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.
Etc.
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.’