Posted by: Sk | February 22, 2009

Chapter 26: A visit

I had a visit that day. Not that it is very common as I’m usually quite alone, as I manage to put enough walls of incomprehension between me and the world so as it to be difficult or even impossible to find me if I ever don’t want to, but it happens.

In fact I was little aware of what was going on around the world while deeply submerged in my contemplations, following my plans in order to write down my master piece. In fact, it was not difficult to recognize the lieutnant general as I had even managed to get some pictures from her and thus, she didn’t even have to tell lies. She said she wanted to ask some questions to me and, honestly, I didn’t suspect very much. So many things happen in the world.

She informed me thus of the fact that there was a webpage in internet which appeared with my name with contents that did not seem appropriate to some. I have many pages. And I’m somehow used people not to be very satisfied with some contents, and sometimes it is because I deliberately push things a little farer than common mind and sometimes it is because I’m unaware of the implications. Which page, I asked. And she said: “This. ” I don’t have any such page, I thought. “Can I have a look at it?” And we went to a café. (Sorry, I said, but I like working in these obscure places.) We thus had a look at a page and I started having a look around and said: “These are my texts. How did they arrive there? I have them in a cd. Look.” And I took it out of my pocket and shew it to her.

In fact, I was not really aware of the possible implications. You don’t have 2000 texts in your head and as it is personal and not worked out, what do you really care. I mean, you say many things before you get some clear picture of what you want to do, even more so when you’re writing. You make studies, you test styles and characters. It is factually not involving. It is difficult to evaluate at once what effect that may cause if texts are separately presented and even more ‘titled’ in some way that it distorts the apprehension of what is said.

She then asked, if she could ask me some questions. And we went back home. I must say that I was thinking – although it was only 5 minutes – what I may have written all that time and somehow, too, how it may have happened that my texts were in internet.

I offered her a coffee (although I was not sure it would be as bad as it should be), which she accepted and then, she asked what I was doing. “Actually,” I said, “I’m making webpages and some translation for my father. At the same time I’m working at some book whose project I started when I was almost a child and which had started to get some form in 2003.” “You were writing when you were younger?” “Yes. I wrote poems and theatre pieces and all sorts of things. But I didn’t like it. I wanted to say something different, something which I didn’t know how to say yet, and to which I would dedicate a life. In fact, everything was submitted to that goal, my studies, my travels, my curious investigations.” “You mean, everything is made up?” “No. I wouldn’t say so. Most of it is almost true. Almost. What I was working out, at least. I don’t know what I would have done out of it. Perhaps you give me ideas. Because in fact my ‘novel’ was completely made up until I arrived to Israel to study the ambiance. What is said there about the superposition is true. Of course I have slightly changed things in presentation, but it happened. And that deeply disturbed my plans. I’ve needed 5 years in order to understand what happened and this changed even the nature of my book. I thought finally it would be more interesting to make up a plot where someone runs into his own novel than a, from a certain point of view, quite interesting logical construction – like Twist, a little bit – which though would lack of its attachment to reality. This effect, quite shocking, I must say, I thought after a while of reconstructing by continuous reference to things that are happening at the same time you’re writing. It’s upside down, but it is the same. I had a novel that linked itself somehow to reality and here I have reality which is constantly integrated into the novel. I thought it would recreate the same quite astonishing feeling I had had myself. The personal does always affect the contents of your writings. In fact, in the depth, I was quarrelling with philosophical questions like, what is the truth? And I had the conviction that truth depends on some feeling, on some apprehension, that it is not a series of words you put one behind the other. Except in one case, perhaps, but that’s religious. I mean, you may believe a series of words may built up a formal structure which allows this feeling to arise. But this is personal. In any case, I wouldn’t make depend the truth of some ‘manifesto’ but of some subjective disposition. And this is what the novel is about. The truth seems here, than there, than somewhere else, and at the end, you finish by asking yourself: “Well, what do I believe?” And you come to your own conclusions. Because you have to take distances, because you have to respect patterns, because there are environments and rules around. But it had some fun to play all the time with the ‘possible affective truth’. The kind: I’m very furious with all those people because they’ve offensed me personally and now, yes, now, they’ll see what I’ll do to them. It’s a little bit childish, but it is tempting. On top of that is was some kind of revenge. All of it, is, somehow. We’re thinkers and what we do is not seen. You’re keeping fundamental formal positions that affect sometimes millions of people. And you have the guy arriving showing muscles, saying ‘I’ve done all that’, there is a moment where you say, ‘well, can you do that, too?’ And show in some exaggerated ways, with action all over, how thought does affect our lifes, how poisoned it can be and even more so if it’s aiming at fundamental structures of the human mind. It’s very exaggerated, that’s why I didn’t think it may be taken excessively seriously, although it is true that I took care to point at the possibility some things may be true in order to make other people think about it, because knowing that I’ve altered formal patterns, my vision of reality is very ’strange’ to someone who is thinking in other patterns. Which does not mean that some problems I deal with somehow, may not be understood in other patterns even if with other words.”

“What happened with ‘Manual of a soldier’? It’s not the same style.” “No. It isn’t. Precisely, that’s where fiction gets mixed up with reality. And where you do things that may be misunderstood and which you do only and only because you think it of utter need. Look at this: Inside of something you write, you include some general principles, which you don’t claim loudly because people will read it and not seeing the consequence of them, will be disturbed concerning the fact what they have to do with them. For example: if you can impose truth, or, how you can transmit it. My position is that you don’t impose it. My position is that you don’t create division inside of a country or a groupment or whatever. My position is that, if you have really something to say, something fundamental which may eventually help for other people’s life to improve, you have to find some ‘adversary’, a fundamental pole of thought somewhere, someone who has managed to synthesize generally the ‘problem’ or the ‘nature’ of many and you quarrel with. If you manage to make this people see what you mean, this person is going to ‘translate’ what he/she has acquired as knowledge into the patterns of his/her surroundings. It’s difficult to understand what you mean if you say it like that. You write a novel. There is someone in front who you’re quarreling with all the time. Reality, situations are thus built up that your ‘adversary’ is obliged to take into consideration what happens and changes views. A little bit like in the ‘Milosevic’ story. These things you keep somewhere in your unconsciousness while working on something. In 1989 I told to a teacher at University, Anne Moeglin, that I adored Gilgamesh and Enkidu, a sumerian myth where people, fed with with towns building and war making king Gilgamesh pray to heavens in order to stop him. Gods do listen and arise a ‘natural man’ a counterpart, a strong being talking to animals, living in chastity in the forests. He’s seduced by a protitute, looses his direct link to nature, goes to the town, fights with Gilgamesh, is defeated, becomes friends with and they go together to fight many battles all over the world. That’s more or less the pattern that reproduces my way of thinking. You stay inside of some ‘myth’ (fundamental formal patterns) and search for an adversary. In order to give to the whole some tension, some further interest, you look for your adversary not in fantasy, but in reality. Not as a person, but as a fundamental statement. When Shiri said “To believe in God is a trauma of childhood’,  I started laughing. Now, that’s fun, I said, how can you ever put such a thing in words. I mean, it’s sheer inconcruency from some point of view, but at the same time it is true, somehow. Take the OT “You will not misuse the name of God”. If you believe in God or not is a private affair. ‘To believe in God’ in this statement may mean ‘To claim belief’, as you can’t say whether someone believes or not if he doesn’t claim for. Well, that’s forbidden by OT. Now you go on and say: “It is a mistake, a ’sin’ in religious words, something in any case that is not to be done. Cause: “a trauma of childhood”. A trauma of childhood is a freudian expression. If you analyze Freud, you may deduce that the fundamental mistake in his thought leading to say, for example, that you can heal onanism through nose operations, is, in fact the same which leads someone to claim too loudly a belief in God. patterns of thought: (If my interpretation is correct) Transfer of law into contemporary terms, association of consequence to a possible consequence deriving from a contemporary thought pattern. What does it mean? If my analysis concerning Freud is correct, you may as quickly find a raper and a murder in some loudly shouting around church than in psychiatrists environment. From this point of view, it is horribly deep, even beautiful and defines not only a character but also some principle of behaviour, some general patterns of thought. You see though, that I’m giving interpretation which the one who has pronounced such sentence has probably not given. The one in question may be understood in an indefinite amount of ways. The very character does not underline interpretation. It’s (from the point of view of understanding) a male structure in spatial coordinates. I admit that I’m horribly seduced by such a ‘type’ which looks as a worthy adversay inside of my sumerian patterns. I thus go to find the ‘one’ in order to evaluate the depth and implications, which is to say, the possible social impact or influence. I discover a possible one is linked probably to the army. I do never go into things of army, reason why I don’t go too far in my investigations. I may have. I knew where you were. A blackman told me in a holyday kibbutz near the Dead Sea. You see, I’m working at a logical construction of a psychic type, sit for hours drinking coffee in that kibbutz and the man ’sees’ something he knows, somehow. Without any other introduction, the man tells me his wife is working here and there and if I want to go to see her. I don’t. I’m not interested in the ‘person’ but in the logical consequences of a way of thinking, the way it affects the environments.

Consequently, I leave. I have now what I call a device, a logical construction in some coordinates pending from some principle, with some impact on the surroundings. I can work this out. In two directions. One, where the one has not fixed interpretation. One, where I give some reasonable interpretation to the one. It fits me well that the one is in the army. It is a context of life and death, more fundamental, deeper than a social context. The lieutenant general, as I call her, finishes by incarnating the army as such, the soul of the army, its reason to be inside of some existing contemporary pattern. As opponant, certainly, but as a respected one.

Now, see what happens. I’m working with logical ‘devices’. I do always test on the other hand. Weaknesses, strength, laws of interaction. On the other hand, I work with deepest psychopathetic logics, which are more real than the others, to a certain extent, as you can follow them from some inner detection. I know some very strange psychopathetic type has arisen in 1999. In the wherabout of a possible real person linked to the army. I test given logics, as I usually do, in order to know who may be affected. Conclusion: only one, my lieutenant general. How strange, I think. How is this possible? Because there is a logic of interaction between the psychopath and a victim and this I know. Victims of a serial killer have always something in common even if he’s killing arbitrarily, because he’s emitting signals at very low levels of the unconscious and says something like “all the bastards who — (whatever), have some logic, meet at Madison Square at 16 on wednesday.” (Like the card killer, in the USA, who threw always some playing card where he had shot his victims.) If you go, it’s done for you: you ‘hear’ these signals and this means you correspond to the patterns of a potential victim.

Why is my peculiar character affected by those messages as emitted by a psychopath? I make some researches. New problem. My language, the one I’m using, is psychopathetic. Psychopaths live at a realm of consciousness where death is confused with some sexual interaction. Their language is typified, coded, inside of these patterns. What I see, what I understand is … A series of waves coded in some more or less pornographic images, let us say. I start laughing. Get afraid for your lieutenant general, I think, the lines are possibly, if ever 10.000 km away. To say that if you go down into the pits of the unconscious, as I did, you have no structural space. You see moving shadows and emitting signals that come from anywhere, which are coded, too, may be symbolic, are in no case referential for a real location. As I’m working at possible weaknesses of a logical system called Sask, yours, appears the possible weaknes in the form of some psychopath. Is he there? Did I construct him? Is he in Malaysia? I don’t know but it seems to a certain point unbelievable that a real Sask may be in dangerous proximity of exactly this very rare rare type of psychopath. Until I go to Jerusalem. I see him, he’s there. I see him as I see other people whose ’skizzo’ I had drawn in order to have a clearer image of how my characters would move. Well. I think. If I want it or not, here he is.

It’s true that subjectively I don’t like people killing my characters because I don’t like bad ends to stories. I have worked out some solution for the ‘just in case’ it were the worse, which apparently always is. Problem: I don’t have the logical coordinates of the psychopath (some codes like the ones that were helping to construct Sask), I don’t speak a rational language, a possible death ‘will fall on me’, the problem, locally solved, persists as the logical coordinates are not existing. Means, a soul, a person is something like that: an I attached to some principle, in some coordinates. If you, as logic, or even physically, cause the death of ‘x’ without knowing ‘x’, this logical structures attaches itself to some parts of your unconscious. You have become the psychopath, you are the psychopath yourself. You can do this only if you think you have ressources enough in order to defeat the logic. It seems it were possible. I sit down and just ‘am’ the one who has found some way of getting rid of the logic without knowing what it is. He dies. Correct. This is oldest chinese wisdom. You can’t kill anyone, you can’t push anyone to suicide. You are a logic that is aiming at the distruction of some ‘evil’ logic. If your ‘lines’, your construction finds someone corresponding to the evil in question, he dies. You haven’t done anything, the other recognizes himself inside of the patterns you’re emitting, without ever having been in contact with him.

I build immediately some precarious antivirus. The psychopath is dead, but the weakness has been revealed. It may affect now anything. Professional interaction, national security, whatever. In my constructions this very logic may affect aspects like escape of documents, holes in security, etc. What do you do? How many chances are there it may have happened? How many, it may be dangerous? Well, something has happened, already, I witness with my own eyes. What do I have? A ‘pornographic image’ in some interaction with ‘Sask’ which are the coded lines of the psychopath. But, what does it mean? How do you understand it? My antivirus, which as such may look as weird as the before mentioned construction, substitutes the soldier by a woman who is obliged to ‘play’ the man. This one, I called ‘Natasha’s agent’ does exactly the same than the prisoner in ‘Manual of a soldier’ but there is reason. Confronted to the possibility is nature may not be revealed ‘he’ causes an artificial sexual relationship which does seem appalling enough as evidence to state ‘his’ nature. The same ‘weird’ situation has here a meaning and this causes what I call a ‘diversification’ in lower lines. A possible psychopath, any possible socially adapted event in this logic is now double: at the same time it is leading to Sask, and at the same, to me, causing a paralization of the subject.

But I still don’t know what it is. To be honest, I’m a little bit terrorized by possible implications and I haven’t the language to say it. Teaching in Guayaquil to 12 year old children I learn a ‘language’ which is an intremediate language between the psychopathetic language and the rational one. Children’s structures of underderstanding are not yet fixed, arising sexual interest makes of consciousness a battle field of confused stories jumping from one to the other without deeper apparent link. I see some hope. If to say what there is may give me hints on what there was? I write ‘Manual of a soldier’. It appears in internet around september 2006. If I’m lucky some people dealing with those ‘perversions’ may read it and give me the clues to what it means. I have no choice. It is, for me, already too late. I continue some provocations, building up some imaginary site of the Ministry of Defense in Israel. No response. I don’t know what has happened, I don’t know what it means, I’m sure I have in my hands an information whose implications may be vast and have no response anywhere.

I go on working. From one thing to the other. General french patterns. General german patterns. Six wings logic in interaction with common logic. What could it be? I don’t understand these Jews. You see, in the Serbian patterns, you make a provocation and you have 10.000 people running behind you. They kill you: it’s proof of your guilt. They don’t, it’s your innocence. It’s very simple, it’s very clear, it’s ordered and there is no ambiguity. You walk through a country and you know it is like that and thus you knwo how to deal with things just putting yourself inside of this logic. But there? I mean, I would get furious if someone writes something like that which may affect me directly. I’m no authority and thus I would probably start writing poisoned comments all over internet. But an authority? In Spain, here, it is forbidden. And there is no response. Why? I have to go deeper down. OT, structures of understanding as altered through history, laws, reminders of laws, interpretation of law, given political situation. I finish by imposing myself the understanding Moses were a woman. And there it opens. Imagine you have ff wings (without sexual implications!) in some symbiotic inner relationship. Law gets fused with the story explaining exception while time passes. Finally, perhaps, even exception becomes law. Moses doesn’t follow God’s advice to talk by ‘himself’. ‘He’ needs constantly an Aaron. Instead of understanding OT as tasks (which is the spirit of it: quarrel between Lea and Rachel = it’s forbidden to marry two sisters, Ruben has sexual relationships with some step mother = it’s forbidden to have such relationships, etc.) OT shows a story and then a mark ‘it’s bad’ and then a law that should avoid the ‘bad’ to happen. What Moses doesn’t solve, will never be solved. Israel submits to the ‘truth’ that Moses needs someone to speak for ‘him’. First exile, second exile. Unable to talk by ‘itself’ it leans constantly on foreign formal patterns (Aarons). If you have this in mind, appears: a separated psichic type (Psychpath = coded lines, Golden Virginia) who is substituting itself in formal patterns to the lieutenant general. ‘His’ lieutenant general submits though to a type ‘benjaminite’ who unwillingly does ‘impose’ himself on her. It’s a prison, it’s his way out. It’s his soul, his structures of understanding. He’s spreading a ’spirit’, a ‘logic’ which implies that in ‘this’ he’s giving orders to the lieutenant general. See the danger? You go and sy to a group of people: military test. Do this and this. And they do. Because they’re recognizing the tones of command of someone.

But who is it? What has happened? Why does he aggress the real lieutenant general? It is a homosexual man in female patterns. He grasps the spatial logic of Sask as ‘men’s’, and submits this logic to him, by pretending to be the physical expression of this logic. He’s more, because he has the attributes. But he doesn’t say, he doesn’t express = it’s on the back. He is perhaps a sergent, but he is more.

He’s though aggressing what is his ‘idol’, his ‘eternal love’ he would say, his ‘excuse’, his ‘joker’. You’re homosexual, you can’t say. You ‘fall in love’ with someone whose spatial structures do ressemble to man’s. You are in love with a ‘man’ and are thus expressing homosexual tendencies in deviated ways. It says nothing about the lieutenant general. It is that Golden Virginia has fixed his attention on only one aspect of the quite complicated, we may say, character of the lieutenant general. A formal one, and that is of interest.

I continued the construction through the appearance of these lines in 1999. Lower realms do perceive the arrival of new members of the club. Normal people even if in random structures like this one, don’t get into these realms. Something has broken. Something has happened and this has something to do with the lieutenant general. Reason of the aggression. What.

The most logical thing. Stay in the thought saying “to believe in God is a trauma of childhood”. You ask to this principle: “How do you recognize a homosexual?” Necessary answer: “Fuck him up and ask him whether he likes it. It’s as easy as quanta” Of course the lieutenant general would not do such a thing, but may say it. Or may imply it. Or in any case it is implied by the principle. There is something which is very pure in the depth as derivation: it makes appear a homosexual determination from a ‘pleasure’, not from a decision or a natural character with attributes. In fact, it breaks the ‘Oue, I don’t know, perhaps, no, I adore women’ through a physical confrontation. Construct the situation: Someone in the wherabouts is fed up with the platonic adoration of Golden Virginia to the Lieutenant General. He is a rival, perhaps. (It happens) He wants to get rid of the rival through the demonstration the other is homosexual, what he accidentally is. And forces a sexual relationship. the other will fall into. Pattern, the one’s of the lieutenant general. (The ’solution’ is given by or derived of her.) In appearance logic wins on psychic determination. In his psychic world, he’s more than her. In reality, she imposes herself in ‘a’ to him. He’s raped. His wonderful world breaks down. (Has he liked it? Probably, and that’s the worse.) Finished, the ethereal ideal which reassures him socially. He falls into lower lines. This happened in 1999.

He develops hatred against the lieutenant general as in these lines you don’t see the ‘who’ but the ‘moving, ruling logic’. Who has broken his defenses? The lieutenant general. Who is he going to kill? The lieutenant general. Who raped him? That’s all the question. Not the lieutenant general, it’s obvious. There is someone who is quite ill and is rejecting faults towards this one. Who is it? I don’t know and I don’t care, but this person is a new danger.

In any case, you’re confronted as a self to the question whether some thing may be said or not, and how. I’m in absolute need of fishing information, because honestly, even if having had lot of conversations with Xristos on the subject, I’m not a specialist. And Xristos is very healthy. What is in the mind of someone who makes whatever, but what? And how? And why? And who exactly? I don’t know and don’t like bathing in these waters. I mean. You’re on one hand obliged to keep some parameters of image because it is like that. People ned thinking there is order in administration, wisom in universities, holyness in churches and rules in the army. It’s like that. If you start bombing up the world with the evidence, none of this is true, the reassuring patterns of reality, break. This is why you are obliged to deal with some subjects with greatest care.

My education allows the transmission of information concerning possible ‘misfunctions’ in oblique ways. I know he knows a doctor who is related to a laboratory, who may take into consideration that: a chemistry has this and this side effect. This structure confronts itself to evidences, that the very fact of trying doing so, may have as effect your complete distruction (Istanbul). If something has no means of correction it is distroyed. General patterns, arising from Kant’s formal patterns and other, tend to distroy all means of correction. You don’t have to think too far. If you don’t find the means of correction, we’re confronting ourselves to a general disaster. In cases of exception, like this, I ‘allow’ to myself the brutal, clear and determined exposure of facts. And only here. If the oblique means are distroyed, the open publication, can’t. You argue “freedom of speach”, prosecution implies “on dictatorship leaning situations”. Because the healthy person, the one who respects, the one who has means to know with his particular wisdom arising from education and tradition is going to shut up. He’s hoing to lean back, to give in, because his survival becomes more important than the general well being. Being outside of his natural patterns of behaviour he’s weak. Strong are those who care only and only about their personal well being. Without intelligence. Without wisdom. Cold, indifferent, stupid, brutal. The society is upside down. You don’t have to respect the pretension (Baal), you are obliged to fight against. Here, you ca justify the saying of things you would have never said yourself. Case of exception. Restructuring. Reordering.

Of course I give myself patterns. Some things are not real. Other’s are pictures, images. Other’s are embedded into some context which is unreal. The one affected, knows, and shame arises from the fact that he thinks everyone will know. If you see at things, it is finally empircally impossible to determine who it is. Inside of a structure of exception, you still respect a certain number of things. This strategy I’m already developping in 1999. I have no choice. Paedophilia is gaining fields, and inside of the church (Happenings in the USA in 2004). I decide myself to do some ‘aberration’, because the situation seems to me having gone out of control. I put myself in the situation of a child (priests say ‘fathers’ to themselves) who is the object of some incestual, paedophilic aggression. And results. It is obvious that you don’t do these things. But, the ‘I’ is much more talking than the ‘In general’, and the personal claim, much more effective than the ‘abstract engagement’. I have no choice. This is ‘Malgré tout’ written in French because of the gravity of the problem, there. Of course I think it may finishing by affecting my father. But evaluating the situation, I decide, I don’t care. There is something strange in the behaviour of my father, something that has lead to the divorce with my mother. Nobody knows what it is. It is there, all the time, probably some hereditary mark of some former ‘misbehaviour’. If psychic pressure is made on him, because there is someone who has so horribly misbehaved, it may be possible to know what has happened and eventually restore some balance. And this inside of my mother’s pattern of thought, who, to say the truth and with 5 children on her back, could not really always determine who has made the next bullshit. It happened, that she thus ‘punished’ ( punishment in our very rigid environment may be just to accuse you of having done something) one for something another had done. And if the explanation of the one was sound enough, she finishes by saying “Algo habrás hecho tú también” (You must have done something yourself, too.) Which I hold to that extent beautiful (because it is always true) that I made of it some philosophy in the psychiatric hospital of Serres. Heleni was sometimes complaining about deepest injustices of the responsible, and I told her that, and she became the happiest person in the world, and every time something happened, she arrived running to me and said “I must have done something myself.” In fact, I deduced from her behaviour that it was a healthiest reaction and made of it a general structure of behaviour, the only one that buys up ‘the false accusation’. Because it is a false accusation but it does not want to reject a fault on someone else, it is just wanting to get into the depth of some problem.

In fact, even if it is not exactly this, I finished by these means to get the answer not only to his personal knot, but even to mine. He is discovered when he is 16 in a room with a teacher and a class mate and accused of homosexuality. He hasn’t done anything but the maid suspects immediately such a thing and tells it everywhere. The teacher is fired from the school. He is, too. For him, because he is a German, it is recorded in dark offices and as dark offices are always right, he is homosexual. It is proved, there is evidence and administrations are never wrong. He believes it himself. What does he do? He leaves Germany. In Spain, he’s not homosexual. He gets a job, he gets married, he has 5 children. He has proved, in Spain, that he’s not homosexual. But every time he crosses the border, he becomes homsoexual again. In fact, the teacher has committed some professional mistake. They were not allowed to invite students at home, which is logical. This gets mixed with the accusation of homosexuality. As their is professional fault, the accusations seems sound. It affects now as much the teacher as the students. My poor father is caught up by an evidence, whose evidence does not appear anywhere. His life is a proof for himself. he doesn’t care about my mother that much, from this perspective, nor about us, HE has to mainatin that he’s not homosexual. But, as the German State says he is homosexual, he keeps a homosexual environment, because the German State is always right. And for him, if he refuses the authority of the German State, he looses his own authority as director of the school, for example, and as father. He has no choice. Both are true, somehow.

Which explains for example my most funny inspirations when I was younger. I mean, you get tortured by such a questioning for so many years. And you do the same. I say: “I’m homosexual.” They say: “I0m homosexual.” What do I care. I mean, if they say, if the state says, if I say myself. What are you? Who are you? What is the determining characteristic for a homosexual. And if you are, live your life. And if you aren’t, don’t believe them. My possible solutions are always rejected by a very suspicious mind, who doesn’t know, whether the fact of rejecting the authority of the German State will have definite consequences for himself.

Sometimes, the very fact of maintaining something in public which may be useful in other contexts anyhow, may clear up knots whose solution you did never think you may ever grasp. On top, I’ve the patterns explaining my rejection of my father as father. His law is submitting to “There is a professional mistake, thus accusation is justified.” I can’t make law out of that and even less in my mother’s patterns. I thus put my father in quarantaine. With brackets. I have a father who is: the possibility from this to understand that accusation is not necessarily justified. I’m using a psychic disposition (to prove something) as pattern of father and not a logic. Which is to say, that my patterns of understanding are homosexual, I say it myself. In psychic law: I have to prove, interaction with a tending towards my mother’s definitions, in psychic frame. I’m homosexual. Which has nothing to do with a sexual orientation, it is a pattern of exception I’ve built up in order to keep internal balances.

This is why I don’t like the publication of private facts. This is why you have to take these things with white gloves. A determination has implications and if someone is just trying to follow strictly ancient testament, and respect father and mother, and the combination of both implies the rejection of the one or the other, and you construct yourself a bridge which may make you fall into some other infraction, either you say, that the commandment comes before the law or you finish by understanding that law doesn’t mean exactly this and in any case, you wait until you have solved this little logical problem before you take any clear decision. Which you may deal with as you understand it, on the other hand.

This is why I have naturally not very developped spatial structures. And this obliges to build up a reality referential which naturally does lean on essences in order to keep reason. And this saved my life, because the neuronal illness I had to go through after, could not affect this part of the brain. Things are difficult to evaluate, and this is why you have to leave people deal with their own knots all alone by themselves.

In a certain way you learn from this things to deal very freel with a certain number of things. You are living in some artificial homosexual construction, because your father is told he is something and this is bad. You say, and where King Arthur to cut the knot with a sword? You start taking more liberal positions, say it is not that bad, law may allow, law in states allow, you take out of it the moral implications in order to avoid such things to happen. After, you may realize it’s not that easy. Homosexuality has no formal justification. You go to find the moral justification. At the end, you don’t know whether you are a man homosexual, a woman or a woman homosexual, because seen from some point of view, they’re all as sympathetic. You say (not: if you like it, althogh it may eb a hint) but: who you fall in love with. And thus, you may arrive at my age and not know where you are exactly, still. It happens. In any case, in the meantime, you have decided not to get married because you don’t want children to go through such a procedure, again, and perhaps even worse. You stay alone. It’s a hint for homosexuality, someone says. No, no, whatever you say, – because you will never ever believe what others tell you, even if it were so. It’s personal. I think all this is expressed inside of stories you tell, even if you don’t say it explicitely and I believe that it justifies the publication of a certain number of things, only and only inside of these patterns.

I mean, on the other hand, that it is obvious that everything can be given some symbolic understanding, and as long as you keep healthy referential patterns, it is neither obscene neither dirty. Whatever you say. And I think this is obvious in both texts, although I have to admit that I wouldn’t write it today, probably, because I’m really very shy. I make some provocations from time to time, but I don’t talk about these  things. The problem is that the effect of the drug made jump inner barriers. And to me, it appeared at that moment the same to say “I bought two pears” (symbolic = I attached myself to  same in female psychic lines) than to say things like that. From a certain point of view it is more honest, because it puts things as they are, and don’t transmit precisely dirt and the obscene in heavy symbolic structures. I mean, see at the title of my novel. “Firework in amaretto” It can be understood in very dirty ways. A firework, say some male orgasm. In amaretto, if you see a bitter almond (not necessarily bitter) as a symbol of female sexual organs (which is the case in some environments) you have a male orgasm in female context. For example. And it is that, you see, but it is not dirty. It is that, too.

The structures are using female logics. You see, someone says something, the other understands something else, someone runs away, the other jumps this side and if you look at it from a man’s point of view, it’s irrational. Say, what are they doing? And at the end there is some deeper rationality arising, some inner coherence, which is not said in logical patterns, and which has been neglected for many years. As if you may impose men’s rational patterns in logics as the only valid one’s and make women be jealous of it and imitate and copy them, badly, usually. Thus, you use men’s methodology, the showing, the proving, the demonstrating (firework) in order to underlines women’s natural logic and behaviour (amaretto). There is always a coherence between a way of doing and some sexual image, and you may go that far so as to symbolize this in some image that synthesizes a whole procedure in two or three words.

Sask: Who is this Sask, then?

I: That’s all the question. A demonstrative impossibility. A problem. A logical incongruency. Don’t ask me why I’m all the time playing the good samaritane, there must be some reason, which I prefer not to really grasp. Perhaps it is just curiosity or theoretical interest. Perhaps, as I said once, it is egotistic. As I said once to Vasili Stergiopoulos. There is no higher satisfaction than the one deriving of acting in justice or doing some good. In fact, you prefer staying in what is to feel well, better than in some cold, dry place. If you act as you have to, you’re satisfied. You aim at your satisfaction. You’re just because you think of your well being. It’s egotistic.

I saw there was a logical problem somewhere in my abstract construction. I found a logical solution. And when I had, I sat down and said, look, how funny. There is no way to make this ‘a’ understand this ‘b’. The structures do not allow. Such a provocation. How do you make someone understand something? Which is vital. I can create an artificial solution for a while, but I’m not going to take the burden of such a ‘creature’ (I used to say) for all my life. If I leave the protective structure, you may die. So easy. But I’m not going to be ‘Natasha’s agent’ forever.

What is ‘Natasha’s agent’? Natasha is a logical device that is the exact opposite to Sask. Sask’s is vertical, Natasha’s is horizontal. You have a pattern of thought that is putting in vertical lines, structures of consequence “To believe in God is a trauma of childhood”. I understand: “Something has happened in my childhood and this has as consequence that I believe in God”. But you understand: “Belief in God = (Identity) trauma of childhood” (There is some accidental characteristic between both that allows the essential assimilation of one to the other = hungarian pattern). Natasha is exactly the contrary, she transform identity into a sequence of time. Thus: The tree is a trunc with branches. Natasha understands: The tree has arisen from a trunc and branches. It is born, it is generated from this. It is a little bit like the logic of a painter, who puts this logic into images (I think, Chagall). What is ‘Natasha’s agent’: it is a spirit, that includes some logic of movement that allows the softening of very hard spatial structures. A transformation of a psychic disposition (Natasha) into a logic (the agent) who acts behind the back of a spatial logic (the lieutenant general) as if a logic may contain movement, or as if a spirit may be said in words. This attracts aggressions of a wicked logic towards itself, because it is active. I’m thus playing your body guard for many years, without ever being paid for it.

But that’s no solution. How can you explain to a closed spatial structuring what a consequence is, what intuition is, what essence is, what a definition is. There is no way. You are for me referential, absolutely necessary. If I had little spatial structures before 1994, I loose them completely after. I have a studied character in my memory who has an absolute spatial determiner. As you are not me, and I’m not you, you become a ‘conversation partner’. A someone who is there and who refracts what I say in a completely different logic which assures me the spatial orientation. Pero bueno. It is an absolute subjective need, at a certain moment. From a logical point of view. What if I build up my own spatial structures? You disappear. I know that sould interact somehow. If I leave, there may be weaknesses arising. I see there are and that they are effective. I have to do something. So many battles with my Gilgamesh who finally looses in front of natural Enkidu.

I make up the so called ’squaring of the circle’ hypothesis. How do you make equal the square and the circle (you are the square and I’m the circle). You measure the circle. With the length of the circle you make a square. With a bigger circle you make a biggre square. And with an even bigger one, an even biggre square. What is the relationship between the one and the other? The equation resulting from the relationship of some internal parameter among them all. You see. From your point of view, both are the same, because they have the same length. From my point of view, the same is only the empirical measure allowing to establish the relationship between both.  How do you explain this? With a picture. I need to build up an empirical image of psychic interactions in order to make appear the difference and thus, the interactions (equations). Sask: who is more intelligent, the computer or the human being? “The computer” Sask says. “Why?” “Because it makes more functions more quickly.” Let’s say. “How much is one and one?” “Two,” Sask says. “If you think like a computer, you can’t but say: “1 and 1 = 1 and 1″ The computer can’t make of 1 and 1 = 2. Who does this?” The human. The human has an ability of seizing the computer hasn’t. Logically the human is more intelligent because through this ability he can understand things the computer will never understand. This is intuition. And intuition, which is to say, the moving inside of reality patterns that are determined by this ‘agent’ that allows to see in one and one a single unit, is much stronger than logic. But how do you explain this to a mind which has no temporal understanding? The why I don’t care, it’s probably structural, like my ‘invention’. It is though a fact.

Make of time a punctual event in space. I’m searching for Sask. It must be very difficult because otherwise she’ll suspect I’m cheating. And she is a nice target, because her location should be unknown. I’m not going to find her, really. I know I will find some ressembling one who may be compelling enough in evidence for a similar. When I’m in Israel, I approach of not more than 2 km from where she is living. This is because of the general situation. These 2 kilometers are the distance between what I will find and what I’ve already found. I could have gone further. I didn’t.

I give some coordinates.

Notes handed over


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: