9nt1QwUL

1Point One: Language
2
3Language, as a whole, is very predictable. There is a flow, a meter to it, learned from infancy through speech and the written word. In many cases this has shown to be exploitable, such as in optical illusions which repeat a word on separate lines, unnoticed by the majority; as such, it is provable that the subversion of certain linguistic patterns is, to a majority, unnoticed, provided it is innocuous or understated.
4
5In theory, the alternate uses for this pattern are near-endless, but broken language – pidgin languages and so on – are at the very least self-consistent, and this consistency lends them a meter of their own. It is not the broken language of beginners, but a full language built of the breaking of patterns of another, and as such cannot be categorised in the same manner. Its syntax may be a subversion of the familiar but the underlying patterns driving it distinguish it from the principle to be examined. 
6
7The applications of unnoticed language or meaning are a part of contract law which has necessitated a large increase in the training, employment and pay of lawyers, but that application is a small component of a far greater spectrum of uses. This thesis, for example, has shown itself to use a mixture of colloquial and formal language, sesquipedalian loquaciousness and shorter words with easier meanings. The purpose of this is to ensure that the following section will have the desired effect.
8
9While word fits meanin unwell, punctuation also suffixes to fits pattern expectation held. if dotcomma and abandon also word wrongs appears eye to the. 
10
11To translate: When the words are incorrect, poorly formed or broken in and of themselves, punctuation can suffice to allow the meter and flow to meet held expectations for at least some initil understanding. If punctuation is also abandoned, the words appear wrong to the eye.
12
13The wrongness seemingly inherent in that language section and the difficulty with which it is initially understood should serve to prove that “broken” language can be formed intentionally, and that its effects are different to those expected. Rather than, say, drawing the attention, the mind glosses over this broken section; rather than the seeming wrongness drawing the eye, it borders on painful to force comprehension. It abandons its own rules, and if done so correctly should be inconsistent, especially with itself, throughout. Making harder words correct beside misspelled or simply brokenly phrased shorter ones can serve to distinguish it from a child’s attempts, and it will very quickly take on a form in which it is repulsive to the conscious attention. As such, it can obscure, hide or even change perceived meaning, by offering a shortcut – an easy interpretation, which only closer scrutiny would disprove. Another parallel, it seems, to contract law. 
14
15Conversationally, this effect is more difficult – slurring words, perhaps, would work, but odd pronunciation is picked up rather than ignored. The trick, then, is to ensure that words will be perceived – through body language, or through posture, or intonation – differently to their meaning. A common political trick, certainly, of emphasis and buzzwords, but one which may yet have other applications and unfound underlying principle. After all, if we do not understand a foreign person’s speech, we may still infer meaning from their body language; by making body language, or other nonverbal elements, significantly easier to understand than the spoken words, we obscure our meaning. This sleight of language is the primary application, both written and verbal, for broken language, and the subversion of patterns – cognitive patterns which serve as useful shortcuts – means that it will largely be unnoticed.
16
17This principle is applicable elsewhere. In effect: The more surreal you can make a situation, the more control you have, so long as you choose the direction. Something sufficiently creative will mean that any time they must spend adapting to the new situation [as they will not have any existing patterns of thought upon which they can rely] is time in which you can press your advantage.
18
19
20Point Two: Control
21
22Control is always of paramount importance, be it self-, that of others, of a device or similar. In order to understand control, use the model of all things as having "minds". A human of average intelligence is a null-order mind - that is, a mind assigned value 0, serving as a normal. There is no modifier, thus null. In general, higher-order minds control lower-order minds. The rough structure is as follows:
23
24-Third-order minds: Capable of recognising and utilising the machinations of second-order minds; can generally adapt quickly and effectively to the formats of new minds in order to exert control; can cause any minds of a lower order without strong biases against to change opinions or beliefs.
25
26-Second-order minds: Capable of easily controlling null-order minds, and with a little effort controlling first-order minds. Can control lower-order minds individually or in small groups. Capable of multiple methods simultaneously to exert control.
27
28-First-order minds: Capable of changing the opinions of a null-order mind individually and sometimes in groups. Able to recognise most first-order attempts at manipulation; can predict or see through basic patterns or plans.
29
30-Null-order minds: Ordinary people. Generally do not seek to exert control over other minds, or do not have interest in plots which would. Most beliefs are well-reasoned, most opinions are changeable. Generally will follow common consensus. 
31
32-First-station minds: Advanced machines designed to affect and/or prompt user input, or people of generally submissive or changeable dispositions. Human examples are rare but generally known.
33
34-Second-station minds: Machines with interfaces to facilitate control. Direct programming, for instance. Their structure will restrict the control that can be exerted but they will be generally receptive, if within a constraining framework. They may prompt control or request it, and as such can cause null-order minds to exert control. Rare human examples exist or can be made to exist.
35
36-Third-station minds: Machines that exist in states of free and complete compliance. There is no framework beyond the pure instruction they are given. Human examples are rare enough to be negligible but can be created, given time.
37
38
39Point Three: Consciousness
40
41The conscious and subconscious minds, as a model for consciousness, works well. But it's not accurate. There is instinctual thinking done, and there is more considered thinking done, but that's more a distinction between two groups. The first, habits, instincts, reflexes and so on, is that which we do without consciously noticing it, but to call it the subconscious is wrong. It isn't "thought" in the sense of a process of reasoning, or a process with intelligence in and of itself; it's not the same thing hypnotists often mention, use and abuse in many of their inductions and works.
42
43And yet hypnosis works.
44
45The second group is "ordinary" thought, and is rarer. The subconscious is an idea easily accepted, in part because it lets most people assume that an absence of conscious, noticeable thought doesn't mean they're not thinking. It simply means it's "subconscious". The comparatively low density of conscious thought means that, in general, ideas that just seem to come to you are seen as a result of the subconscious. But that isn't an idea backed up by neuroscience, and may not be for many years if not decades to come.
46
47But I digress; if the subconscious truly doesn't exist, how does hypnosis achieve such things as helping people over addictions or depression where simple placebo fails? And that's where this theory comes in. To explain it, I need to first explain a principle behind it: Confabulation.
48
49Confabulation is, simply put, making up the reasons why you did something after you've done it. But not consciously doing so - it's often simply seen as thinking through your own actions and "realising" why you did what you did. One example of this effect is a woman given a post-hypnotic suggestion to put a book on a bookshelf from its position on a table; after, when asked why, she said it was because the book had looked out of place there. A completely false reason - but it makes sense. It's plausible. It fits.
50
51The human psyche seems to be completely able to latch on to patterns that appear - human pattern recognition, even when no patterns actually exist, is well-known to be automatic and pervasive. But when confabulation is taken into account, these patterns begin to seem like something more. And so it seems that the human psyche - the way we experience the way we think - is more a construct than a natural, emergent product of the brain.
52To give an example: How do you think? Do you hear yourself speak in your head? Do you hear others? Do you speak aloud? Do you argue for the angel and the devil, do you fraction off your mind into different, arguing perspectives? These are how it is often portrayed in media, and in many of the cases I've observed of schizophrenia and similar mental disorders they are experienced in the manner that they are expected to. Those who've seen therapists align far more with the listed symptoms than those who simply experience multiple consciousnesses, interchangeably - and those people tend to align with certain fictions that they have encountered.
53
54But this isn't just theory. By using these premises, I've successfully helped someone deal with a malevolent personality - anecdotal evidence but very encouraging.
55
56If I haven't made it clear what the theory is, it's that the psyche as you experience it is both only artificially fixed and actively changeable, but let me know which parts are unclear as well.
57
58A summary: The psyche, or human experience of consciousness, is not [as in Freudian psychology] a combination of three parts [reason, instinct and a mediator], nor [as in Jungian psychology] a combination of a huge number of parts [with most emphasis placed on the conscious and sub/unconscious], nor [as in modern cognitive psychology, as most famously explained by Kahneman] purely a combination of "fast" instinctual, intuitive responses and "slow", reasoned ones. The psyche is, directly contrary to dualism, nothing but a construct of the mind formed over a great deal of years [becoming most fixed between 15 and 20, in most cases I've seen] and therefore can exist in many different states. Conditions such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder arise from this construct becoming complex enough that it is believed without being experienced first [beyond being imagined], and become believed enough that imagined experiences begin to become actual ones.
59
60The model's most salient points [that I have found]: -The psyche is not fixed, and so conditions such as multiple personalities are curable and/or changeable [proven possible]; -The psyche is not inbuilt from birth, and exposure to differing models of it in fiction or reality can directly affect an individual's own experience [proven possible but this is only anecdotal evidence from my own experience]; -The experience of consciousness is not constant, and the mind is rarely active - ie the subconscious does not exist; -If a phenomenon affecting the psyche, such as hypnotism, is imagined or believed strongly enough, its effects exceed placebo as they affect the structure and/or function of the psyche itself [as the psyche is itself an imagined/artificial construct].
61
62As an aside, this model has directly affected me. I've found myself able to - under the right conditions - actively avoid "consciousness" and just process sensory data ambiently. It meant that I did not consciously experience the passing of time, and a half-hour wait felt like seconds. It's the same effect as hindsight - at the end of a week, it may seem to have gone by fast, but while experiencing it it's of the same length as ever. By avoiding consciously experiencing, the consciousness is in effect able to "skip" time.
63
64
65Point Four: States of Mind
66
67For every individual there is a personal philosophy, a pattern of thoughts, beliefs, opinions into which they will settle and be comfortable. Things which are consistent with one another and the individual's experiences, and as such are a stable state.
68
69Let's consider this personal philosophy as a state, one of many possible states [possible states meaning states in which the individual will be at different points in their life]. As such, this state can be considered not as the final state but as the most stable - the one in which they spend the most time. Stability can be defined as the ratio between two factors How easy it is to enter the state, and how easy it is to leave the state [easy here being used to denote probability for a given entity to enter or leave a state].
70
71It is easy to leave a philosophy which is inconsistent with the world, or with other, more strongly-held beliefs. Conflicting beliefs mean that the overall stability of the belief system is lower, whether they conflict with one another or with observable fact. In some cases this will be overcome by some reasoning or argument, which can be observed in climate-change skeptics [who have found arguments or justifications allowing them to hold beliefs which conflict with widely accepted and proven fact]; in other cases this destabilisation will cause the individual's belief state to shift.
72
73This shift will, effectively, take the form of a re-evaluation or replacement of beliefs. It may be immediate - one belief being directly replaced by another; it may take a brief intermission - one belief being shown to be wrong, and a replacement found; it may be a long process - a dearly-held belief being lost, emotional turmoil and instability taking place in the interim and a new belief being tentatively found, if at all. However, this does not prove anything but that the final philosophy is stable.
74
75If humans lived to 200, these more stable states might be re-evaluated in due course as some observations became more prevalent, less prevalent or simply disproven. Optimists might see too many negative examples to keep their outlook; cynics might see too many inspirational examples to remain doubtful. While these examples are simplistic, they illustrate a possibility if not a fact That the stability of a belief state does not dictate its validity.
76A qualifier A belief state's stability and validity are not unrelated. An invalid state will, in general, be less stable than one closer to validity [objective, absolute validity in a belief state cannot yet be proven, and so proximity to this imagined state will be used instead of this state itself]. Likewise, an unstable state is likely to be further from validity than a stable one. This qualifier taken into account, the statement can be better seen as A completely stable belief state may still not be a correct one, the most valid one or even the optimal one.
77
78For a given belief state, there are three interesting qualities: Its stability, its longevity and its validity. Longevity and stability are correlated statistically, but this is a pattern and not a rule. Validity and stability are often seen as related, if not identical. A thought experiment to prove otherwise:
79
80A belief state of absolute cynicism, believing every good act to be intended to appear good rather than to perform any good, is stable, as no good act disproves it. Clearly it is invalid; there are always good acts, even if they are few. But it is stable. As such, another method for finding a valid state must be found.
81
82It is possible to think nonconsciously, as already outlined. It is possible thereby to go from given premises to a conclusion, even if the reasoning is not as easy to see. As such, it is possible to nonconsciously test a belief state: Find its premises [in the example above, that all good acts are motivated by pretense], and examine them nonconsciously. If the premises form the same conclusions nonconsciously as the belief state, then they have passed a preliminary test; that is only one method.
83
84As to philosophical "loops", these are premises which are self-justifying - that is, belief states which ensure their own stability. The above is one example, in which any examples which would disprove the state are accounted for as false; these states are always stable and far from valid. As such, a test for validity is disprovability: is the argument or state valid because it accounts for evidence against it, or is it valid because no such evidence exists?
85Think of belief states as an evolutionary entity. The unstable states die off quickly, and as they change, the net movement is towards stability [simply due to the longevity of stable states]. As such, the most long-lived states will be defined by their stability - their inability to be changed - rather than their validity. There is a strong selection pressure for stability and none for validity.
86
87As such, here is the universal testing method for aspects of consciousness, mind and so on:
881: Does the nonconscious conclusion from the premises match the conscious one?
892: Do the premises allow themselves to be disproven?
903: Do any of the premises rely on reasoning or justification of their own? If so, does that reasoning pass the above tests?
914: Is the conclusion unique? Are there other conclusions which could be reached from the premises, and would they be equally valid?
92These four questions - while simple - are the basic procedure for testing any principle within the mind.
93
94
95Point Five: Uses of the Construct of the Mind: Another Entry Point
96
97If you learn how to dance, you can avoid unhappiness whenever you want, and you don't even need to bottle it up. You can deal with anger in a snap. You can avoid ever being manipulated or provoked.
98
99Obviously, this isn't physical dancing. If it were, I'd be no good at teaching it. But anyway.
100
101This is based on a simple principle: There is no "deep down". Yet.
102When people say "look deep down", they mean "try to act in a way society thinks is great". Nobody's born with a "deep down". The conscience, according to modern neuroscience and psychology, is decided based largely on the things experienced between birth and age 5, when the brain is most fluid. Between 5 and 12 it can be easily changed as the brain isn't completely settled yet.
103
104All the times people tell you look deep down it's tricky because you end up just trying to do what you think they mean. If they say look deep down for the right thing, you try to figure out what it is. That's why children often seem cruel; they don't look deep down much. They rarely have time for introspection. I should know, I'm (just about) still a child.
105
106A lot of people create this "deep down", this conscience, through religion. They put teachings and wisdom deep down. They learn from the wise, the great and the good in the past because concrete rules are easier than the fuzzy logic you would otherwise need.
107Dancing is about realising there isn't anything deep down. It's about realising the only reason you act consistently is because that's how you see yourself: consistent.
108
109It's more natural for humans to change a lot based on mood. People with mood swings, people with less restraint and, in general, anyone up to the end of their teenage years will change very rapidly as their opinions mature.
110
111These opinions, views and interests form a sort of shell around the deep down. A personality. But at the core of this personality is something most people ignore if they ever notice it: that there isn't any major underlying principle. 
112
113To dance, there are easy steps. But before you know it well, before you're practiced, try the following:
114
1151. Picture yourself in an extreme of a mood - very happy, very sad, something like that - and something associated with it. For an example, the act of grinning as wide as you can could be associated with happiness.
116
1172. Give a name or title to that frame of mind. Everything associated with it. This is working on the principle that you act differently depending on who you're around; if, instead of depending on others, you can become dependent on yourself for these changes, you have learned to dance.
118
1193. Actively picture this frame of mind. Make it solid. Act like that, induce that mood, as much as you can in order to learn everything about it. Make it almost a separate person.
120
1214. Repeat the process until you have a few for different moods. It can be more than moods but they're the easiest starting point.
122
1235. Practice in times with little emotional strain. Make sure you can go from one to the other easily. You don't have to be able to make yourself weep or vomit or anything like that; it's just about making sure you can act a certain way, react to things a certain way and so on. Sometimes associating different songs with each of these moods can help as a trigger.
124
1256. Make sure you can easily and fluidly change the way you react to things. This, basically, means being able to move through the spectrum of moods or stimuli quickly. If you can dance fast, it means that it becomes more natural. Remember, none of this is acting like anything but yourself - if you'd act differently around, say, your gran than you would around your friends, that's an example of the same principle.
126
127That's the easiest example by which to learn. If that's all you want - to be able to dance, making sure your mind responds to what you want rather than outside stimuli - you don't need to read on. For a bit of background information that might be useful, continue.
128
129The idea of dancing is based loosely on something I once realised. Everyone's eyes are covered, almost always, by the shadow of the person's forehead; this is because the eyes are sunken back a little way into the face. When you tilt your head to a light, or take a photo with the flash at the right angle, your eyes will look a different colour. And by looking at that I went along a boring, winding train of thought that ended up at the following:
130A person's personality, the way they act, is defined by two things. Expectation and impression. Based on how they've acted before, people (including the person themselves) expect a certain personality, a certain set of responses; based on how the person is at any given time, they'll act a certain way. By ignoring expectation one can act much more fluidly in accordance with how they actually are at the time; it takes a lot of willpower to do this, but once you do it means that dancing is much easier, as you're able to much more easily act the way you choose rather than according to other factors.
131
132Yes, obviously you should still be less rude to your grandmother than to your friends, but dancing lets you experience the full range of, well, experiences. You can live every little bit of your own life, not just the ones you're expected to or have chosen to previously. In normal life, you have to be arriving somewhere new to change significantly and reinvent yourself according to how you feel currently; but humans change so fast this rarely helps long-term. Learning to dance means accepting that there isn't anything much that's been solidly defined under the shadow, under the expectation, but also realising that it means you don't need to be any given way at all. It means you can be you - all of you - and that you're never restricted by anything in the past.
133
134I think the easiest way to sum it up is like multiple personalities, only it's just multiple versions of the same one. Like one person with different masks to wear, and each mask changes the way the person acts. The best way to learn to dance quickly is above; to perfect it, just practice, practice, practice. If possible, doing so with another person can help build up these different roles and you can help one another, but be sure this is a person you trust with all of you.
135
136
137Conclusions to Draw:
138
139-Consciousness is a construct
140
141-Conscious thought is not necessary but habitual
142
143-Nonconscious thought is faster but imprecise
144
145-The nature of the consciousness as a construct can be taken advantage of via adjustments to the construct [as in point five] or uses outside it [as in point four]
146
147-The mind and the experience of consciousness can be objectively measured and observed