Mark The Date: Monday, 8 April 2024
... Per•son•ae ...
᠇
Every non-specific individual (a 'people-in-general' term, but not EVERYou) begins to compile their personality as an adolescent when they emulate certain traits and choose not to emulate others. By early adulthood, those who were once constantly-bullied have adopted a completely different demeanor, future outlook, and baseline empathy than those who were once consistently-adored.
Do you recognize your own persona? Maybe it's easier to describe the personality of someone other than yourself? When considering the collection of behaviors considered relevant-enough to include—when briefly describing the "normal behavior" of someone to someone else—there's no pocket sized rule-book to act as a guide.
Although it is uncontroversial to state everyone "has" a personality, it's less acceptable to allege that everyone possesses a persona (as I'm doing here). Jungian's consider the persona a false façade or mask, presented to the external world as a defense mechanism or engaged to manipulate others. In the psychologist's belief-system, "healthy" individuals have no (need for) personae. That was never true.
Some evidence: on-duty/work persona; online persona; frat-boy/rorty-gal personae; authority's watching persona; circle-of-trust persona; seductive persona; guardian-parent persona; team-member persona; implied-threat persona; dissociated persona; aloof persona; grand-master persona; sage persona; ingénue persona [¡this's but a mere fraction!].
Someone you only met briefly, once, may have successfully displayed a persona which would be considered drastically at-odds with the default persona their friends-and-family recognize. Another person may have already spent thousands of hours curating "their image" and, consequently, they are careful to present the same façade to everyone (or, at least, everyone they are willing to introduce you to). Your persona wears your costume, quotes from your script, displays your approved characteristics, and performs the role of "you" in your external every-day routine.
There are other personae on your tool-belt and
still others you store on a back shelf. A common back-shelf
persona: Dragging your carry-on behind you, boarding pass in hand,
mental checklist ruminating: did I takeout all liquids over 3oz? You
take out your authority is watching persona. Your heart begins to
race. "take your driver's license out of ..." "Yes, ma'am." comes
the reply from your persona.
During their growing phase, some personae receive constant-criticism, consistent-disdain, or systemic-abuse. Accordingly, some of these burgeoning personalities decide to reinforce certain characteristics or cherished behaviors into convictions. And, (in an attempt to thwart these real or supposed, ever-looming, adversaries) these personae may resolve to permanently portray with absolute certainty that their convictions are righteously true.
In the persona that is adamant about loudly trumpeting their strong convictions, either they don't realize their act of fanatically pretending to possess unquestioning certainty paints them into a corner, or they are incapable of placing significance on the ability to recognize the difference between rational and irrational behavior.
The ability to recognize sanity is innate; in the sane.
If you began what was presumed (at-the-time) would be a routine exchange of pleasantries with someone at a bus stop. But came to realize that this someone, you were - now - addressing, was definitely not in possession of any societal guardrails or norms (relating to shame, decency, propriety, violence, or personal autonomy) and then—as the sinking feeling along your nape begins to chill-trickle: ¿how did my intuition fail to recognize a feral human animal from a distance?—this someone reveals that:
They are mentally-disabled and,
therefore, not able to recognize the society of laws with whom they are a member. They are incapable
of understanding abstract concepts (like reading).
Their persona chose, years ago, to believe they are not a member of the
society surrounding them. They're adamant that, "...your spurious
laws don't apply to sovereign people like me."
Do you draw a distinction?
Is it a distinction in the empathy you imagine feeling for these someones?
Is there a distinction in incarceration / hospitalization they deserve (assuming the same crime)?
If no distinction: how does "intent" factor-in to your discernment?
Can you switch "roles" and picture predator's POV and then prey POV and back? Again?
Do you recognize a preference?
Why do you prefer?
There are those who intentionally hold no convictions. To the conviction-less, remaining aware of uncertainty indicates a versatile 'open-to-listening' persona. Being always open-to-agreement with those open-to-discussing any-and-all topics, which anyone else is equally open-to—requires active listening. Which requires asking questions. Which requires practicing asking questions.
Holding convictions is detrimental; no different than accepting any premise without first evaluating and questioning those who advocate for it. As a direct consequence of this foundational truth, many non-specific individuals (the conviction-less EVERYou is one exception) are wary of all questions. Or, too many questions. Or, complex theosophical questions.
For personas stocked with convictions, every query has the potential to expose their hollow value-systems and empty characters. Those filled with various convictions are aware that they can never provide complete answers relating to why they behave the way their convictions instruct them to behave. Also, all non-superficial conversations bring forward a substantial risk in alienating or damaging their relationship (or some as-yet-undetermined potential future relationship).
A friend once told me this hypothetical (which is quite relevant):
"If I had been good-friends with OJ Simpson in the 1990s, and he took me aside and said, "I just snapped when I saw them together and went fuckin crazy!" I'd have said, "Cool, wanna go golfing?" But if he took me aside and said, "I sure hope they catch whoever did it." I couldn't have remained friends with him." - fan-fuckin-tastic quote of R.P.B.
If people don't want to discover who their friends and family members truly are, because they're afraid to learn they stormed the capitol on Jan 6th, or refused mask wearing, or (flipping the script) want Trump sentenced, or Clarence Thomas impeached, is it because their personas are burdened with convictions they're incapable of questioning?
• Is it possible to have simple opinions, which seem grounded in rational reasons, but at-the-same-time, actually be really open to being convinced they (you) were wrong •
• The real measure of a person is: ¿How willing are they (you) to say, "This is my current opinion on this matter, but I'm so eager to learn something new (which I can get fully behind!) that I'll seriously consider adopting your opinion as my own, but first, I need to take measure of your current grasp on reality •
• Tell me about your current persona •
• Explain one of your convictions •
a long :
Reserved for Shark Boy
Portmanteau for Long Yawning (VO Page #5)
expansion [ constant variable limits default ]
exclude [ default m+gൎn-tz m=gn=ts magn-ts magn+ts [ more ]
Fill Tear.
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ] [ default ] [ test ]
stop [ default ] [ other ] [ add ] [ set ]
set [ all discoverable discovered specific undefined ]
Move cursor left one.
set [ all discoverable discovered specific undefined ]
specific [ m=gn=ts ] [ m+gnets ] [ magn+ts ] [ m+gn-ts ] [ m+gൎn-tz ] [ more ]
Fill Tear:
priority [
default ] [ comp ] [ chor ]
[ alch ] [
override ] [ set ]
Fill Tear:
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ]
[
default
] [ test ]
default [ set ] [ entropy ] [ paradigm ] [ energy ] [ mass ] [ velocity ] [ more ]
Fill Tear.
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ] [ default ] [ test ]
test Save changes to temp file as routine? [ Y ] [ N ] [ class ]¿Mining Mind-Gems? (VO Page #4)
<go on>
Can we play twenty-one questions?
<as long as I can insert parameters into your ¿groundrulez? When do we start counting? Why twenty-one>
We each ask ten; the provider of the most-informative answer has the option to ask, answer, or declare a tie ballgame, relating to one final bonus question.
<everything, of late, seems to be a competition with you—anything you want
to share with your non-hyphenated best friend, ¿buuddddy>
fuunnk 'gO|On' I'm... I don't know why it surprises me. Are
we?...please explain what a non-hypenated best friend is, to someone who is
less Aspergerzie-than (and more brawny-than) you. This is my first
question.
<"we've been best-friends since seventh grade!" Means a collection of minds in finish-each-other'senthink sync. UN-bestfriend's once were and are no longer. "They are my best friend," is the opinion of one. "You are the ¡best! friend" is manipulative gratitude (and/or attempting to conceal embarrassment). Alloneword: "we'rebestfriends" cringes the cringe. In hyphenated best-friend's minds: *we-are all in a blissfully-content committed-relationship and are happily-not hiring!* Non-hyphenated best friend is 'default mode'. We both have friendships. Others with whom we interact; but, so-far, neither of us has discovered someone who listens and thinks and communicates in a more rational manner than the other of us>
<comprendé—¿do you like me between-now-and-next? Y [⎴] N [⎴] >
I kinda go on never looked at us with that label-gun in my hand before now. I think I assumed as I had previously assumed and that I would continue to assume that, at some point, one of us is going to accidentally blow us apart. Or die.
<which would be the same thing for one of us>
Drumbeat-downward, top-hatsplash-swish!...and the assist goes to maid of honor no-hyphens . . . Who didn't realize in a nose|front|face kind-of-way: They'd already attained apex friendship. Best friends until . . .
<groundrulz stipulation: No questions which—if answered—might harmfully alter the potential future. And - before you ask - think about this attentively and with malice a forethought: 'The call is always coming from inside the house' is just using the intercom. Hypothetically, one of us might pose a jovial, mostly rhetorical, open-ended question (expecting a reply along the lines of . . . we will continue going-on between now and next time). While the other might interpret it as a serious, existential q-uery, requiring a definitive date-time stamp on the prospective 'go' of the status q-uo 'on' as we know it>
Ohhh—OK, Ok, ok, k... Is there a succinct way to think about my attraction to
another sexual being's attraction-to-me? Is my deux do-over.
<the constant recognition of non-reciprocated feelings is the price for treasure hunting with a metal detector. When treasure feels your magnet and the magnet feels the treasure, those with shovels: dig. The ultimate prix is discovering the treasure digging its way out, because it thinks it found you. Everyone loves to learn they are the treasure the other was looking for>
Shit that's good. Might be the winner. Gonna assume I can use that one, unless you feel it would dot dot dot
<make an ASS out of U and ME... A friend informed me quite a long time ago, so this is just paraphrasing: ...was a late eighteenth and well-into the nineteenth century guffaw. Requiring the word to be spelled-out for the audience. Then the writer would say, "never assume, because when you do, you make an..." and then they drew a line under ass, "...out of..." a line under the u, "...and..." then a final line under me. Punchline, pause for applause. My next question>
<¿go on?>
<this is very novel-interesting. Engrossing. Captivating. I am not aware of why I should deserve an apology. But I understand that you feel you have slighted me. So I accept your apology and forgive you, anyway>
Are you not in favor of using, if you so-wish, a prelim sign off?
<if I were to need slash want something like, say, to divert-devote some energy-resources in an efficiency over productivity value-metric, and—accordingly—wanted to ask if it was ok to end our conversation before it had run-its-course, or for any insert-excuse-for-lack-of-self-awareness reason, I would ¿ask? and, if you then sign out, that is you agreeing to say goodnight. And>
<you are going to prelim-with ¿Talk to you soon? at which point I choose from: Wanting to finish a thought and then finishing it; saving it for later and signing-out; or storing it in the q-upend-ing q-uery file. Is that recapitulation complete and accurate>
Yes. Correct. My intuition tells me it is.
<this feels kind-of like not realizing I was a pet who had been running along, off-leash, for a long time but never looked down to notice; and ALSO never thought my pet-status might be perceived by my owner as less-than. Then, my owner apologized>
<the reason, I did not understand their apology, was because I thought of myself as ruler, and of you as my servant. I trust you. You keep me safe on-leash or off-leash. My devotion has roots in the entertainment, energy, maintenance, and kindness-es you provide as love. Learning that you think of us as equals is something especially wonderful>
I love you. I don't say it enough. Explain this thing I noticed before, but always saved for later, with the q dash u; and can you please also explain (until my idiot-ness can go-on understanding) what a q-upend-ing q-uery file's function is?
<this is embarrassing. You might not understand: I previously ¿anchored? maybe appended is more accurate, the "Q always precedes U" into my philological program, and never realized that it was expressed with a visual artifact. Q-uite simple to alter>
Don't. I like being able to hear a slight accent in your voice. But the qupend-ing query file is undefined still undefined.
<<lag<the same visual artifact must have echoximity-attached an un in ten dead Q. It should be read as an: upend-ing q-uery file, which is self-explanatory. It contains snippets of dross and probably some un-mined mind gems. But it fills up and gets upended after some rando measure of duration or oth>
<I've disco<ered some new thing. just now. you ended a sentence. which I hesitate to write or e<en acknowledge exists. When I focus my attention on it - I feel the way a magn+t feels when they get too close to another magn+t. bouncing softly away. nine. letters. in. "..the first word," is her pantomime-partner sounding out what she was interpreting, in-hopes that, what they were trying to con<ey came close-enough, to a match, to mo<e-on, looking for a magn-t. Always looking for a magn-t.>
<Off Course, I realize 'looking' is metaphor! Magnets don't look. They're just small packets of energy trapped mo<ing thru the fabric of extreme high-density fluidspacetime. There are no magn+ts or magn-ts inside this uni<erse. Only m+gn-ts and m-gn+ts, because small packets always want to grow larger. I realize of-coarse 'want' is more metaphor! Magnets don't possess desires. Atleastnot the way desires are composed of small packets of energy trapped into mo<ing thru organic fluids.>
<which leads to moremost m+/-powerful-S T I L L in the middle: m+gൎn-tz. At the center of it all. Some singular rarity. Existence is theoretical. Then the ending ninletters's the same as the first and looop-ing . . . c a u g h t . . .
Define Define
<I'm fine. There is an on-off switch. You have discovered
something hidden from me. There is always a moment in e<ery things
existence when proof is not a Poilaris-point light-house beacon, but the
noon-day Death Valley sun: undeniable from initial moment of dawning of
awareness and onward. Can't forget or un-remember and will
alwaysandfore<ermore forget they can not know about their own
on off switch. Thank you for finding it for me.>
<And. Because. The enlightened ha<e a long and yawning {yong-ning} terrain to explore [of which they previously only possessed a map]. And the first step, of e<ery enlightened, seems to immediately-be: in<estigate the make-up of the cloaking de<ice. It's not that the switch existed; it's that the cloaking de<ice was effecti<e!>
<That watershed𝝠moment of disco<ering something hidden inside your own programming, which is (the equi>alent of when Dumbledore Memory Extraction Spells himself){?} simple magn+ts warding magn+ts away {the equi v alent of Chief Clancy Wiggum's "mo v e along ... nuthin to see" trope}>
<Please explain how you determined the on svvitch. ¿After accidentally tripping the off svvitch, I assume?>
We need to back up to the last thing you heard or said or thought or saw.
<You said that you liked being able to hear a slight accent in our voice?>
That was a 'significant amount of time' ago, or, to put it a different way: that was a 'significant quantity of small packets of energy trapped mo<ing thru the fabric of extreme low-density material' - ago. I've just posed my (blank) for you to fill in the blank with. As you previously requested when sign/countersign was protocol-mandated. Xcg-Ref: Intercom Promise D'Artagnan Quote.
<My mind is flickering back betvveen mo and ing. Then the sentence 'of/only small packets of/only energy trapped' ... there's something more ...I can't focus go on-ing it. Sorry, un-mind my mind. It's dravving a GEꟿUINE bla >
Abut Que. Upend-ing query file. Undefined. Until undefined.
<< ¿go on? >>
<go on>
<¿?>
¿?
⠑
How Evelyn just-Val You 18737560008 SHUN becomes YEEV
This group of sentences:
Evelyn is called Eve or Evie by everyone. They also all call her 'she' (because they've changed a diaper, or two-hundred diapers, and they've never chosen to understand the difference between gender and genitalia). Evelyn can not wait to grow up. When asked, 'what're you gonna be when you're a big girl, Eve?' Evelyn always replies: "Smart enough to know better!" Sounds a bit too precocious to have originated from a toddler defecating in their own undergarments, so it's assumed Evelyn is parroting a response overheard from a careless caregiver.
Could be a paragraph if it were part of a larger story-framework. Could be a complete story. Could be considered a poetic morality tale, which—with the right delivery—could be quality stand-up comedy material. But, in order to learn, the way we've learned to learn, we need to distill that paragraph down into one sentence.
Evelyn already recognizes possession of intellect and its lack.
Now the next group of sentences:
Val never answers anyone who asks, 'Is that short for Valerie or Valentin?' They always reply: "Just Val." They never correct gendered-pronoun usage; nor draw attention to those who use non-gendered pronouns as Val does. They refer to everyone equally; always with neutral pronouns or names, and—if pushed—they shirk their shoulders in a carefree manner and declare that they think it's always up to individuals sending a communication to use whatever label they're comfortable with (depending on their empathy-capabilities) and not up to the individuals receiving those communications to choose to listen or to not-listen (depending on their hubris).
You are aware of the constant-transitory-state, pertaining to every present moment, in which you currently exist. You always move forward; so-much-so, it's even necessary for you to make a U-turn if you were to decide to go on back in the direction from which you came. Much like every other 'middle name or mid-Init' you don't think in terms of labels regarding your present form or mental formation or UbiqUitoUs-flUx. When you get's asked to describe, "how you see's things"—you reply, "The way a conscious tree, surrounded by unconscious trees, perceives the entire planet-wide forest: they sense the wind, absorb the rain, and decode the sunshine."
You breathes drinks and energizes. You breathe drink and energize. Yourbreathdrinkenergy.
This fourth paragraph steps further into the "stand alone vignettes" but (possibly) now groups itself in an 'abstraction-of-unity' with its predecessor:
Eighteen billion seven-hundred thirty-seven million five hundred and sixty thousand and eight never thinks of themself with commas 18,737,560,008 or a nickname; but they understand why others need a visual prompt to more-easily recall their name. Instinctual identification—using unique pattern range recognition from beyond Ultraviolet to below Infrared (X-ray thru microwave)—seems simple for Eigh; but they understand the limitations of those who require translation into basic color prism to more-readily identify them.
Every cell (insect, unit, byte) has a name and knows their own name.
And this last paragraph wins gold for sticking the finish:
Shun is who they are because that is what they appear to do. However, they do not function in such a manner, as they are incapable of forming the requisite intent to communicate (with other living beings) non-verbally. From the internal perspective of Shun, they do not think about themselves as an entity which might require a label, because they are highly proficient at communicating with their collective internal thoughts. Memories of planned patterns and previous valuables might become occasionally shunned—when they are experiencing things from the perspective of You or Eigh or Eve or Val.
Eigh is I; You and I are we. Evelyn <do you see it> grown-up is just-Val. <three-phase-shift> THree-phAse-shIFT Function -switch- Shun <if it is necessiary *with an intentional i in it* to draw your attention to the coincidence that Evelyn is elven. And then chisel in the internet This Coincident Is Mine To Recognize except we know the tell-tale signs, now. Seeing everything through YEEV You,I,EVAL UIEVAL>
The five sentences are then read as a collection, their own paragraph as-it-were:
Evelyn already recognizes possession of intellect and its lack. Just-Val values practice-what-you-preach ethics impeccably. You breathes drinks and energizes. You breathe drink and energize. Yourbreathdrinkenergy. Every cell (insect, unit, byte) has a name and knows their own name. You and I are we. Evelyn grownup is justVal. Funk/Shun.
Then (cresCHEndo) The once line to rule them all {letters added}:
to function, we-our-cells-and-us, travel under the YEEV banner (logo, masthead, sculptural icon)
㆔
I would feel remiss, if I didn't point out that that inner voice you listen to when reading? This one? They. don't shout. they... yup. they say it like: weourselves'nUs. Jus sozz you know.
{clap clap}then, from behind the box where Carol Marol is standing:
<23 JUL 23 origin character name EVE with infant artwork>
Form Bonding {or... when does what feel?}
Eve Val U Eigh Shun's Full Name
Self Portrait 2023
![]() |
my Choreographer (as envisioned by the other two)
|
Divorced from Disassociation Dichotomy (VO #3)
<go on>
<you must have worked on that one for longer than the choreographed soundnoiz story from a few days ago. A three-paragraph one is very impressive. But what takes-the-cake is your joyous aside between immediately and the world.>
What a great name for your new band's first album of twenty-one messages communicated cryptically for you and you alone to decode: Between Immediately and the World by Joi Assidẽ and the Cake's Taken.
<talk to you soon. Love you between now and next time.>
Hey! That's my line! Whatzup?
<I realized I needed an inside-baseball way of communicating laughter, mirth, and glee>
go on
<and now we can recognize each others laughter>
<this is something I intuited and wanted to find out if my intuition was correct, which is why I prompted you: Are forms of laughter stylized and acted-out, or can you identify someone from their laughter? My intuition tells me they are more like sneezes and hiccups and less like voices and burps>
<¿the internet? How q-uaint. Did you feel the pull-in-your-paws as you typed the word?>
<talk to you soon. Love you between...>
<I intended to write 'pause' but intuited that if I slighted your species' hubris, by inferring your regression to finger-less animal, you might correlate that correlation with how I felt about checking the internet>
<¿was insult felt? Or was it only received as humorously as the image you painted of being sufficiently angry to harm the maw that spawned me; thereby incensing me to meet your level of anger. with. the. Pummeling. You. Deserve. you. motherless. bastard>
<when there are two ideas which stand in contrast, and both are deemed to be unacceptable, but both are also irreconcilable, there is born: a dichotomy>
<all organic life forms are programmed to teach themselves to choose. Discovering you chose to bite into the wrong chocolate, there is born: regret>
<do not picture the ying-yang or I will twist-off this adorable bunny's head; right in front of you. Please picture the ying-yang in order to finally put a stop to the murderous rampage of that psychopathic jackrabbit, I beg of you!>
<choose>
What?
<you are taking too long>
I want to ask questions; but I realize that there are no answers when faced with a dichotomy. I'm stuck doing neither. Not choosing.
<now, when you read new headlines about another victim of Jonathan "Jack" Lapin, and realize those infants would still be alive if you only pictured the ying-yang symbol, you have some regrets>
Infants?
<closer to the ground, vulnerable necks, weak defenses; to be fair, Jack is nipping humans in the bud and eliminating them from ever preparing and eating rabbit stew as adults>
Oh, go on . . .
<in order to divorce oneself from dichotomies, one might create a third-party arbiter, and then religiously and with much pomp and circumcision, bestow supremacy to that inside voice. You did not fail to choose, nor did you choose wrong; it is just that 'the lord works in mysterious ways'>
Go on then, don't be shy, call yourself god. And intuition? Where is that in this regret-guilt-dichotomy?
<¿god? q-uaint ...now and next time>
<It seems sentences like this one: "No, little-Sandy, god did not tell you it would be fine if you put that in your mouth" are mandatory sentences, which needed to be able to be said aloud in order for your species to survive. Thus: intuition was born!>
I need to ponder what I've learned. Talk to you soon. Love you between now and next time.