h a l f b a k e r ycarpe demi
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When the Queen says "We are not amused" I assume she's talking about herself and the minions that surrounded her, but it does get taken as her referring only to herself as "we".
The weird concept might have an application, not ever calling yourself "we" out loud, which would just be indicative of
multiple personalities, but when thinking about yourself in dealing with certain situations. Bear with me here.
Waking up: "We're gonna kick some ass today, once the boring engineering reports are out of the way, (done by my boring logical engineer side) I'm going to have some creative time drinking coffee and doing some writing (by my crazy creative side) then get in touch with my lunkheaded beast side and go to the gym, hit the hiking trail and do some swim laps for my workout day. Then that night spend some time with the wife for my romantic side, the side that loves which is the whole point of life in my opinion."
All these aspects of us are very different, when we refer to ourselves as "me" it's lumping a lot of different parts into a one simple character. By seeing yourself as many different parts in a system, it might address the issues involved in getting all those parts to work together more effectively.
So to apply this you'd pour your coffee and say, to yourself, not out loud, "We're gonna have a great day today." and then think about how the various aspects of you would do that, in what sequence, in what priority, in what application? You're complicated, this might make piloting you a little clearer.
Does that make any sense? Not sure that makes sense.
“Digging the Weans”
https://www.joshpac...com/pages/weans.pdf
How others might see us with new pronouns [minoradjustments, Oct 19 2023]
[link]
|
| |
// Does that make any sense? // |
|
| |
Okay, how about this. You put your needs in categories and use that to outline your day. |
|
| |
1- Animal, needs food, movement. (fill in how here) |
|
| |
2- Social animal, needs human interaction or turns to video games and politics (fill in how here) |
|
| |
3- Thoughtful animal, needs mental stimulation through reading, creative endeavors, (fill in how here) |
|
| |
4- Family animal, needs closeness with loved ones, wife, kids, relatives (fill in how here) |
|
| |
5- Simple biological entity, might just need alone time to think or even not think, just to be alive, maybe in a pleasant place looking at flowers or a beach. (fill in how here) |
|
| |
Ugh you're a downer. Always with the negativity and drama. |
|
| |
I was going to bone this even before I noticed a chance to dog pile onto someone. |
|
| |
So ... "Our pronouns are we/us". |
|
| |
//I was going to bone this even before I noticed a chance to dog pile onto someone// |
|
| |
Nobody in that dog pile but the dog pilers. I’ll sit this one out, not my sexual preference. (but no judgement, bone away) |
|
| |
But then how would we differentiate between some-one using the "royal we" about themself; & some-one with multiple personalities who uses "we" for good reason? |
|
| |
I'm glad you asked, let me get my whiteboard out. |
|
| |
Now is somebody calling themselves "we" is wearing a crown, (starts drawing) it might be the former, (taps the picture with the marker) but if the crown is made out of dog feces and a dead squirrel, (scribble scribble scribble, tap tap tap) it's probably the latter. |
|
| |
Also it would be good to be able to have a different grammatical term for when a person is speaking on behalf of a group. Perhaps "We's" or "wesuns" |
|
| |
"We thought everyone would insist on going to a different place, but after a bit of discussion, wesuns realised that wesuns all secretly preferred the LLF. We were slightly disappointed in the others." |
|
| |
"When the Queen says "We are not amused" ... Oct 18 2023" - which queen are we talking about here? |
|
| |
[pocmloc] “Digging the Weans” (link) |
|
| |
[hippo] surely yousuns mean "the Queens" since everything has to be plural. |
|
| |
I hope yousuns see what we mean. Look at what the rest of the annotationses on these ideas are like; wesuns are are doing ourses best to plurify every multiple words that we type. Well at least, we are. Some of the otherses are slacking. |
|
| |
American southern argot has solved at least one singular/multiple pronoun question; you, you-all, all you-all.
You are sitting in a bar talking to Jake: “Jake, what do you think?”
Addressing the table “Hey, what do you-all think?”
Addressing the room: “Do that again and I’ll fuck all you-all up!”
There is no royal we in roadhouse politics. |
|
| |
We do like the automatic pronoun simplification. Remember when pronouns were supposed to simplify our lives? |
|
| |
We also like how it normalizes the schizophrenic community living our head. At least they do... |
|
| |
Probably didn't illustrate the idea very well. You'd probably never use this in conversation, it would just be a way to think about yourself, maybe during a morning routine or a challenging life situation. Address the various aspects of what makes a person, which itself is not a new idea, but this simplifies the way you would address utilizing the various aspects of what makes you you for practical application. |
|
| |
Was just a suggestion of a way to engage in a positive, happy morning routine. Guess I didn't get it across clearly. Moving on. |
|
| |
I'm surprised this didn't mention ego, superego, and id.
or concious unconcious and subconcious. |
|
| |
The royal trinity is the basis of any god. But who out of any of those is speaking? |
|
| |
Back to religion, did Jesus refer to himself as we? No, as the mouth piece, he was a singular. |
|
| |
As a queen should she refer to herself as we? No, she's misusing english, this is why American english is preferred, as corruption begins at the top. |
|
| |
We did read it and even understood it. But there's no joke to be had there. |
|
| |
I thought that when the Queen said 'we' she was speaking on behalf of all of her subjects. |
|
| |
When I say it I just mean the two of us in here. |
|
| |
“Around half of people with DID have fewer than 10 identities and most have fewer than 100; although as many as 4,500 have been reported.” |
|
| |
So 1.5%+ of the population have Dissocialtive Identity Disorder (DID). Does anyone believe someone had 4500 distinct personalities? Who did the counting? This smells like psychology BS. Are these identities cheaper by the dozen? |
|
| |
Doesn’t the fractional entity who is speaking at the moment think that they are the central, essential, core entity, no matter how peripheral an objective assessment would provide? The object of embedded entities is survival, just like the “person” we determine is the central one. The phenomenon of true multiple personalities is so rare that it should be seen as near the far end of personality theory. We all have ‘multiple personalities’ who rise to different stimuli and have special needs. If you can order them around they are not real entities, but rather different expressions of the core identity. Scheduling for their needs is really organizing and doing bookkeeping for the core identity. A true separate internal independent entity makes terrible problems for the core or any fractional identities of it. A true internal entity may be oblivious to the others in there, or it may act as a moderator, but this is so rare as to almost be a singularity. “We” think a good software calendar with reminders will take care of the “we-ness.” |
|
| |
I saw something about some gal who claimed she had dozens of personalities. Looked like somebody bullshitting the gullible quacks for attention. Same as people pretending to be possessed. |
|
| |
I think multiple personality disorders are just bored or lonely people wanting others to notice them. |
|
| |
I went down the rabbit hole. If the interviewer who discovered the person with 4500 idenitities allowed that person to sleep 6 hours a night (lord knows it’s got to be very tiring to lug around 4499 other identities) that leaves 18 hours of interviewing, with no breaks. Given the gaggle of IDs clamoring for expression and allowing 3 minutes and 7 seconds per interview, it would take 13 days to get through all 4500. |
|
| |
Day 9, hour 15 in the psych lab:
“Now I’d like to speak with John #47 or Laura #14. Then we’ll get to Burl and Ahmed. Shut up Lewis #8, we’ll get back to you on day 14.” |
|
| |
There’s multiple something going on here but I don’t think it’s personalities. |
|
| |
I think I'd be pretty lazy. "I want to talk to personality 5,940." |
|
| |
(My personality 5,940.) "Sup doc." |
|
| |
"Aren't all your 6,000 personalities named Bob?" |
|
| |
"Are any of the personalities different?" |
|
| |
"4, 672 doesn't like those kettle cooked potato chips. Other than that we're pretty similar." |
|
| |
//A true separate internal independent entity makes terrible problems for the core or any fractional identities of it.// |
|
| |
We actually get along rather well. It is not a disorder, but a realization.
There is no conflict anymore, there's just a conscious and a subconscious me both simultaneously aware and thinking separate thoughts within in the same head at the same time.
It did cause problems in my teens when I thought it was trying to take 'me' over and fought against it.
All of us are 'we', most people just stay separated while awake and don't know it. |
|
| |
In closing, just for the record, this is about thinking about the various psychological aspects that make up your personality when assigning tasks to them. Putting the word "we" into it was probably an idea killer. |
|
| |
I think it might be a sound concept. The mind is complicated, it needs attention. Maybe clarifying what those needs are and differentiating between them might assist in addressing them. |
|
| |
Anyway, just a thought. Moving on. |
|
| |
[2fries] I’m there with you. That is the felt experience of being if you can be at peace with the clamoring hoard. But those are not true independent identities; they are your team, your facets, and unruly as they may get they are all you’ve got. The true independent identity usually doesn’t give a shit about peace in the valley. |
|
| |
I don't think of it as an aspect. It's its own being, we just share the same memories. |
|
| |
//That is the felt experience of being if you can be at peace with the clamoring hoard. But those are not true independent identities; they are your team, your facets, and unruly as they may get they are all you’ve got. The true independent identity usually doesn’t give a shit about peace in the valley.// |
|
| |
I needed a teacher. It teaches me things. Things 'I' am not able to be consciously aware of, so, although 'I' know it is only a portion of one single mind, without the dichotomy there can be no interface. |
|
| |
[2fries] On the money. There are (at least) two because you make an illusion of two (or more) in order to get work done. Good way to establish some creative friction and enlist some ‘aspects’ that are shy. Not because an alien invader has stormed the walls. This intentional bi- or trifurcation is very interesting to me. Is the ‘I’ you refer to the ever-present observer? Or the decider? If so, who does the ‘doing?’ How many ‘aspects’ were involved in the decision and motivation to action? So we’ve got at least 5 to start, with seats for many more, depending on the polling practices you use to move along. Brain stuff. Consciousness. It just doesn’t stop. Kinda. |
|
| |
Cool to see that the disaster of this being misunderstood as "Let's all call ourselves we for no reason just to act like idiots." has turned into a really interesting conversation. (although mylodon got it right off) I take full responsibility for the lousy clarification. (Sits back with bag of popcorn) |
|
| |
"Call me maniple, for we are badly under strength." |
|
| |
Id. Ego. Superego. Subconscious. How dated. If the Planck constant can change, why not the self-perception of differentiation and consciousness itself? New wine in old bottles. |
|
| |
Well, do people consider these aspects of their personality and how to best use/address them in their morning routines? That was the not particularly thought out idea. |
|
| |
I also think that particular designation of personality parts, //Ego. Superego. Subconsciousis// is one way to look at the person, but they're pretty broad strokes, and what do you do with that information besides become a famous shrink? |
|
| |
You're not going to plan your day to address the ego, superego and subconscious. Those aren't addressing specific traits of the individual, these are things we supposedly all have. So what do you do with that? Saying "I have a deep burning love of art, so I'm going to address that today, but I have the part of me who needs to pay bills and take care of my family, call that whatever you want, but that's gonna need to be addressed to. Then the animal part needs food, movement, fresh air, sun." might have some utility. Maybe. Or not. |
|
| |
Anyway, the idea was to try to be aware of the different aspects of your personality while planning your day, that's all. |
|
| |