Today, the latest psychiatric terminology (and the one that is much better) for schizophrenia/multiple personalities is 'Dissociative Identity Disorder.'
This terminology is now shifting away from simply 'personas' or even 'personalities' and towards 'identities.'
An identity is who a person is.
 |
| 'Brand personas...' Multiple personality disorder brands! |
The word 'Allah' is a title and a description, not an identity, and not a name. In Urdu, some polytheist can easily say 'such-and-such' a 'god' (so-called 'idol') is the Allah, or is an Allah; even if that is not strictly grammatical from the Arabic in which 'Al Lah' is already saying 'the' something-or-other: 'Alhamdu-li'LAH...' Lah is the effective name of the Arabic 'god.'
Equivalently 'God' is not a name in the English language, but a title that covers a particular description of something.
Every single religion there is - that is, every systematized public form of 'worship activity' and prescriptive belief system, has this persistent idea that when you die (even if it is a 're-incarnation' type of religion, still there is an 'end point' reached) your soul goes to Heaven or to Hell. Buddhism is not quite the same thing because of so much 'process' entailed in the narrative. Even so, it is not clear that the personal individual is anything other than 'one' thing.
You know... ...so -, do multiple personalities go to different places...?
LOL
I have been told by a handful of people running commercial operations that I am not to mention certain things here about this, but that I can sort of 'fence around it.'
So that's what I am doing.
 |
| Lenin Versus Jay-Z |
What I can tell you without any equivocation at all, is that psychology and science and medicine and religions all have it completely wrong: the Ego is not one simple, amorphous, monolithic thing.
It is, in absolutely every case of the human being, three distinct things, one of which is 'in charge' ultimately of the somatic decisions made by the 'person.'
In modern neuro-science, there is a body of researchers who believe they have substantiated that you can effectively employ something called 'neural de-coding' to ascertain various conditions, even thought patterns - which yes, can be validated using FMRI and also invasive brain implants (internally placed electrodes).
Neural de-coding simply means that sufficient energy is being discharged in the neural networks in the brain, that they create momentum waves out at the cranial surface and the skin. Most current day leading-edge neural de-coders extend this to say that whole muscle structures as well as a number of other parasympathetic nerve pathways are steered into particular observable patterns.
One example is the face of Jay-Z. Neural de-coders will assert that this person is not as consciously awake or aware as you might suppose...
 |
| Not 'Jay-Z' - and much more aware than you know! |
But it goes even further than this - an animal in the sun is also not 'fully consciously awake or aware' either but it has atavistic impulses still highly active. And I can say no more about it than that.
To play chess very well, you not only need to have a good 'move retentive memory - forward as well as backward' but you need to 'see ahead.'
The human brain being as powerful as it is, could Jay-Z play chess? Well yes he might be able to. Could he compete with a master? Not at all.
Not ever? Not ever ever.
The atavistic Ego formation is stuck in the driver's seat there.
To succeed at chess the atavistic Ego one-third is there, but held back in reserve after another part of the tripartite Ego formation has actually played the moves first...
Now I'm not supposed to go on with this any further but I can tell you, that a neural de-coder will certainly pose the question, when you think you are looking at 'Jeffrey Epstein' are you sure you know what you are looking at...
You - your personality and your actual 'I,' your 'Ego' - is a concatenation of three separate and distinct 'whole things' in and through which a 'center of gravity' of 'something else again' goes in and 'takes a position.'
 |
| Still not 'Jay-Z' and anyway, I am not going to post a pic of 'Jay-Z.' |
This is something you can completely prove with FMRI scanning. The default blood flow always goes to only one of three distinct regions and network structures with well-known functions.
Do you know how much that one piece of information is worth in a practical sense, if you knew what to do with it?
LOL
If you knew what someone's default position was all the time - just from looking at them - marketing companies would be interested.
Don't waste your time trying to work this out on your own - it has defied the whole of human society, all the religions, all of politics, and all of science for ten thousand years.
You have ten billion dollars - one million for each thousand years (is that right, yeah I think it is...) humans never knew this or worked it out - and I will tell you.
You are just a carbon based life-form. Don't ever forget that.
Jay-Z, JC, the AC ... there are the makings for a rap song somewhere with that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Epstein: are your references to him intended to prepare us for his "resurrection," or his second coming, or perhaps just his Revelations to be delivered to an already jaded world? As usual, I'm too dense to fully get it.
Okay, don't forget the point of the 'article' is not in order to 'reveal' anything factually available about Jeffrey Epstein - but to try and find a way to consider 'human identity' and individual psychology (pathology/profiling) and open up the possibility to look at people just from externals, and apply ideas about 'neural de-coding.' I'll try and go into it better next time.
DeleteEpstein. Second Coming. LOLOL. Nah. But he was,'was' a highly patched-in individual was nature of business was clearly not 'financier.' This other fairy tale that is being told that he 'only' was all about abusing under-age girls, mostly, avoids the reality that the global corporate he was mostly linked with, was that one that owns Victoria's Secret and similar. He as around women because that was the nature of that business. Mossad operative? No question. Body doubles? Absolutely. Dumb guy? No way. 'Rose to the top because he blackmailed people?' Nup. Jay-Z... Dumb guy? No comment. Where is Epstein? Well, he is not dead that's for sure. Was he ever there in a New York jail? You know, the real question people need to ask is, what can twenty trillion dollars buy? Or even more than that?
ReplyDeleteAnd further, to try, try, and find some way to answer the point that KP has been raising here and there, which is namely, do or would 'advanced sentient people coming here from elsewhere' care about us in 'equitable' or 'equivalent social' ways than they might care about themselves, given it would appear they would necessarily regard themselves as 'less ignorant' than humans are.
ReplyDeleteYou've misunderstood me. I'm not interested in ET/human social equivalence, at least not yet. I'm a little startled that you think that's where I'm headed, because the really obvious response is "well how can there be social equivalence with beings who are keeping at arms length, putting on little displays of technological superiority for us?" The actual response I'm getting here is more concerning because of what my real point is. So the response is: "Well we are like mayflies to them, don't even think of it." But the actual point I tried to make, perhaps not very hard, but it's not a very hard concept, is: So they are here, we don't know why but maybe they're interested in something about US that we aren't aware of. Perhaps we should take another look at our SELVES now."
DeleteAnd you're here, half the time insinuating that you're not altogether human yourself, insisting that humans aren't that interesting. At least not in the way they would hope to be. Unless I'm mistaken, that seems to sum it up. There are details. The white room, human psychology, etc. I like what Elon Musk is doing with the monkeys and the video games. I mean, I don't LIKE it because I think it's stupid, but....
Elena Danaan and Laura Eisenhower are saying: Those beings who approached the US in the 50s weren't interested in genetic experiments to save their dying race. They wanted slaves, and food. That's it. They lied to us because they've been doing this all over the galaxy, and they're losing the war and about to permanently be removed from the solar system. Their galactic backers are already abandoning them.
That's a pretty wild story. My *suggestion* is: let's look at basic concepts at the heart of who we believe we are, like agency, and see what happens for us if we try to flip those around somehow. I'm saying, let's throw out the idea that agency is an emergent quality of our brains or psychology, and is instead a basic part of how the universe works on a physical level, and see how far down that road we can get.
But! You've now put it across that you're actually involved in a financial sort of way with people who do research, and so I think I should probably "sign off" for a while unless you want to show me how I can get paid to do this kind of thinking for people.
The other thing I'd like you to do is go through "The Master of the Key" and give your opinion of that stuff. I see nothing objectionable about it. I'd like someone smart to point out where the fallacy is.
So we should seriously consider the possibility that we are not carbon based life forms? Whitley Strieber would... ;)
ReplyDeleteOh yes I remember this book by Strieber. ...He, like the great Lovecraft, are 'getting information.' That's for sure. My first blush at re-visiting this is, we have to use what we already know, to assess or 'interpret' when we get 'mysterious messages' where the other party is not being explicit with names and details as such (and that does not imply to me they are lying, no, not all! I can see why they are just 'saying it' the way the person will 'get it' adequately), and, as we ourselves accommodate more and more clear-cut factual knowledge of the past and of relevant history, and even of modern science, then those 'messages' fall into place better. Strieber says some absolutely critical things in that book that I do agree with. I will try TRY and outline better in an up-coming article here. I do NOT believe we are 'just straw in the wind' but that is the right way to start out nonetheless; since so much of 'us' is just exactly no more than ephemeral. It's the other part I would like to examine more; not sure if it wise because of what I said about 'feeding a monster.' Still, we'll see...
Delete'Something about US that we aren't aware of. Perhaps we should take another look at OURSELVES.' Yep. That's it. You have it.
ReplyDelete'The Master Key System' is an old book by Charles Haanel. You don't mean that, though, right? You mean 'The Key' by Whitley Strieber... Yes? I have read both, but I'll re-look presently.
Right, I mean "The Key." Sorry. Recent discovery for me.
Delete