ff. The ‘virus’ introduced in order to destroy this logic came symbolically from Spain (Catalan mercenaries) after having been prepared by Italian merchants residing opposite the Agia Sofia in Constantinople.
We call ‘virus’ a device or logical mechanism that does destroy a healthy logic, device or mechanism.
The logic of destruction of Agia Sofia in
Constantinople, consists in substituting a Benjamin by a fake Benjamin type Hm (man homosexual) female, who does copy the psychic characteristics of the type Benjamin. Intuitively the ff sphere does cover the fake, but this fake is linked to the mm sphere through very fine lines, as the soul is not cut from understanding as in the Benjamin type. Thus, the erotic tension created by the ff sphere is used by the mm sphere as ‘inspiration’ for creation and personal glory. The ff sphere is weakened by the constant pumping of vital energy and allows the increasing empowering of the middle lines (mf), also the merchants or middle classes in despite of structuring and organizing upper classes or working lower classes.
This illness is the characteristics of occidental history from 1453 and on. The incapacity of solution will finally lead to a fusion between ff and mm, as said before, with a complete exhaustion of psychic general forces.
The 2003 solution or antivirus will be constructed almost by accident through a complete coincidence produced by a shift of heterosexual woman to lines ff (
Sask). As
Sask is not a real ff, she does not have the logic of absorption of Benjamin, as the mf couple does not have, for obvious reasons (children and organization of family) the structures that allow the insertion of ‘frequences of death’ inside of the organization of understanding. Logically
Sask does reject the Benjamin and consequently the fake Benjamin. Whenever strong psychic lines are detected (forces of national strength, as Sask for Israel and Natasha for Russia), the same logic as given before is put into functioning in order to absorb resources (doubled and tripled by other ‘viruses’ as the so called Holland and vat viruses). This time though, it falls into the water: the psychic resources thus pumped are forces that are destroying those who use this kind of strategy, as the fake hf male is covered by the double reverted shadow of death: my own. Seeming to absorb psychic strength, mm is just pumping of the realm of death while the shining appearance does promise the same as it had been giving for almost 600 years.
Sask’s lines do on the other hand push Benjamin and the fake Benjamin out of the ff spheres: they are inserted in normal mf lines or mm lines if ever still existing through a ‘device’ that allows substituting the erotic forces by meaning in aesthetics.
Logically the very understanding of justice and war is altered, as well as general organization, and even the structuring of apprehension of reality. These changes, having force of law for the generation born 1980 and whereabouts is in a state of potential realization for the generations before, (the last hypothesis or Samson hypothesis), as it is practically impossible to change fundamental structures of understanding after a certain age. The attempt of building a bridge of communication between given structures and those forthcoming leads to the exhausting realization in zig (under blind submission to given plan) from 2003 to 2006.
The comprehension of this illustration does slowly allow to understand how the very synthesis of identity and thus of general social organization may have been deteriorated from 1453 and on, and how the marginal Sask/Natasha in AS logic has put a brake to the general loss of rational parameters.


Solovjev and rational love

That each people develops particular ways of understanding, associations and equivalences that do enrich custom and general wisdom through logics that are frequently not even explicated, does become clear through the singular example of the Russian philosopher Solovjev.
Solovjev is a rare case. Living during the 19th Century, he went to
Germany to study philosophy. Contrary to the German language, the Russian is not a logical or rationally organized language, so that the interaction of both will have as a result one of the strangest philosophical works ever written, ‘The meaning of love’. For an occidental mind the demonstration of the validity of love as such without proper realization (marriage or generation of children) through a somewhat bizarre argument (enrichment of the whole through example, argument in aesthetical and moral finality) that allows to include this particular case into a whole, seems somewhat incongruous: the validation of the particular through the insertion into a whole is a logical empirical argument, and is hardly used for moral argumentation. This surprising crash between two different mentalities does though give an interesting light on the usually not explicated Russian mentality. The Russian likes the silence, because silence conveys: the explication of fundamental logics of functioning of soul is suspicious to him because he knows that understanding may quickly deform the meaning of words and possibly destroy the inner logic. Solovjev, who ‘does not share the common Russian spirit’ (a contemporary says), seems to admire the German ability to abstract concepts and put them into impressive structures of demonstration, but does not betray the Russian: he concentrates his thought on something Germans have never thought about, love, and although his procedure may seem not adequate to most eyes, he reveals in the effort of abstraction fundamental structures of Russian thought and psychic functioning.
Solovjev is so deeply a Russian that he thinks as if he were painting icons. The submission to tradition is the equivalent to the submission to the very severe rules governing icon paintings, allowing very little individual expressions. This main way of ordering the frame of thought does allow to defend the theses of his expressing a more general way of thinking without extreme difficulty. The constant references to orthodox tradition for the explication of thought, shocking to an occidental mind, is though perfectly embedded in Russian tradition.
It is him who does almost accidentally make reference to a curious equivalence: he compares marriage without love to necrophilia. Although his demonstration of the equivalence is extremely clear, the frame allowing it is not given, so that it is almost shocking for a non alerted reader. How does Solovjev operate such a comparison? Or, said otherwise, which general modes of apprehension do allow him to mention it without him being for the slightest confused in his attempt, as if he were just using common modes of procedure instead of inventing something new or original?
It seems quickly, that Solovjev does assimilate love to life without much thought, as if it were evident. On the other hand, law seems to be some kind of source of life, too, as given in the general rule of the bounding word in marriage. It is obvious that the broken word or submission to law without the conditio sine qua non, love in the case of marriage, does provoke to his understanding some kind of inner contradiction (logical death), which allows this extremely rare equivalence in his way of thinking.
It is not only this: he seems to take the resources of his comparison from a probably much more general way of proceeding, that does allow to make equivalences between a certain way of thinking and/or disposition and a determined sexual expression. Point of departure of a whole series of reflections (shortly synthesized in ‘Wo man das Erotische vom Pornographischen zu unterscheiden versucht’, ‘Where the attempt was made to differentiate the erotic from the pornographic, in, it will end up being the source of a whole lot of theories allowing even to understand the psychopathetic logic.
It is not difficult this way to learn a language even without speaking a word of it. The attentive analysis of singular procedures as transmitted by main works in literature does allow the reconstruction of a mentality or particular apprehension of reality as usually conveyed by language. A language is not only a series of words: it does transmit a vision of reality through associations and implicit definitions, through grammatical constructions and intonations conveying value and meaning. Literature does often explicate these commonly inherent procedures, reason why writers are often taken for mad: there are things that are simply not to be said, but just, if ever, understood. Sometimes though, when these extremely complicated modes of functioning are at risk to be lost, it is of importance to have the ability to bring them to the surface in order to hint out their value and importance. Is there anyone who may want to understand what is commonly talked about by making reference to the ‘Russian soul’, he just has to try to comprehend the feeling as resulting from interactions as described by Dostoyevskij, Gorkij, or others.
Is it possible to talk about a proof of equivalence so as to give a rational foundation to the above mentioned procedure and other similar? It is certainly possible, but very complicated. It is more interesting to use in this case the argument through finality, or justification through efficacy. If it is true that the human has a sexual behavior somehow linked to a way of thinking, the equivalence takes its validity from an empirical evidence and needs no further demonstration.
The equivalence does seem to repose on an intuitive model of functioning of understanding. It does assimilate a certain number of characteristics to words belonging to different spheres of reality, so as to be able to find an equivalence between those. Thus, man seems to be represented by word, and woman by meaning or conveyed meaning, and this because of the characteristic of ‘outer phenomenon’ or ‘inner phenomenon’. Consequently the first is situated in the realm of space, while the second is in the realm of time, and this does much later allow to think the possibility that the very identity of each be situated on a different level and related to the other in a determined way (logic of interaction).
If things are considered this way, appears that there is certainly a strange coincidence between possible man/woman interactions and possibilities of understanding in variables of value given to the very word or meaning. It is not the same to understand by giving interpretation to what is conveyed by tones by doing as if nothing be really said, than to fix the attention on what is said and deriving the meaning through definition, omitting the possibly conveyed meaning.
If this is true, than it must be possible to produce a referential model of what could be said ‘conveying rationality’, which on the other hand though, seems to induce the possibility of establishing reasonable parameters of behavior in sexual relationship, as if it could be thought, that behavior may back a certain way of proceeding in understanding through the repetition in fulfilled image in reality. On the other hand, hypothesis may be put, trying to determine how far a deviated sexual behavior, if this can be identified as such, may affect fundamentally the very process of generation of rational thought or even destroy it.


The logical composition of ‘Manual of a soldier’ in the construction of the 2003 antivirus

The logical structure described in ‘Mice and men’ is nothing but the image of a double tongue structure in spirit built up in 2001. This double tongue structure, (further ironically called ‘de triple filo y de la medianoche’ in reference to a Spanish columnist who used to write articles on social events in the ABC around 1985/90), does develop the so called forth refracted (to say something that is not meant or further mean something that is not said) into a fifth refracted: the possibility of building up a tone that has different meanings if perceived by different structures of understanding.
This extremely complicated device was developed first through music: the constant effort of singing a different song while hearing another one put at high volume, conduces slowly to the possibility of adapting the song by introducing it into the musicality of the other. This does conduct to the possibility of thinking another song while singing one, and this structural composition does build up a double generator of undertones, so that it becomes possible to mean two different things at the same time. This sophisticated device does allow detecting people who are just listening in order to pump inspiration or knowledge and thus allows localizing intelligent schizophrenia and psychopathetic behaviour, as these structures of understanding do usually detect from environment the proper response in order not to be categorized in madness.
In psychopathetic language, mice do symbolize sexual currents. The fifth refracted was thus originally thought of as line of psychic communication with potential or active psychopaths through a determined symbolization. It is obvious that the story of mice and men is nothing but the symbolic representation of the fifth refracted that introduces into the psychopathetic lines a new line, my own, as some kind of ‘regulator’.
It is possible that the logical structure of ‘quanta’ as theory, allows the transposition of the fifth refracted in upper lines or lines of understanding. In 2002 I ‘say’ to
Sask: “you are introducing the fifth refracted into upper lines in this is very dangerous.” In fact it creates some kind of synapse (possibility of synthesis) through given lines of understanding, which may have as an effect that communication bridges are established and used for dangerous goals being at the same time invisible for the common eye as happening in psychopathetic lines and doubly covered by social appearance.
At that time I don’t understand which established theory does allow the transposition of the fifth refracted into established society. Thus, I work on extremely hypothetical basis: if this has been introduced into established thought than … the logic a in interaction with logic b (Salif, repressed hr ff male in psychic understanding, Syria, and Elma, repressed hr ff female in understanding of understanding, Israel) may be at the origin of universal disaster, drowning on their way my antivirus (Natasha and Sask). I do work thus on the logical possibility of blocking such a possibility. It appears as if the only way of blocking such an event were a realization in image (The poisoned chocolate’s story is nothing but the image of the given logic, and this logic does block the psychic lines between Salif and Elma: in fact, the psychopaths invited to Damask were all Elma’s friends, and their death will be the cause of Elma’s revenge: she will personally kill Salif, being the only one who may have near access to her.)
Arriving to Israel, the first thing I do is to go to King David, place I don’t know, asking my way to it to a passing orthodox Jew (which shows that the communication between my lines and Orthodox Jews were very high through the ancient rational insertion of refracted lines in social organization: the community of diamonds). I did actually ask myself on the snowy way up, how it had come to my mind to ask for a place I didn’t know, but didn’t give much importance to the thought. Arriving there, I sit down to have dinner and appears Elma with her husband to my greatest surprise. This very peculiar encounter which was nothing but the declaration of war, where I simply cross her eyes thinking ‘min baseis ta paidia sto gala to katzikiou tis manas’ (Don’t put the children into the milk of the mothers: law of OT in symbolical transcription), is the first alert that my logical constructions do have some relationship with reality.
The whole becomes much worse when the picture of Salif appears in the newspaper, as I had agreed on psychopathetic lines of the unconscious, that if it were her, she should please make her presence visible in a way or another, and she does. Consequently I have no choice but to think that the possibility of realization of my hypothesis is reality.
It’s not enough. Natasha appears. A little later,
Sask appears. Even Rafael (who I called Ariel) appears. I arrive to establish an undetermined link between my ‘telepathetic’ names and real names. If Rafael is Ariel, it gives the possible variation not only in comprehension of names but also in the transmission of psychic information on psychopathetic lines. Some though seem to be exact: Wilheim is Wilheim, but this may be linked to the fact that it is a German name. Shoona exists as a name, Shanee says. Leya has the same name.
Seen from a more comprehensive perspective, the only logical explanation I do find for the superposition is the following: my logical works on psychopaths do push me to build up logical codes of identity. Either they correspond to someone ( a psychopath) or they are virtual identities I introduce into the psychopathetic realm in order to organize the net. (Though somehow suspended to intuitive apprehension I count in
France in 2002 around 200.000 potential psychopaths moving in my lines). My ‘fakes’ though do seem to encounter psychic types that are real (Natasha in Russia and Shoona in
Israel). A particular encounter in my unconscious diving does teach me of the fact that Chinese had developed devices that did allow them to control psychopathetic lines: Lo, actually in the US, does tell me that the copying of a psychic type does allow the almost perfect vision of what the psychopath is doing, through some kind of telepathy linked to the fact that the subject is using the same logical structures.
If this is true, it explains why so much information coming from Israel and Russia and even
China do arrive to my limited Greek territory. This information does appear under two different lights: the ordered one (
Sask or Natasha) and the psychopathetic one (Salif and Elma). Before arriving to
Israel I had all information concerning the personnel working at King David in psychopathetic lines. Strangely, most of the information possibly having inherent secrecy do not come through
Sask, but through Elma: an evidence that Elma is pumping secret information from some environment, concretely linked to the army.
As I do not know the theoretical construction of quanta, I do not have any kind of access to possible reliable people whose logical structures I may understand, which may be the warrant of being believed in such a chaotic and unbelievable story. Consequently I do not even make the attempt.
Establishing the link between quanta and the fifth refracted is possible only in 2005/6. Similarities deriving from the fact that something (light) is attached to one nature (matter) and another (wave), does allow the possibility of thinking a fundamental theoretical structure as vector of the before mentioned ‘tone’.
As the structure of understanding as used between 1999/2003 is schizoid in psychopathetic lines, it is impossible to know how information in these languages may be possibly understood in ordered society. On the other hand, devices built up from 1993/9 that allow to enlarge memory and organization of information up to almost inhuman extents, has produced tons of information that is not ordered anymore in rational lines. The effort to find the origin of the possible disaster does pass through a reduction to zero: not knowing anything I have to learn how the rational structures function in established society, trying to insert my devices and information in some kind of ‘bridge’ structure allowing the interaction with the environment.
‘Manual of a soldier’ is the first attempt of finding lines of communication. Information as mixing symbolic images in schizoid and psychopathetic language with empirical events, confusing past event with recent events, may ‘as a piece of literature’ provoke enough outer movement so as to allow the clearing up of the mess of information as given before. The implications of the involuntary insertion of the fifth refracted into scientific thought may have been disastrous.
On the other hand,
Sask may ask what the hell mean all these stories of rapes, in which she become so innocently involved: a psychopath does understand as rape the breaking of his codes of identity. In the psychopathetic world I was well known as ‘the raper’ (among other beautiful names), as it was my job to steal codes of identity by finding the point where the other, in unawareness (sleeping) did give away conducting lines. (In fact psychopaths do act mostly tele guided in some determined logic, which explains the bloody war between Salif and myself, as I was stealing all her psychopaths to my own service.) “I obliged her to rape me.” = to take my codes of identity in order to block the Elma/Salif psychic interaction. And other symbolic representations whose explanation will be discovered in time …
The logical structure described in ‘Mice and men’ is nothing but the image of a double tongue structure in spirit built up in 2001. This double tongue structure, (further ironically called ‘de triple filo y de la medianoche’ in reference to a Spanish columnist who used to write articles on social events in the ABC around 1985/90), does develop the so called forth refracted (to say something that is not meant or further mean something that is not said) into a fifth refracted: the possibility of building up a tone that has different meanings if perceived by different structures of understanding.
This extremely complicated device was developed first through music: the constant effort of singing a different song while hearing another one put at high volume, conduces slowly to the possibility of adapting the song by introducing it into the musicality of the other. This does conduct to the possibility of thinking another song while singing one, and this structural composition does build up a double generator of undertones, so that it becomes possible to mean two different things at the same time. This sophisticated device does allow detecting people who are just listening in order to pump inspiration or knowledge and thus allows localizing intelligent schizophrenia and psychopathetic behaviour, as these structures of understanding do usually detect from environment the proper response in order not to be categorized in madness.
In psychopathetic language, mice do symbolize sexual currents. The fifth refracted was thus originally thought of as line of psychic communication with potential or active psychopaths through a determined symbolization. It is obvious that the story of mice and men is nothing but the symbolic representation of the fifth refracted that introduces into the psychopathetic lines a new line, my own, as some kind of ‘regulator’.
It is possible that the logical structure of ‘quanta’ as theory, allows the transposition of the fifth refracted in upper lines or lines of understanding. In 2002 I ‘say’ to
Sask: “you are introducing the fifth refracted into upper lines in this is very dangerous.” In fact it creates some kind of synapse (possibility of synthesis) through given lines of understanding, which may have as an effect that communication bridges are established and used for dangerous goals being at the same time invisible for the common eye as happening in psychopathetic lines and doubly covered by social appearance.
At that time I don’t understand which established theory does allow the transposition of the fifth refracted into established society. Thus, I work on extremely hypothetical basis: if this has been introduced into established thought than … the logic a in interaction with logic b (Salif, repressed hr ff male in psychic understanding, Syria, and Elma, repressed hr ff female in understanding of understanding, Israel) may be at the origin of universal disaster, drowning on their way my antivirus (Natasha and Sask). I do work thus on the logical possibility of blocking such a possibility. It appears as if the only way of blocking such an event were a realization in image (The poisoned chocolate’s story is nothing but the image of the given logic, and this logic does block the psychic lines between Salif and Elma: in fact, the psychopaths invited to Damask were all Elma’s friends, and their death will be the cause of Elma’s revenge: she will personally kill Salif, being the only one who may have near access to her.)
Arriving to Israel, the first thing I do is to go to King David, place I don’t know, asking my way to it to a passing orthodox Jew (which shows that the communication between my lines and Orthodox Jews were very high through the ancient rational insertion of refracted lines in social organization: the community of diamonds). I did actually ask myself on the snowy way up, how it had come to my mind to ask for a place I didn’t know, but didn’t give much importance to the thought. Arriving there, I sit down to have dinner and appears Elma with her husband to my greatest surprise. This very peculiar encounter which was nothing but the declaration of war, where I simply cross her eyes thinking ‘min baseis ta paidia sto gala to katzikiou tis manas’ (Don’t put the children into the milk of the mothers: law of OT in symbolical transcription), is the first alert that my logical constructions do have some relationship with reality.
The whole becomes much worse when the picture of Salif appears in the newspaper, as I had agreed on psychopathetic lines of the unconscious, that if it were her, she should please make her presence visible in a way or another, and she does. Consequently I have no choice but to think that the possibility of realization of my hypothesis is reality.
It’s not enough. Natasha appears. A little later,
Sask appears. Even Rafael (who I called Ariel) appears. I arrive to establish an undetermined link between my ‘telepathetic’ names and real names. If Rafael is Ariel, it gives the possible variation not only in comprehension of names but also in the transmission of psychic information on psychopathetic lines. Some though seem to be exact: Wilheim is Wilheim, but this may be linked to the fact that it is a German name. Shoona exists as a name, Shanee says. Leya has the same name.
Seen from a more comprehensive perspective, the only logical explanation I do find for the superposition is the following: my logical works on psychopaths do push me to build up logical codes of identity. Either they correspond to someone ( a psychopath) or they are virtual identities I introduce into the psychopathetic realm in order to organize the net. (Though somehow suspended to intuitive apprehension I count in
France in 2002 around 200.000 potential psychopaths moving in my lines). My ‘fakes’ though do seem to encounter psychic types that are real (Natasha in Russia and Shoona in
Israel). A particular encounter in my unconscious diving does teach me of the fact that Chinese had developed devices that did allow them to control psychopathetic lines: Lo, actually in the US, does tell me that the copying of a psychic type does allow the almost perfect vision of what the psychopath is doing, through some kind of telepathy linked to the fact that the subject is using the same logical structures.
If this is true, it explains why so much information coming from Israel and Russia and even
China do arrive to my limited Greek territory. This information does appear under two different lights: the ordered one (
Sask or Natasha) and the psychopathetic one (Salif and Elma). Before arriving to
Israel I had all information concerning the personnel working at King David in psychopathetic lines. Strangely, most of the information possibly having inherent secrecy do not come through
Sask, but through Elma: an evidence that Elma is pumping secret information from some environment, concretely linked to the army.
As I do not know the theoretical construction of quanta, I do not have any kind of access to possible reliable people whose logical structures I may understand, which may be the warrant of being believed in such a chaotic and unbelievable story. Consequently I do not even make the attempt.
Establishing the link between quanta and the fifth refracted is possible only in 2005/6. Similarities deriving from the fact that something (light) is attached to one nature (matter) and another (wave), does allow the possibility of thinking a fundamental theoretical structure as vector of the before mentioned ‘tone’.
As the structure of understanding as used between 1999/2003 is schizoid in psychopathetic lines, it is impossible to know how information in these languages may be possibly understood in ordered society. On the other hand, devices built up from 1993/9 that allow to enlarge memory and organization of information up to almost inhuman extents, has produced tons of information that is not ordered anymore in rational lines. The effort to find the origin of the possible disaster does pass through a reduction to zero: not knowing anything I have to learn how the rational structures function in established society, trying to insert my devices and information in some kind of ‘bridge’ structure allowing the interaction with the environment.
‘Manual of a soldier’ is the first attempt of finding lines of communication. Information as mixing symbolic images in schizoid and psychopathetic language with empirical events, confusing past event with recent events, may ‘as a piece of literature’ provoke enough outer movement so as to allow the clearing up of the mess of information as given before. The implications of the involuntary insertion of the fifth refracted into scientific thought may have been disastrous.
On the other hand,
Sask may ask what the hell mean all these stories of rapes, in which she become so innocently involved: a psychopath does understand as rape the breaking of his codes of identity. In the psychopathetic world I was well known as ‘the raper’ (among other beautiful names), as it was my job to steal codes of identity by finding the point where the other, in unawareness (sleeping) did give away conducting lines. (In fact psychopaths do act mostly tele guided in some determined logic, which explains the bloody war between Salif and myself, as I was stealing all her psychopaths to my own service.) “I obliged her to rape me.” = to take my codes of identity in order to block the Elma/Salif psychic interaction. And other symbolic representations whose explanation will be discovered in time …


Essence, logic and identity: a bridge to S Freud

For hundreds of years philosophers did quarrel about the nature of essence, whether it was separated from the thing and being an entity in itself (from Plato’s ideas to Kant’s ‘Sache an sich’, or thing in itself), whether it did not exist (empiricist current). It is not that difficult to understand what an essence is, and though extremely surprising why this term was so difficult to define in its own essence. This remark will certainly help us to establish differences of extreme importance, once definitions have been cleared up.
It is true that we had the extreme advantage to have separated words and phenomena into two simple categories, time and space, through the ordering principle of what is moving (time) and what is not (space). It is true, too, that the fact of not searching for anything but the relationship between language and reality was of great help.
That reality is one that does not reflect itself exactly through the given structures of language is a peculiar evidence that has little been considered all over history. While it is obvious that in reality of senses the subject is never separated from the action that is taking place, language does separate the subject (pronoun or name or other) from the verb reflecting the action. This is the evidence of support for Kant’s hypothesis of time and space as forms of sensitivity, he never made the effort to search for as he was intending to establish this fact as truth a priori. The fact that language is ordered in obvious separation of the moving from the referential not moving is evidence for the statement that the human mind does automatically order all information coming from senses into two separated cases. The fact that language is ordered in a certain logic is evidence for the statement that these fundamental categories are forms of the understanding, the human mind can’t do without.
That the human mind does operate this way, does seem to say little about reality, Kant says, though it not may be that true. We do know that the subject is linked to the action essentially (no subject without action, no action without subject) in reality, even if the structures of language introduce such a particular separation. Thus, we have at the same time the apprehension of how things are and how we do order them. The first does appear clearly to consciousness, the second through the observation of the very structure of language. I did always say to Hume, that both are empirical facts.
If we are aware of this structuring of mind through the observation of language, it becomes much easier to understand what an essence is, and what logic. Having put all words linked to a non moving characteristic on one side, and all those with moving characteristics on the other, we soon see that the non moving (short: spatial) show a certain number of similar characteristics: they are not what they are if not associated to or identified with determined words. Either they belong to a category (of animal, eg for a lion) or they have to be this and that if they want still to deserve the name. This: “to have to be something or belong necessarily somewhere in order still to be inside of the given name” is an essence. The problem of the nature of essence appears because thinkers do not become aware of the fact that they are not thinking the things, but just thinking in words, and thus, that an essence is not referred to the being as appearing to senses but to the concept as formed in understanding.
Essences will of course cause horrible problems when referred to empirical objects, even more so in our times. Is an artificially generated animal still an animal or just some kind of animal? What kind of ‘plant’ is a hybrid? Etc. These problems do clearly show that essences are not fixed, eternal or unmovable: essence is just the series of words condensing (synthesizing) the what the object is not without and this may vary and vary so much, that it may depend on culture, development of understanding and other factors whether someone understands this or that as an essence. For the child, the fact of wearing a uniform may be enough to recognize a policeman, for the adult, a policeman is submitted also to a certain number of rules and laws in social organization, without which he can’t be said a policeman anymore. To talk about ideal essence is also possible, if we accept that a better concept may be referential for behavior and thus of need if the human wants to aim at something. It does not mean in that case that the concept is real, it is only a reference and takes its justification from the fact that it may have an ordering role. (This faculty of the human has been lately shifted from the moral to the biological, causing terrible disorder in nature: from an absolute point of view we may say that it is impossible to pretend to an ideal reference on biological basis because we don’t have all the elements allowing the consideration of all possible bad side effects of an intervention made on basis of an ideal referential, but it is morally possible. To put as ideal that a couple should be faithful for a life is certainly an ideal, but the possible bad side effect of such an ideal is little if compared to the attempt of conceiving an ideal sheep, tomato field, or cow.)
An essence does thus only refer itself to things as having been put on the side of the spatial. Our temporal concepts can’t be ordered the same way, and it is impossible to talk about the essence of a movement. The movement, the process, the verb do have a logic. Logic is thus nothing but the determining characteristics of a temporal phenomenon. The essence is to the name what the logic is to the verb. Logic fixes the fundamental characteristics of the temporal in a certain number of coordinates.
Of course we may say, as seen before, that in reality, there is no subject without action, nor action without subject, and thus, no name without logic nor logic without support. But these words, essence and logic, are used as referred either to one aspect (spatial) or the other (temporal) as they appear to understanding.
To know is a process, and knowledge the result of this process. Unluckily, philosophy, strongly under the influence of heavy ideological (we may say) presumptions coming from Greek philosophy, and as said, through the arrival of Indian currents of thought (Siddharta), does strain importance on the spatial, not moving, as associated to the eternal, and does hardly think the process as such. Thus, the problem of knowledge is considered from the point of view of the knowledge itself (What is true, and not, how did I know it), and the process hardly considered. Under the obligation of thinking time and process after Galilee and Newton, philosophy does soon crash itself against lacking conceptualization (Hegel’s attempt to think a process through the thesis / antitheses / synthesis does hardly reflect what an inner logic can be, and even less, what a process of knowledge is). We may suspect nowadays, that this attempt to eradicate time and process from thought is nothing but a mark of rejection of women, and her very specific and particular symbolic organization of reality, certainly in the attempt to liberate the human from strong matriarchal links: it is an evidence that the appearance of Plato and Aristotle do mark a cold rejection to more female structures of thought, as given through Homer, Herodotus and Hesiod.
This rejection though, aiming we may say almost at total destruction through the systematic invalidation of the characteristic of truth or even reality in words ordered in different way than the male spatial structures, will leave occidental thought without the possibility to understand what a logical process means: until the XIXth Century there are 3 or 4 philosophical texts on time, of not more than one page or two each, if ever: Plato (Timee), Aristotle (Theory of knowledge), St Augustin (Confessions X) and a few words about the concept of time in Newton. The XIXth Century does seem to want to recover the lost time: great number of works, mostly French, do spend ink, time and the reader’s bored attention in the attempt of considering this surprising phenomenon. Without luck. Most of the texts are simply rubbish: thinkers do not even differentiate correctly time as physical concept from process in time.
It becomes evident that men are hardly able to think time and get extremely quickly lost whenever it is to consider changing phenomena. Women though do rarely think in concepts: their somewhat peculiar way to order events in magnificent combinations determined by inner logics specified through non determined accidents, is hardly a reference to think a process as such in time.
The whole determination of identity is though suspended from the possibility to think time, as only the understanding of the concept of process as such, seems to offer the perspective of a solution. This strange concept, coming from the Greek idio (same), has it’s origin in the research of that what makes the same being like the other, or further, why one finishes to be the same as himself. Before understanding the essence (ousia), the Greek confuses slightly the essence with a principle: the identity, and derives later the essence from the verb being (what makes something be, or clearer, allows to use a name with the verb to be in an identifying link). Clearly identity is not the essence, and is said ‘principle’. Is the principle now to be ordered as a name or a verb, as temporal or spatial, as referred to a process or to a thing?
We may say that ‘identity’ is the consequence or result of a process through which something is identified in a certain way. The identity of the human may thus principally depend on how he orders the identification in process. It is obvious that if he starts from a certain number of non proofed a priori statements as: I’m my body, my image, what I pretend to be, he will order all information from inside or outside inside of the fundamental parameters used in order to fix his identity. This is what Freud calls the ‘superego’ or ‘I as image’: independently of what the proper nature of the subject is, if synthesis is made on erratic parameters, it builds up an identity, whose logic will interact with the proper nature in a certain way. Freud describes certain phenomena of interaction between the unconscious, (we would say the proper nature not synthesized in proper parameters) and the ‘superego’, which do appear to have general validity. He omits though to think that it is not necessary to build up identity on wrong parameters: logically, human beings are, for him, all mad in a certain way.
As said, the question remains on how much essence is determinable, or how much the determination is generally valid. May we really talk about a common human nature? If we do so, which may be the implications? How does the definition of the concept of time and thus the understanding of process does help us to clear up fundamental questions?


The notion or word as psychic vector of transmission: intuition versus knowledge

We will frame a model, which may allow us to explain a certain number of phenomena in an appropriate way. Its validity will be taken of the fact that observations do fit into the model and do allow understanding.
As said (“Therapy for schizoid understanding”), we may think that the word while interacting with a human being, does determine the psychic mass at the moment we may say that ‘we believe something’. We tended to represent this phenomenon by imagining that words are the particles of some kind of matter (iron, aluminium, gold, etc) and the psychic mass it’s embedded in, a generator of (or logic generating) different kinds of currents (spirits or forces determined by different principles). In order to allow the simple representation of the phenomena in question, we tended to think that the physical masses were doubled by some kind of universal intelligible psychic mass interconnected as described. Seen like this, the human being looks like an antenna that does not only receive and transmit information, but does also generate it. The antenna has an inherent radio station.
This visualization does allow ordering reality in a somewhat unusual way: instead of ordering outer impressions, we can order blocks of believes as appearing in a place or another, thinking that they will be in interrelationship in one way or another. We can also group these believes in the categories of the intelligible, unintelligible or unconscious and repressed. The intelligible are those we think to believe (compounds of knowledge or information as transmitted through education, mass media or personal interest). The unintelligible are those transmitted by tradition or nature mostly implicit to behaviour, tones, or reaction. The repressed ones are those that result from the interaction of the second and the first, or of data generated by the personal logic, confronted to the first and rejected for different reasons (incompatibility, inconvenience, etc.)
We can thus figure out that we have three types of vectors of transmission forming three different realms somehow interconnected, and reacting to different ‘waves’ or currents. Once we have distinguished these realms, we may further differentiate the word as such, either expressed or potentially expressible, from the wave or spirit or current as being determinable in word (intelligible) by the explication of the governing principle. In order to understand this, it is necessary to clearly separate the essences from governing principles in determined logic (“Essence, principle and identity”), as much as it is necessary to visualize the difference between a wave or a particle, as they will have the same functions in the explanation. Although it is perfectly possible to consider the phenomenon of electricity through a more spatial point of view (talking about electrons), we do measure force (or possibilities of transmission in the case of radio transmission) in waves or currents. The explicated spirit may be thus compared to the ‘electron’, while the force itself is the very spirit, or current or wave. It becomes thus possible to talk of measured psychic forces, and even to try to find out how these forces are generated or get lost.
Even better for our model works the image given by the functioning of neurons. As far as I understand, neurons are understood as some type of very specific cells (units) that do transmit some kind of energy or electricity. Differently to the first and the second image, we can though introduce in our model the notion of ‘specified energy’ (determined current through principle of action).
We may thus think in a very ideal representation, that a human is an amount of units, ordered in blocks through categories of organization that do interact with another through forces that can be detected by other human beings, through similarity in the principle of logic of the force or energy in question.
Roughly, the blocks are ordered in three categories: the whole, a group, and the particular. The first category groups words or statements referring to human kind as a whole in the principle of survival, the second, words or statements referred to a specific group, as a nation, a religious group, a professional category, etc. and the third, words or statements linked to our own identity as integrating itself in a group or whole through similarity or differentiation.
These categories are embedded in a general principle of understanding or interpretation, the Apocalypsis recognizes four of (the four horses, white, green, black and grey: probably for progress, the red one, for self determination, the white one, for death, the black one, and for illusion or vanity, the grey one), although I suppose they can be grouped otherwise, too, or appear alternatively. This general principle of interpretation or understanding does allow reception of different blocks of stories determining the logics of behaviour or general interpretation and evaluation of reality as possibly ordered in causal and final links and these do determine more specifically what we may call sympathy or antipathy, in complementarities or similarities, in alternation or depending on the subject.
Let us take a simple example:A Chinese does register a certain number of data concerning his environment, implying notions of law, social organization, generally admitted thought and behaviour.Follows a process of evaluation: The ‘I’ as synthesized does situate him somewhere in the whole: he is a clerk, belonging to the right party, middle class, either because he shares already the ‘thought’ as implied or because he thinks he is in disposition to acquire it, or because he pretends to share the thought. General principle determining behaviour: survival and material improvementFollows the organization of existence: to pass these examinations, to get this work, to buy this kind of house, to be surrounded by these peopleFinally he specifies himself inside of the whole by preferring banana to apples, chess to football, that deputy to another, or does even generate personal thought concerning one matter or the other.His behaviour is generally ordered inside of the block of thought as transmitted by the groups he is submitted to, inside of their logic (reaction to rejection, way of moving up the social scale, way of expressing anger or happiness or whatever) in slight interaction with the logic of tradition which will be similar in most cases as the subject does move into these determined groups.
Our Chinese is not alone. One million other Chinese do share in general lines his fundamental structure. Whenever a movement happens somewhere, he will be informed through very slight internal impulses. An irregularity in the process of ascension will cause an unexpected reaction of rejection, because he may think his possibilities in danger, or his happiness, if he believes he may do they same in order to get up the scales, etc. If there is an attack on the administration he will feel fury, or anger, or think of a counterattack, putting into movement general logics to counter the attack or to eliminate the ‘enemy’, etc. As such, he will be moving in ‘lines’, as a ‘body’ that moves through the interconnection allowed by the admittance of the same intelligible cells and principles.
These bodies do have priorities: an attack on administration will make forget the animosity between the right and the left, an attack on a mate, the personal dispute, and do have, on the other, related bodies or groups in lines of sympathy or antipathy. Administration will prefer another Organ of State (general body) than a private business, as the similarity in structure and organization of thought allows better communication than with something that is ordered and structured differently. Finally, if the State gets lost, I will get lost, and if the State takes glory, I will take glory, which is not the case if the business works or not, except of I consider myself in this case as belonging to the nation and not to the part of the nation.
The involvement in one group or the other depends on the subject and determines new categories. There are people who give priority to the personal survival, others to the survival of the business or of the party, others to the nation. The ones who do give utter priority to the nation are those who have the so baptized ‘codes of the nation’ or deepest inner logics allowing the survival of a specific nation in its differentiation to others, and thus a general overview on the general structures in interaction; state to the private, army to police, lower class to middle and upper class, etc.
We may thus understand a nation as an interconnected intelligible body, transmitting information through the given lines and moved by different principles.
It seems though as if a certain number of dispositions did allow the increasing of perceived data and thus the possibility of interaction through given psychic lines, as much as the consciousness regarding the process. These dispositions do certainly imply the clarity in the organization of concepts but do seem to depend mostly of what we call moral dispositions. How far moral dispositions do increase perception and inner possibility of action should though yet be established, but seems to be linked to the fact that the moral (determination in the principle of behaviour through given belief), does open the consciousness to the possibility of organization of an inner realm, so that parts of the concentration is centred on the inner movements allowing clarification and interaction. It is obvious that the belief that ‘love is just a sexual interaction’ centres attention on realization, while the belief that ‘love is a determined feeling’ does concentrate consciousness on fields of the inner reality, the second allowing the discovery of other inner movements and interaction with psychic currents with deeper implications.
As such, it is of need to differentiate clearly psychic currents linked to social organization and those linked to moral involvement.
To think through that word as itself can be a vector is somehow absurd. Most of our beliefs are not explicated and do just form some kind of general notion. A notion is an intelligible unit that is not said, or if said, is not specified. Someone says: “This is happiness” and has a clear notion of what he talks about, but if asked: “What?” he may very often not be able to determine what appeared so clearly to his mind. This very clear something that appeared to him is a ‘notion’. We may say that 98% of ourselves does works on basis of notions, and we may even go as far as to say that this part of our identity we have in common with animals, although animals are not able of building up notions (constructed). It is in any case absurd to maintain that animals think, as thought is transmitted by language and animals don’t talk, they communicate. Tending to support this thesis is a paragraph of OT (Jonas), where God attributes soul as much to human as to animals.
The information gathered through or in general notions is called ‘intuition’. Intuition is thus nothing but the unconscious organization of tons of information in general patterns as given in psychic logic, which is mostly ordered in notions. If the understanding does still work in interaction with psychic masses, it will select a certain number of information through criteria of importance and select indicators that may allow him finding outer elements of support to the intuition in order to avoid subjective overreaction (rationalization of intuition). This mechanism gives the fundamental structure of the organization of scientific thought.
Through this general model, it may be possible to understand how the psychopathetic logic functions.


Rachel’s idols and the sons of blood

(not finished) 

To understand what is meant is not always easy, and the rules that establish whether the codes of interpretation used are correct or not, very weak. Considering the obvious problem arising from interpretation, we tended to accept the most general rule, as principle, of the possibility of deriving some kind of meaning of a given text, if we could ever establish a rational path that allows attaching the interpretation to the text in order to avoid arbitrary interpretation. As such we differentiate obviously a theory ‘inspired of’ of a theory ‘derived of’, and of the one ‘inherent to’. 

The following theory, which we first thought of as ‘inspired’, finished though, as considering the way it had been obtained, by showing some kind of determined character, as if the intelligence had been driven by a specific logic to obtain the given result. This observation led us to try reading other passages the same way, obtaining similar results. We finally concluded that we could even talk of something we finished by saying ‘cross reading’, which was nothing but the remark, that a certain number of fundamental teachings mainly in texts like the OT were embedded in a text in a certain way, in order to avoid temptation of doing something having bad side effects through the very fact of knowing that it could have such effects. Thus, only people who had gone through a certain moral process of education assuring that knowledge would not be used in a bad way, would have finally the clue to the understanding of the teaching in question. (Theses of support through indirect derivation without foundation.) 

The cross reading did seem to be extremely effective in the Pentateuch, as if it had been common at that time of the composition of the text, and offered a great variety of possibilities of reading, giving light on complex problems that could be considered from very different points of view. Whether these problems were actually treated this way at that time, is difficult to say, but it was of evidence that the very structures of composition did allow, without forcing the interpretation, finding an answer to serious problems ‘as if’ they were embedded in the text, phenomenon that gave further the ‘theory of crystals’ concerning the possibility of multiple interpretation through cross reading. 

What is cross reading? The cross reading, which seemed to be somehow linked to what we would call after the refracted lines, is the possibility of attaching what seems to be an accidental element of a story (it does not seem to essentially give meaning to the story in question) to another element of a different story, which is linked to a third story somehow. Taking all these elements together, they seem to form in their consequence a new causality, giving light to an unexpected problematic. 

Sodom and GomorraThe easiest in appearance, this story does seem to use the first level in cross reading: the causal superposition. We read that angels arrived to Sodom, meet
Lot, while the citizens do ask for sexual interaction with the angels. Lot is warned of the coming disaster, leaves the town with his daughters and wife who does die on the way, hides away up in the mountains and … does have a sexual relationship, having as pretext a state of drunkenness, with both his daughters (tribes of Moab and ?). What is the cause of the disaster? Starting with an obvious contradiction with reality, that it is impossible to have a sexual relationship being drunk enough so as not to have awareness of the event, the story puzzles by the obvious ‘immoral’ behaviour of
Lot. Were it not easier to understand, that this marginal sexual encounter is at the origin of the disaster itself? If it is so, why is the story put as a consequence and not as the cause? We may say that eventually the immorality of the citizens of Sodom has already altered so much the structures of understanding, that cause is confused with consequence, or, as we have seen before (The fall of Constantinople), intention with finality. If we try to see what happens if we put the possible cause at the beginning of the story, and we think, that
Sodom’s citizens were committing some kind of generalized incest in paternal lines (father and daughter), may this help us to understand what has happened after? May incest be at the origin of erratic sexual behaviour going as far as not to respect laws of hospitality, and thus cause of the friction with the angels? How does incest then disturb moral and social understanding and what may be at the origin of it?What is incest? Incest is a sexual relationship with someone who we are linked by close boundaries of blood. It seems as if this could be related to an inherent interdiction to confuse in meaning similar or related words (incest among brothers), or even to fuse law and particular case or consequence (father and daughter). In the first case it becomes impossible to differentiate the same word having different meanings through tones or context (sisters), or to see the same meaning in different words (brothers), or to determine the meaning through the given tone in context (brother and sister). In the second, we can’t differentiate an accidental from an essential characteristic, or the consequence in its inherent relationship to a given law (mother to son, and father to daughter). If this were so, what kind of general disposition or thought may be at the origin of such a confusion, and thus of heavily dangerous sexual behaviour?“Is the foreigner going to tell us what we have to do?” The citizens of Sodom say to
Lot in his attempt to make them change their mind. Could it be that the incapacity of absorbing law as such by wanting to make it depend on it’s arbitrary use related to the fact that is made law what is ours despite reason or other rational criteria, is at the origin of incest, or vice versa, does incest have as consequence the incapacity of understanding law as such? 


The codes of identity and the reversion of frequencies of love
(not finished)

We may consider this as some kind of image. Images do not have scientific value, they do just make it easier to understand how something works. In order to transform an image into a model you need to define concepts and determine the logic of interaction ruling over the phenomena as considered. If we take as reference the concept of ‘notion’ as defined before (“The notion or word as vector of psychic transmission”), we do soon discover that our ‘I’ is a somewhat imprecise notion  comprehending such a lot of aspects that it is almost impossible to explicate it. To talk thus about ‘codes of identity’ seems to be some kind of unreal utopia. Even if we structure the functioning of the human being, it would take years to draw a clear picture of a particular human being. And though … The notion of our ‘I’ is usually transmitted through the name. What I’m, what I understand of myself, the image I want to project, is normally synthesized in  the notion as it  is vehicled by the name: Peter, John or Alice. That the human being is able to understand much more than what is actually transmitted by word, is some kind of evidence that does  seem to have determined human behavior all over history. We may observe that nobody does transmit his whole identity by saying his name: some parts of it are hidden very deeply in our unconscious and are locked with seven seals, whatever we may pretend. Depending on the subject, the last codes of  identity may be so well hidden to himself, that he may be not in knowledge himself of the deepest reasons of his acts and doings.  If we thus consider identity  from the point of view of principle in general behavior, we may see that it is not that impossible to determine identity: there is always one ruling principle that does explain a life’s doing. Not the one particular activity or the other, but the principle allowing to give an explanation to all activities as being linked one to another. To determine this principle may be an interesting task, though perhaps dangerous. By determining it you say yourself as x from z (particular case inside of the principle), and this x  has to specify itself through some kind of  determination: the codes of identity.  It is not a game to play with identity codes. Middle Ages and older times, even contemporary civilizations in
Africa or other places, do talk about witches and other mythological figures that do steel identity codes and make of you a slave. Others do talk about agreements with devils and demons: submissions of the identity to logics that are given absolute ruling power on  your behavior, even thoughts and imagination. This strange phenomena, usually talked about through tales and symbolic images, may though be understood in a more rational way.  First of all, it would be of need to differentiate the identity, as being the notion that comprehends the principle of behavior in a particular expression, from the ‘acting’ ‘I’. It seems as if it were possible that someone else takes decisions in our place inside of  our own understanding. This is quite easy  to understand: If I believe that Marx is right, it is obvious that Marx’s logic is going to determine my vision of reality and thus the logic of my behavior. Thus, Marx is ‘ruling’ on my particular ‘I’ through a general logic. If this is true, it may be possible to think that a person’s logic may  determine my behavior, too. In this case, though, the one we believe is ‘right’ (also in the meaning of having the power to protect us or to accomplish personal desire), is not considered from the point of view of a logic determining understanding, but of  a functioning ruling over the psychic mechanisms. In this case, the ‘I’ is submitted to some kind of compound in ethical (mostly unethical) or moral (generally immoral) understanding.  If this occurs by accident or voluntarily may be of importance if we consider the differences appearing in what is usually considered as illness. In both cases though, it seems to  be linked to some very intimate interaction in which the ‘I’ does loose the self determination of his identity in favor of some logic that is  materialized by someone else or a group of people. Of course our model of the psychic interconnection (as above) does allow thinking these kinds of interactions even on personal basis, but it is not sufficient. To think that information is transmitted through psychic masses does certainly not explain why or how a particular ‘I’ irrupts in the psychic field of someone else, and even less how the second finishes by loosing his self determination. To think psychic fields does allow us to determine better the possibilities of interaction,  as a field may imply borders and thus defenses, and consequently the possibility of invasions, attacks or violations of frontiers. The model as given before, did only allow thinking the  possibility of transmission  of information and thus possible inner interactions. To think psychic slavery does need of the concept of psychic fields. The image we may build up now, may be the one of a medieval fortified town. Our ‘I’ does sit in a palace, surrounded by counselors, ministers and a guard. All around, people (logics of interaction) do populate the different functions as  needed for survival: Commerce, handicraft, laborers, teachers and other. The loss of identity corresponds to  the possibility that a foreign army does take our psychic  system and kidnaps the ‘I’ in his palace. We may say  that, fundamentally, this is extremely difficult though not impossible. Usually, a field may be invaded, but the psychic systems (as well as most people) does hide the ‘emperor or  king or ruler’ in some obscure cave while the population does adapt itself to the invader, develop methods to free themselves by attacking the intruder  and does come back as soon as possible. We may call this a healthy psychic system, and may start talking about ‘weak or ill’ psychic system whenever our personal emperor is unable to fight positively against invasion or is even put to death. Although life does oblige us to make alliances and even to tolerate unbearable thoughts in our next environment, this may not be said invasion. In this case the emperor does accept to share his independence with foreigners in order to assure survival, strength or power. Very  often thus we see  appearing in one psychic system what we may  call ‘protuberances’: blocks of thought or logics that can not be directly derived from the psychic system in question and seem to clung to the first in more or less coherent ways. As this is though   voluntarily accepted, you can’t talk about invasion: invasion does presuppose  that the ‘I’ did not agree with such a presence in his territory.  Most of invasions are subliminal. Images, tones, movements, texts do imply much more than is actually said. Thus, bizarre grammatical structures, peculiar tones, determined movements, combinations of colors are transmitting information that can’t be directly worked out. The unconscious needs at least 8 hours of sleep in order to regulate these informations and seek them out. If they seem dangerous for the ‘I’, they are rejected, if not, some kind  of bridge of integration is searched  for. This means that the visitors of our medieval castle, our allies or  foreigners in general may hide some poison in their luggage that may become very dangerous, reason why the ‘strange or foreign’ is rarely allowed to the emperor and does have to past through a detailed exam before  he is left in.   We may say that a psychic system that does not respect these measures of security anymore is in high danger of losing identity (symptoms for coming up psychotic crisis). This may be a temporary state or a general default of organization.  Usually the ‘enemy’ will be searching for weak points in our construction in order to launch an attack. The subliminal information that has been integrated without it being clearly determined, does open the gates to the intruder and may be at the origin of an assault. An assault looks like an amount of psychic forces entering our organization and blocking it’s mobility. Either we do adapt ourselves to these forces or the crash produces a violent swapping over of the intruding forces (psychotic crisis) determining our behavior in an irrational way (it  is not ordered inside  of an accepted logic, personal and  general). We may also say, that a lack in  organization may be at the origin of inner revolt. In this case, some neglected populations do take over power after a violent insurrection (second type of psychotic crisis). It means that the organs of power (understanding) do  not properly  think a certain number of psychic phenomena and these  finish by taking over consciousness in logics of repression.  How though does the witch finish by destroying our identity  and make of us slaves?  Is there a possibility that some people have stronger psychic intuition so that they may even at distance detect weak systems in order to put them under their service? We have until now differentiated three levels of reality apprehension: the ff, the fm and the mm, corresponding to intention, realization and finality. The level of ff, or low level, does fundamentally deal with the organization in principle of the basic forces of soul, such as love and death (ordered elimination in justice or war of dangerous subjects), Freuds libido and impulse of death. Logically the attention  is more inner than outer and the vision concerning inner reality is much higher. In developed ff systems psychic perception becomes almost physical: depression is dark and happiness lighter, and thus all psychic interactions are perceivable. It is possible to conceive in this  case, that people moving in level ff do apprehend much better  weak systems than the others and may even establish strong currents of interaction at distance. We tended to call these people ‘fallen ff’ in lines of repression, though it will need of further specification. In any case, they perfectly correspond to the medieval witches and we may heavily suspect that there were strong reasons for them to be burned.   How they do concretely interact with who we call psychopaths we will try to determine next. It is certainly possible to induce the interaction between the ‘witches’ and the psychopaths through the somewhat strange language of the latter. If the schizoid language does characterize itself through the superposition of symbolic reality with empirical reality (the schizoid will often say he is an emperor, a king or a prophet: as related to the psychic world, if well read, although he can’t make the difference), the psychopath does translate thought into sexual images. Why does the psychopath talk such a peculiar language and what does it actually mean? As said (“Therapy for schizoid understanding”), he seems to translate reality into a sexually coded ensemble, as if he substituted rationally ordered thought by a logic that is inserted into rational patterns or forms, reproducing though mechanisms of interaction of the lower realms. Thus, he simply associates words that are linked to empirical reality to others as linked to sexual behavior, and appears to move in an extremely strange ‘cloud’ of reality where appearance is immediately associated to impressions actually linked to the realms of Eros. Why does this happen? If the schizoid transfers the ‘psychic type logic’ of soul into a never ending movie determining reality, the psychopath does take of this logic only the one linked to the determination of sexual life or, to death.Copying the psychopathetic type by moving into a logic that has the same structures of language and tones as given, I discover that the psychopath reverts evidently the erotic impulses into impulses of killing. The sexual irradiation (to call it somehow) has the same power of attraction than instinct, but instead of leading to some kind of sexual realization, he converts the erotic fantasy into an equivalent murder. If I say equivalent, I mean that the murder is not accidentally somehow, on the contrary, it looks as if every aspect of the sexual fantasy had been translated into a corresponding way of killing. In a somehow indifferent novel ‘Glory’, Curtis describes the interaction between the murder and the victim by saying: “She wanted me to do something to her.” It is obvious that this ‘something’ is of sexual nature. That the murder finishes up by slaughtering the victim in the most abject ways, nothing but the evidence of the fact, that the murder understands the sexual as ‘pleasure in death’. 


Joke: It’s a joke made of four parts. First part: A man is in a car with his wife and the woman says “you should turn to the right.” “No, it’s to the left.” “Well, I believe it’s to the right.” “Finally who is driving, you or me?” – Second part: A woman is cooking some food when her husband arrives and says “you should put more salt into the soup.” “There is enough salt like that.” And the husband: “I’d prefer it having more.” “Now say, who is cooking, you or me?” – Fourth part. “No, the third part.” “What, who is telling the joke, you or me?”



Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


%d bloggers like this: