🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 24, 8:12 am, "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsign...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 The binomium telepathy-schizophrenia has to be understood as a system
 similar to that of the speech system. It would consist of four
 components: reception (ear), emission (mouth), potency (lungs) and
 processing (brain). Deaf people dont learn to speak, even if they can
 emit noises, not all hearers speak, though normally non deaf people
do
 speak and learn to do so in a relatively short time. Telepathy would
 be essentially a trained, learned ability once any of the several ear
 systems has developed or opens up for the first time. For verbal
 communications self-feedback would be the sign that a schizo has
 learned _speech_, so while transmitting, the schizo ear would get
 feedback of the speech emmited; this would not be true of other, low
 level, messages. This doesnt imply though that a brain is
transmitting
 while the person has not developed what we call schizophrenia, and
 there is no guarantee that both directions will be developed or
 developed at the same time, that is, some telepaths are schizos while
 some schizos wont learn to telepath, giving rise to different
 classifications that are missing in normal psycopathology definitions
 and practice. Potency would be then an altogether phenomenon, linked
 to processing in the case of the schizo ear, linked to brain neural
 configurations in the case of speech, the field of telepathic
carriers
 (what has been historically called aura), though telepathy being a
 matter of encodings would also be affected in its outward potency by
 the coherence of the emitted signal (concentration). That both sides
 of the communication system are somewhat dissasociated leaves a big
 ground for intermediate brain processing connecting them in diverse
 and even strange ways, some effects seemingly being automatic, others
 totally voluntary and under control of the individual, which would be
 the origin for the several ears, for different conditionings.

 Looks like a lost another day... my internal count says today should
 be Friday, not Saturday. Wouldnt  be the first time I suspect I was
 given sedatives in McDonalds coffee.

Another problem with the n-fixed rule is that if a more-than-n
situation is accepted, then the rule can be increased to n + 1. But if
it can be increased to n + 1, then there is no reason why it should
not be increased to n + m! And if it can be increased to an
indeterminate n, adding flexibility, then there is no reason to keep
the rule fixed, it is enough to let the human system reach equilibrium
by itself. In terms of the hidden argument, if a _possible_ n + 1
relation is allowed, then it cannot be established if the rule is
being respected or not, so enforcers self defeat and the rule is
defeated, its limit can be increased so the rule is useless, therefore
no flexibility can be allowed. Having, say, a close female relative in
close contact besides the lawful number of relation(ship)s is
equivalent to the enforcers to allow a +1 relation(ship) since
enforcers can be deceived by it, unless, of course, they can monitor
it closely. The corner solution is a concentration camp, though other
intermediate solutions are possible, the army and draft being one of
them.

Allowing everybody to become an enforcer turns the rule into an
indeterministic race condition where enforcers take decisions on
somebody else s application of the rule. Here enforcers are not rule
bound, but rule free, as managers, engaging in more than n relations
during the, assumedly time costly, process of redistributing people to
implement the rule. Of course an enforcers-enforcing-enforcers
situation would be called for, ad infinitum, unless this permission be
granted, otherwise, any _excess_ of women would have to be
_disposed_of_ immediately in order to keep the rule enforced globally
at the enforcers level, again considering that less than n is within
the rule and above n renders the rule irrelevant. This amounts to
kinapping, murder, genocide, under this logic. There is an obvious
incentive to become an enforcer under _those_ circumstances,
particularly if, because of generation - 1 management arrangements the
enforcers are still in their slot 0, so to speak, ready to enter into
marriage relation(ship)s, that is, they grew up and are kept (through
misery and poverty), as lonely males, a situation that in ethological
terms is equivalent to act as beta males. Enforcers would pose as
alpha-males, but then all beta-males would bid to become alpha males!
This is equivalent to a retroggresion to animal instictivity beyond
human reasonable solutions. The end result is a state of generalized,
diffuse violence.

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore