Anyone seen BLINDNESS yet? It's a terrific little gem of a movie I didn't see posted on here. Thought I'd share.
Is your name really Emma Smith? Wasn't that a character from Little House on the Prairie?
I mean I kind of like that though. It's very Jane Austin. It's just like 'Emma Smith'.
But I don't think I'm gonna watch that film. It looks like something that would show up on Lifetime Television for Women. You know the classic story about two young lovers who get married, settle down to married life, and the husband does what all husbands do, starts drinking, shooting the dog, beating the wife, and generally destroying a woman's entire existance until she ends up being commited to the mental ward for about 4 years, until she is released to her grandmother, who she lived with as a child and they reunite and have great bonding moments together until the grandmother comes down with brain cancer and no one is left but the poor woman to run the children's home for the local orphans and troubled teenagers.
Nice analogy, but planets aren't living, breathing entities.
The solar system encompasses many planets, but each one is unto themselves.
They aren't SPLIT.
If they were, the system wouldn't be UNIFIED.
I think that this is a good observation of you, BA. A truly split personality, or a disociative 'split' within the Ego may be identified by some clues in language of the patient. For example, real disociation happens when the patient begins speaking in terms of himself and 'they'. And then begins acting out 'they' without remembering having done so. This marks real 'alters' within a person, real 'split' personalities.
Albeit, if the healthy Ego expands to realize and encorporate all its componant attributes, traits, 'facets' in the We consciousness, this is neither a 'split' nor disociation. Both I and We are in the First Person, and if the I is also implied within the various 'planets' of the We, then one has become One with Himself in I and We.
This might manifest itself if Emma were to tell me how attracted she is to me and that she wishes that we could go have fine wine at a 5 star restaurant and then go to a Vivaldi concert and spend the rest of the evening walking under the moonlit sky on the beach making small talk with one another and french kissing slowly all evening while the warm waves washed over our wet bodies. Then, in that case a certain Venusian trait or quality in myself may rush to the forefront instead of this quite Mercurial 'I' that you are now witnessing in front of you.
Now see how nifty all that is? The difference between genius and insanity is not necessarily multiplicity in the I with We, it is the failure to incorporate all of one's traits properly. If one does not incorporate one's attribute in spirit and ordered harmonics, then one might manifests shadows traits and see them as 'they' instead of 'we'. In this case you might have traits of rage, or murder, or one may become a rapist, or a theif, or even a gangsta rapper.
However, when one, as yourself, refers to YOURSELF as WE, it suggests there is more than one entity within.
Yes, there ARE various entities within! That's what I just tried to explain to you. EVERYONE has more than one entity within! And everyone in the world is bipolar.
But just because one has more than one entity, aspect, trait, does not mean that they are not a Unity. Each of us is a solar system, a galaxy a universe.
And if you blaim me for me and Emma holding one another in our hearts in love, then yeah, I guess I'm guilty..
And besides, I am using the term We in the sense of the classical English usage of the Royal We. For example when the King or Queen of England issued and edict, he/she would say, "It is our decission...or we have decided."
Therefore, you should say nothing to Us concerning Our Correct Usage.
The majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin) is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. It is also called the "Royal pronoun", the "Royal 'we'" or the "Victorian 'we'." The more general word for the use of "we" to refer to oneself is nosism.
The idea behind the pluralis majestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people. For example, the Basic Law of the Sultanate of Oman opens thus:
On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman…
Famous examples of purported instances:
We are not amused. — Queen Victoria (in at least one account of this quotation, though, she was not speaking for herself alone, but for the ladies of the court.)
The abdication statement of Nicholas II of Russia uses the pluralis majestatis liberally, as in "In agreement with the Imperial Duma, We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power."
Another view of the form is that it reflects the fact that when a monarch speaks he speaks both in his own name and in the name of his function, office or status.
United States Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover told a subordinate who used the royal we: "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?" This was said as the subordinate was speaking for superiors without authority, as well as in an unofficial capacity. Mark Twain once made a similar remark.
The majestic plural is distinct from the plural of modesty (pluralis modestiae) and the author's plural (pluralis auctoris) or the inclusion of readers or listeners, respectively, the latter often used in mathematics. For instance:
Let us calculate! — Leibniz
We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. — Albert Einstein
The tradition of the Royal We may also be traced to the Mughals of India and Sultans of Banu Abbas and Banu Umayyah. The "Royal We" is used to express the dignity or highest position either understood as strictly hierarchical or as referential to an alternate "higher" than ego identity. This use of the "Royal We" has been understood as totally different from the concept of its Western, or Occidental use. Western use here denotes a "Royal We" used by Kings / Queens speaking on behalf of their people.