Hypothetical Scenarios
Theoretical Questions and Answers
(we don't want to offend anyone else do we?)

Exercising My Right to Think, Hypothesize and Theorize which the (as yet) Non Psychiatrized  'Others' Now Take for Granted

I have stated that I get treated 'as if' my life, as defined by third parties, were reality. Let's try doing just the opposite here and treat the reality I 'claim' to experience 'as if' it were true as defined by me...Just for fun.

Question for the Homewood Authorities on Life and Thought

Could it be possible that est-ee psychiatric nurse's real 'satisfaction' comes from the 'observation' of his targets reactions, 'witnessing' the results of his choice for 'power', from 'seeing my fear,' from 'observing the action between the two 'sides'[1] of his 'recreation', and most of all from watching me be unable to escape the Zen-like metaphysical 'play' no matter what I say or do?

Could it be possible that this is the real rush he gets from doing this? Is that why he is alleged to have told his co-workers that this is the best 'investment' he ever made?

Does he sit and smirk to himself all through this because what he is watching and hearing, from those around him, trying to figure out what was, and is, happening, IS the 'recreation' of his training and all the predictable outcomes he expects to see and hear? Is he vague and ambiguous with everyone because that is the "source' of his power, balancing on the line at the nexus of meaning? Does it amuse him that they deny they are performing in this?

Does he sit and feel superior and as the "winner in the game of life" because he and I both know that "reality is NOT that which is being defined by the 'authorites," at Homewood, and the University, nor is it defined by the abusive 'superior' mob[2] involved, but is, in fact, "that which I am experiencing?''

Has he deluded himself that his thinking and behaviour is acceptable, and even 'superior' because he was taught inside the training that I could not be a victim unless I 'chose' to be?

What if I have not made the choices he intended me to make? Will he then understand that choosing "power' over enlightenment" was not the right 'choice' for him to make?

Will he understand that if you bring the metaphysical 'play' 'out here into the world of reality' that he creates a concrete version of it which can result in both an evidence trail as well as the switch back?

Does it occur to him that when his leader called the trainees all 'ass-holes,' he meant it ,and that the leader was actually leading BY EXAMPLE and excusing himself also, because by believing it, he gave himself permission and an excuse to BE an aggressor with a hidden agenda of domination?

Does it occur to this est-ee nurse that when it used to be stated inside the est training that if they got really good at being an ass-hole they could become "est-holes," it was actually a display of contempt for the followers who don't question 'authority' but who 'just take what they get and don't ask any questions'?

Does it ever occur to the est-ee nurse that the 'understanding that is the booby prize in life" as he wrote down for me[3] as the reason for his behaviour, is actually meant for BOTH sides of the "choosers" in the training; BOTH aggressors and victims?

Does he call you all 'ass-holes' because you cannot see "what is right in front of you" which is the false premise which is 'backwards' upon which the "empire" of est has been built?

What is that false premise you may ask?[4]

It is this:

That victims CHOOSE to be victims, therefore they 'deserve' what they get for choosing it AND (not or) that it is all right for aggressors to attack them and to absolve themselves of responsibility for it and to do so BY blaming their victims for the aggressors choice of bad behaviour.

It is the OPPOSITE of reality and that is the premise all of you "superior' people cannot see or hear.

Instead, you reinvent reality, for the victims by "creating and defining reality itself" for all those who are not in your 'group' or mob, and that way you can be "always right and never wrong" no matter how much concrete evidence there is to the contrary.

As the "German" (Nazi) /Jew at the top of the recreation pyramid could sure tell you, "really' there was no Holocaust either. It was just a 'fabrication' by those 'inferiors' who like to seek attention" by blaming those blameless 'others.' Why the aggressors aren't the monsters...oh no... their victims (who only claim or 'think' they are victims) are the real monsters for accusing those 'others' 'falsely." In fact, the 'so called' victim were probably all 'crazy' sure...that's IT, that's IT exactly...


Now you're "Getting IT!"

As was said in est...you may as well...you can't change anything anyway...


Hidden agendas, once fully exposed ,lose their power to mystify and control and become useless.

[1] The victim and the group manipulated with the false premise to attack the victim...

[2] The group consensus referred to inside the est training

[3] Whoops! He forgot abut the not writing anything down part!

[4] Were you inclined to believe you don't already know everything and think it might be possible for someone else outside your 'group' to understand something you don't...


Perception/Reaction/Outcome  Problem 1

Here is one of those hypothetical realities about which I am proposing we use as a means of opening ourselves up to possibilities. (I like to use the game boy's jargon now to make my points...now ain't this 'fun'?)

Let's keep this first one short so we can all focus on it and come up with some possible (or probable) outcomes. based on what may, or may not, be reality as we all understand it.

Just suppose that all the people I told you about being involved in this were, in fact, really involved in this going all the way back to 93. Imagine that what I told you all about the nurse 'setting me up' for an attack by a group of his co-workers  was in fact TRUE, (come on...humour me) and that those people you decided were really just a manifestation of my paranoid delusional mental illness, were those same people, who got caught psychologically abusing a worker. So they then decided to conceal the truth about what they did to take care of their own interests. Suppose the hospital administration then told them they were not to admit to anything. 

In theory now, do you think that group of people would be quite happy to go along with that instruction?

Do you think they would tend to go along with what the original protagonist had done because of their “participation” in it?

Do you think they would have any sense of guilt at all, or would they perhaps look for ways to blame their victim for it?

Is blaming the victim for being a victim a fairly common phenomenon?

Do you think that may have something to do with such participants wanting to delude themselves that such things could not happen to THEM because they won't CHOOSE to be a victim?

Does that idea give them a false sense of security?

Does it also help them to excuse themselves in what they do when they help to victimize someone by handing the responsibility for their thinking and behaviour,  to their victim?

Do you suppose that is what that line in the psychiatric nurse's so called 'training' (in my own hypothetical case) means when it states“what you do with problems is hand them to someone else?

Do you think they notice that when they do that, they simultaneously support and enable the aggressor who can then 'hide' in plain sight within the group?

Now if such a hospital administration were to focus on politics and appearances as their first priority, would that end up eventually affecting them negatively as a direct result of such a focus? Could they be blindsided about what was to come?

What if they pulled in a whole lot more people to actually observe the targeted victim? Could that end up being a real problem for them in the end, if all those people were, in fact, the 'strangers' the targeted victim 'claimed' were talking about her, right in front of her, like she was not there?

Would such an administration regret that they had not listened to the victim when she had come to them offering them resolution, with discretion, long before this all went public?

Even if no one took any legal action at all against the aggressor who started it all, would everyone else believe that their own reputations were not harmed by their failure to deal with the problem with all the ethics and integrity they CLAIM is what they are all about?

Is it even possible to keep such an event 'secret' when all these people are involved in it even if you continued indefinitely to tell the victim there were no 'people' in it and that nothing had happened in reality at all?

Do you think that the destruction of the victim’s concrete life as a result would matter to them at all? Or would the victim be considered to be expendable?

Is it possible that the people in control of everyone and everything (or who want to be anyway) could end up destroying their own reputations BECAUSE of the desire to control everything and everyone?

It sounds almost like self destructive, self fulfilling, prophecy doesn't it? Or is that just me reading too much into things again?

I am speaking hypothetically of course but, is it not a good mental exercise for all of us to theorize about possible ultimate outcomes, preferably before they get so bad that any salvaging of the reputations of those involved becomes pretty much impossible?