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