let's talk about what reality is. i subscribe to philosophical relativity and have multiple realities. my realities are hierarchically arranged with one metareality which i rarely use, but is there more for simplicity's sake, which allows me to have multiple working realities which can contradict each other, and sometimes themselves, but are useful nonetheless. in each reality i have multiple persons who share this human body who cooperate and share not only the physical resources, but also the mental resources and memories and thoughts and consciousness, it's not multiple personalities disorder where there are alter egos that sometimes fight for supremacy or are otherwise codiscordant. there are too many personalities to list here, and many of them are born or die, usually this happens multiple times per day, and often the lifetime of a temporary personality, which make up the majority, live for only a few minutes or hours or sometimes even days and are configured to most effectively complete a task and are set to efficiently self destruct after their purpose is complete. the more permanent ones are more background personalities meant to deal with their assigned social relations, of the oldest ones are those dealing with corporations such as banks, governments, insurances, excetera.


There is nothing to say that the place in which you are reading this post right now is more or less real than your imagination, or your dreams, or even a fictional world. I don't think there is a "reality", only familiarity. The place you are reading this post is more familiar and continuous than what is happening in your dreams. There is also the fact that nobody else is experiencing your dreams. But, all of this was still an experience that happened. I don't see what our concept of "reality" is even supposed to be. I've never been educated in this subject, so if this is completely stupid please tell me.


I too, used to pretend to be schizophrenic to convince myself that I'm more unique and intelligent than others.


It definitely sounds like MPD. You seem to have found some useful, if clugey, tools for psychic manipulation. Or 3 is dead on? /shrug

Still, it reminds me of the tree of life.
Atziluth, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah may roughly correspond to your perception of levels, and the paths may be personified or animated in your experience.


"MPD" search first gave "Music Player Daemon" but that's either irrelevant or you did not provide enough information showing it's relevance. second result is a wikipedia disambiguation page listing 38 entries, and i consider it unreasonable to try 38 possible definitions to see which fit. i propose that his gracious height of wisdom disambiguate.

i interpreted post 1 as there can be multiple realities, realities need not congrue, each person can have it's own reality and can have multiple realities, there can be multiple persons sharing 1 human body,
that multiple persons share 1 human body is interesting, i suppose if they had a mechanism for creating and destroying persons within that body at any time (so long as the creations and destructions are compliant to their agreements with each other), destroying the only person who holds certain disputory rights could be a powerful device ensuring freedom from dispution of certain acts of another person who might otherwise not participate in certain acts for fear of successful dispution causing restitution causing disproportionate harm to the disputee.
i wonder whether the persons sharing the body of the author of post 1 have a naming scheme and if what features it has.

i understand philosophical relativity as truth depending on which reality. not to be confused with
moral relativity, in which rightness of an act depends on the context of the act, or physical relativity, which i do not yet understand enough to provide a succinct description.

i maintain that there is no accessible nonreality, and that the question "is X real?" is trivial by it's answer always being "yes", while the more interesting and more useful question "how is X?" or "what do we know of X?", "what can be known of X?"


on a side note, i have no interest in digging through kabbalic literature, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary, to understand how this comment in post 4 is relevant to the discussion. i think mentioning something without explaining it's relevance and implications to the discussion is discourteous to anyone who is not the author of the comment mentioning it because they will each have to either already know the subject matter or dig through enough of the subject matter that they will be able to understand it to the point of knowing how the comment was relevant and what the implications of the comment to the discussion were, at which point they would not likely need such a comment, and it is discourteous to anyone who is the author of the comment because they will only be understood by an audience who already understand the relevance and implications of what was mentioned or who spend too much resources on finding out information related to banal comments made by strangers on the internet.




I think MPD is supposed to stand for multiple personality disorder, even though that isn't actually a real disorder.