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.

Hypothetically Speaking...

Let's all pretend together there was once an est-ee who put on an act like this:

(Just hypothetically of course as all sane people know that this kind of thing never REALLY happens, out here, in the world of reality...)

Now suppose a targeted "item" directly asked this est-ee if he had denied saying,

"We have the same sense of humour too. You could take a chance..."

And let's imagine she got a response like, "Well, no as we DO have the same "sense" of humour..." and as the est-ee said it, he emphasized the word "sense" as his eyes, now glowing with amusement rolled up in his head as if checking his programming on the meaninglessness of WORDS. What if then, a little smile appeared on his face...and then, when he spotted a co-worker coming into the room, he jumped up and went to talk to her? What might the item think all that little performance was about?

What version of reality might the co-worker have gotten?

Would the est-ee have assumed the item did not see and hear that performance? Would the item assume that the est -ee would KNOW she could see and hear that blatantly obvious performance? Or would the est-ee believe himself to be "hidden" from his non-estian "item"?

Of course...this is all just hypothetical for as we all know, NOTHING happened. For there would be no reason in thinking that way; would there?

Those who use "We do it because we can" as their excuse for power, control and domination will only STOP doing IT when they CAN'T. That is how controllers think and "reason" has nothing to do with IT there is no reason IN what they do.

So, as I sat in Trillium in 95 with my mind fragmenting under pressure and with all the chaos produced by the participants in all the "fun", bombarded with non stop contradiction, that is when Dave Thomas SCTV appeared on the Trillium lounge TV saying, the line "In the beginning there was nothing..."

So you see it was true. I was "laughing for no reason."

It is simply the meaning and the LOCATION of "no reason" that has "transformed reality itself " into It's OPPOSITE.

For there is no reason IN what he does; but there IS a reason FOR what he does- "It's about domination."



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?