There is something outside of our consciousness of it (this is a development of *materialism*), but it is not something that cannot be known by us. It relates to our own practice and thoughts.

When anyone tries to understand themselves, they must take into account their own history, including them understanding themselves, and the understanding of them understanding themselves and so on. It's an explosive infinite feedback.

So one can never truly capture oneself in thought at a given moment, but they can always be *a step behind* in a sense.

For example, I can understand that I have tried to understand what I am in the past, but I can't capture this process at the present moment.

**You said that I was talking about DID, but this is actually a reference to Lacan's notion of the split subject, or the barred S.**

DID involves a lack of being able to capture oneself at a level which is far greater than this, but also a sense that one does not understand themselves to such a great degree that it is thought that they are not themselves - there is something or someone else in their body that's controlling them.

It means that we must forever be looking at what we're doing and how we can change ourselves as individuals, as groups and as an entire network of reason-capable beings - i.e. as *humanity*.

okay

What are you sying with that

This is a far reach from what you said earlier .

I'm saying that we are not fundamentally determined by an outside force. Let me explain why this matters.

You were talking about a constant revolution that sounded like a forced dictatorship by authority

**It means that the only responsibility for our conditions lies on our shoulders.**

Yet you spoke of we

not only that you spoke of a outside force

What, 'material conditions'?

no the change

It is not something that any responsibility can be placed onto.

the change of being and thought and ideologies

...which we can condition and change ourselves?

The fact that it's currently unconsciously-mediated to a degree that's greater than our inherent lack of keeping up with ourselves does not mean that it's forever locked out of our consciousness.

...and, of course, our control as human beings!

There is no force outside us that 'controls' in the same way that we do, i.e. one which can be spoken of as a responsible subject.

And there is certainly no force that does this with us - we can never know of it; we can never wholly capture ourselves and know that we're truly being determined because of this exploding dialectic which Lacan uses the notion of the split subject to explain.

Watch century of the self

ppl are more controlled by outside forces then them selfs

change teh syle change the thought

nietze spook of this too

ppl are reactionairy animals

and you are saying that the "we communism" have to controll this

And you take this to be inevitable, and you want to do nothing about it.

Which is teh same as any other system

they all controll the ppl

it is all from autority and with force

I do not refer to a vanguard of Communists 'controlling the world', I refer to *all people*.

and ppl are not free

And you cant do anything about it as it is ppls nature

which the whole social engineering is based around

You are saying that outside forces control people, but how can you guarantee this when through thinking alone, we can in fact break out of this?

ever heard of sigil magic

And who do you think performs the social engineering?