The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father ( *Spoilers* )
Gwen5000
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
YOu wrote:
>Actually it was made very clear that the Corps was not aware of >the multiple
personalities, and that the one they were aware of >was only a P-10.
THen how do you explain that a P-10 is not capable of being a mind shreader and
the Psi-Corp guy (briefing Bester) told Bester that the blip is a mind
shreader?
>"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel
>Midnight<BR>
>(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother) <BR>
>blak...@best.com<BR>
>
Roberta Fucci (Gwen...@aol.com)
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean I'm wrong..........
Karen Davis
spoiler space
I was under the impression that what the P12 did to the lurker was NOT
mind shredding, but rather what you might call "brain shredding". Mind
shredding destroys the mind, but doesn't kill.
--
Karen Davis
"YOU'RE trying to create art. THEY'RE going out for burgers.
You know what I mean? Picasso understood this."
-- Joe Bob Briggs
Uncle Al
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
Mark Kinney wrote:
>
> Spoilers for The Corps Is Mother, The Corps Is Father...
>
> I was thinking about this episode at work today... you know, apart from
> there not being semi-naked women in the opening credits and not being as
> much of an in media res teaser, it has very much the feel of a James Bond
> film. (No, I'm not saying there's a ripoff in effect, just that there is
> something of a feel of that, and maybe a few of the conventions in there).
>
> Al Bester, the intrepid agent, goes on this mission, saddled with one or
> more somewhat underqualified assistants. The demo of the psychic duel
> will have to do for the Q section visit... :-)
>
> Bester gets hit on by the female intern. She is more of less rebuffed at
> first. She tries again at the end, and may or may not have been rebuffed
> again, in much the same manner as Bond seems to manage. The difference,
> of course, is that Bester didn't get laid along the way, as well. :-)
>
> What can I say, it felt like a Moore-era Bond film to me. An interesting
> way for this one to feel, I think.
Remember, the first femme in every Bond flick dies. Of course, Bester's
tastes may be more catholic than we imagine, leading to the Asian being
redshirted.
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Carl N. Hoff
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
I had a quick question about "The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father".
When Bester, Lauren, and Chen first walk out of Bester's boss' office
to our right in the corridor is the sign that reads:
THE CORPS IS MOTHER
THE CORPS IS FATHER
To our left across from this sign is a sign that I cann't make out.
It looks like:
NAT????
PATERNS
Anybody know what this sign says?
Thanks,
Carl
HFMoon
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
<<THen how do you explain that a P-10 is not capable of being a mind shreader
and
the Psi-Corp guy (briefing Bester) told Bester that the blip is a mind
shreader?>>
No, he told Bester that the P-10 had been training in the "Attack scan"(or
something to that effect) technique. When Bester saw the corpse, he said(in
effect) that the blip was a P-10, and P-10's aren't capable of doing "that sort
of damage".
Sounds to me like the difference between being trained to punch and being able
to crush someone's skull with a single blow....
Richard, Euph
<*>
"You can't fight evil with a macaroni duck!!!"
-Arthur
Jill Crowther-Peters
SPOILER SPACE
i ain't gonna do no fancy
do dads cause
i get lost on my keyboard.....
Then how do you explain that a P-10 is not capable of being a mind
shredder and
the Psi-Corp guy (briefing Bester) told Bester that the blip is a mind
shredder?
Okay let me have a stab at this.
Psi Corp guy does not know that the blip was only a P-10. He ONLY knows
what the evidence shows him...a dead man with a shredded mind.
Bestor KNOWS that the blip is only a P-10, and that ONLY a P-12 can be a
mind shredder. Notice his expression when he tries to make both
statements jive with each other.
on one hand on the other hand
"He's a mind shredder" "He's only a P-10"
BUT the victim was killed BUT He's only a p-10
by a mind shredder
"Okay, THERE IS SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW"
In order to make both of these statements true, Bestor el al, had to
find the link. That link was split personalities.
Both statements were true, when seen through the filter of the mental
defect.
Sooooooooo.Yes, the blip (forgive me I forgot his name) is both a P-10
and a mind-shredding P-12 due to his multiple personalities.
Can I go home now...my head hurts...
Jill
jamiet
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
With all the discussion of this ep, maybe someone could help with some info.
What else has the actor who played the rogue teep done. I knew as I watched
that he looked very familiar, but I guess my mind has turned to
teflon -nothing sticks anymore. I'd appreciate any help.
Thanks...
Jamiet
Jms at B5
It says Maternis, Paternis. Mother, father. Latin.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Gary D. Duzan
In article <353B73...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>,
Carl N. Hoff <ho...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:
=>Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>I had a quick question about "The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father".
=>When Bester, Lauren, and Chen first walk out of Bester's boss' office
=>to our right in the corridor is the sign that reads:
=>
=> THE CORPS IS MOTHER
=> THE CORPS IS FATHER
=>
=>To our left across from this sign is a sign that I cann't make out.
=>It looks like:
=>
=> NAT????
=> PATERNS
=>
=>Anybody know what this sign says?
Maternis/Paternis, Latin for Mother/Father, if I remember correctly.
I'm not certain of the instance to which you refer, but these words did
appear in the logo for the Psi Corps training video.
Gary D. Duzan
Humble Practitioner of the Computing Arts
Gwen5000
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
Karen wrote:
>I was under the impression that what the P12 did to the lurker was >NOT mind
shredding, but rather what you might call "brain >shredding". Mind shredding
destroys the mind, but doesn't >kill.
>--Karen Davis
Hmmmm, you have a point there Karen....... I guess Bester never confirmed
what did happen to that guy Franklin found.
Matthew W Buckley
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated: 20-Apr-98 The
Corps is Mother, the Co.. by Gwen...@aol.com
> Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Actually it was made very clear that the Corps was not aware of >the
multiple
>
> personalities, and that the one they were aware of >was only a P-10.
>
shreader an
> d
> the Psi-Corp guy (briefing Bester) told Bester that the blip is a mind
>
I didn't get that from the scene. I understood it to mean that the victim's
mind was MORE SHREDDED than Bester expected. Just as most telepaths can do
a scan, but Bester could do it better than pre-Vorlonified Lyta.
My 2 credits.
_ _ __
/ \/ \ | | | | |__| | | /__ Read it upside <*>
| | | \__|___|__ | |__ | | \ down!
| | | __ | __|___|__ | | |
| | __| | | | \ | | | ###################################
| | |__| | | | | \_/\_/ # Matthew Buckley: sau...@cmu.edu #
###################################
Homepage URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/andrew/usr/sauron/www/
co...@rice.edu
Right---except "mother, father" in Latin would be, depending on the case:
nom mater, pater matres, patri
gen matris, patri matrum, patrorum
dat matri, patro matribus, patris
acc matrem, patrum matres, patros
abl matre, patro matribus, patris
(I'm pretty sure that's correct -- my Latin's a little rusty. IIRC,
though, mater is a feminine third-declension, not second. Like I said,
though, it's been 4 years since I've done Latin.)
Richard
Michael J. Hennebry
In article <3542d36a...@news.indy.net>,
Rhiannon <rhia...@indy.net> wrote:
>Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Disassociative Identity Disorder <which in it's extreme forms leads to
>multiple personalities>is a preservation method, usually adapted by a young
>fairly intelligent child who has undergone something they can't cope with
>on thier own. <I.E. molestation, ritual abuse, severe physical trauma>
>People who have it don't ask for it, they are victims of something.
>Disassociating, or fracturing in extreme cases, takes place in order to
>survive what is happening to them.
>
>Now, granted, it makes these people radically different from society, but
>since it is thier method of surviving, I don't understand someone saying
>"It's a bad thing." It helped them survive something horrible they should
>have never gone through, how can that be bad? Why is being "different"
>always considered being "bad?" I usually hear the "MPD is bad" statement
>from someone who has no knowledge of the illness other than what they have
>seen on TV.
I don't regard what I see on TV about MPD as information,
but one must deal with people who do.
MPD is certainly better than non-survival. Better than non-survival is
not the same as good. MPD, in the case where there is not complete sharing
of memories of events, is bad for the same reason that other blackouts are bad.
With what we know about PsiCorps, any PsiCorps-induced multiple personality
is going to be a murderer. BTW that does not mean that the first killing
was murder.
>them are utterly appalled at society and just want to be left alone. Just
>because one person with a diagnoses of MPD has committed a crime or has a
>violent alter doesn't mean they all do, that's like saying because one
>bricklayer killed someone that all bricklayers are potental killers.
Keep it up and there will soon be a law against convicted felons owning bricks.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I think, therefore it missed." -- The Doctor
John W Kennedy
Rhiannon wrote:
>
> Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
> >Third, I also came away feeling that Psi Corps itself may well have had
> >something to do with causing his fragmentation. (You understand, I
> >hope, that I can sympathize with Multiples and still think that --
> >judging from the case histories I have encountered -- being a Multiple
> >is a Bad Thing, even if you're a Good Person.)
>
> Okay, I haven't followed this whole thread, but just wanted to share
> something with you...
>
> Disassociative Identity Disorder <which in it's extreme forms leads to
> multiple personalities>is a preservation method, usually adapted by a young
> fairly intelligent child who has undergone something they can't cope with
> on thier own. <I.E. molestation, ritual abuse, severe physical trauma>
> People who have it don't ask for it, they are victims of something.
> Disassociating, or fracturing in extreme cases, takes place in order to
> survive what is happening to them.
>
> Now, granted, it makes these people radically different from society, but
> since it is thier method of surviving, I don't understand someone saying
> "It's a bad thing." It helped them survive something horrible they should
> have never gone through, how can that be bad? Why is being "different"
> always considered being "bad?" I usually hear the "MPD is bad" statement
> from someone who has no knowledge of the illness other than what they have
> seen on TV.
Because A) it comes from bad things (I have never heard of a case of MPD
arising from a benign cause.) and B) in practice, it seems to make life
extremely unpleasant for the victim. I certainly don't advocate
shooting everyone who needs a wheelchair, but, on the whole, I'd still
rather not be one of them.
Now of course, you can argue that "If Society didn't treat MPD so
horribly, why then...," but that's really rather disingenuous, as
witness the fact that so many (all?) known cases are the result of MPD
being diagnosed as the _real_ problem behind perceived major psychiatric
complaints. At the very least, many (most? all?) cases require
intervention to the extent of identifying the situation, assisting the
less-aware personalities to deal with it, and getting the more-aware
personalities to treat the others with respect. About integration
therapy, I am in far more doubt, if only for the practical reason that
it doesn't seem to work very well.
> Hollywood has taken this illness and portrayed it in such a way that
> everyone thinks people with MPD have psychopathic killers hanging out in
> thier head somewhere, that these people are ticking time bombs. The lawyers
> and court systems have jumped on this inaccuracy and claimed it for clients
> who've committed crimes, urging the court shrink to diagnose them with this
> just so they can cop a plea. Lawyers often provide thier clients with a
> "profile" to follow, to act, to convince the court shrink. The court
> shrink sees the client maybe once, come on!!! It takes several sessions of
> therapy to diagnose a mental illness. The lawyers know that the average Joe
> doesn't know anymore about MPD then what they see on TV.
>
> Newsflash folks, most MPD people are more likely to injure themselves than
> to hurt someone else. Most of them are frightened and confused. Most of
> them are utterly appalled at society and just want to be left alone. Just
> because one person with a diagnoses of MPD has committed a crime or has a
> violent alter doesn't mean they all do, that's like saying because one
> bricklayer killed someone that all bricklayers are potental killers.
>
> Please, don't buy into the hollywood mythos on this. I was really saddened
> to see JMS and the B5 crew perpetuate this concept. I wish someone in
> Hollywood would feature someone with Dissassociation in a realistic light.
John W Kennedy
Well, actually, that ain't "Mother, Father".
"To the maternals, to the paternals." or
"From the maternals, from the paternals.".
Or, in theory, "from" one and "to" the other, but that would be most
unnatural without a context that would make a bon mot of it.
"Mother, Father" would be "Mater, Pater".
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> It says Maternis, Paternis. Mother, father. Latin.
>
Mikel Midnight
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
In article <6hkvah$6...@plains.NoDak.edu>, henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
(Michael J. Hennebry) wrote:
> In article <3542d36a...@news.indy.net>,
> Rhiannon <rhia...@indy.net> wrote:
> >Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >Disassociative Identity Disorder <which in it's extreme forms leads to
> >multiple personalities>is a preservation method, usually adapted by a young
> >fairly intelligent child who has undergone something they can't cope with
> >on thier own. <I.E. molestation, ritual abuse, severe physical trauma>
> >People who have it don't ask for it, they are victims of something.
> >Disassociating, or fracturing in extreme cases, takes place in order to
> >survive what is happening to them.
> >
> >Now, granted, it makes these people radically different from society, but
> >since it is thier method of surviving, I don't understand someone saying
> >"It's a bad thing." It helped them survive something horrible they should
> >have never gone through, how can that be bad? Why is being "different"
> >always considered being "bad?" I usually hear the "MPD is bad" statement
> >from someone who has no knowledge of the illness other than what they have
> >seen on TV.
>
> I don't regard what I see on TV about MPD as information, but one must deal
> with people who do. MPD is certainly better than non-survival. Better than
> non-survival is not the same as good. MPD, in the case where there is not
> complete sharing of memories of events, is bad for the same reason that other
> blackouts are bad.
"Dealing with people who do" is what we are attempting to do by critiquing
the show. It's not possible to go out and find everyone who thinks MP's
should be locked away in institutions (and I have met such people) but is
is possible to critique the source, in the hopes that future depictions
will be less biased.
> With what we know about PsiCorps, any PsiCorps-induced multiple personality
> is going to be a murderer. BTW that does not mean that the first killing
> was murder.
I think most of us who were disturbed by the show, would have been less so
had it been made clear that the MP had been induced by the Corps ... but I
see absolutely no evidence of that in the show, other than a tendency to
assume the worst about Psi Corps.
> >them are utterly appalled at society and just want to be left alone. Just
> >because one person with a diagnoses of MPD has committed a crime or has a
> >violent alter doesn't mean they all do, that's like saying because one
> >bricklayer killed someone that all bricklayers are potental killers.
>
> Keep it up and there will soon be a law against convicted felons owning
> bricks.
Why do people always assume that a critique of something is equivalent to a
call for censorship? I haven't heard *anyone* proposing that poor
depictions of MP on television should be "banned."
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
HFMoon
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
<<"Dealing with people who do" is what we are attempting to do by critiquing
the show. It's not possible to go out and find everyone who thinks MP's
should be locked away in institutions (and I have met such people) but is
is possible to critique the source, in the hopes that future depictions
will be less biased.>>
I agree with the first part, but I still, as myself, can't say that this single
episode of B5 could be called a "biased". It seems to me that most of the
criticism of the portrayal has been seeing the guy first as a haver of MPD, and
then asking why this MPD was shown to be a murderer. IOW, it's been based on a
flase premise, that the initial idea was to show an MPD doing something bad.
It seems much more likely that the murder aspect came first, the MPD second,
mostly because of the way the "murderer" personality was set up as the "gun on
the wall", the clue to the twist-to-come.
Now, this isn't to say that it was a perfectly fine way to portray an MPD
"sufferer"(please do not misconstrue my use of that term), but neither was
Number 1 sleeping with Stephen without bothering to really get to know the guy
a great way to portray statuesque blond, nor was Stephen's friend from
"Infection" a great way to portray Archaeologists, Nor is Pembleton's
over-the-top anger a great way to portray Black Catholics in Baltimore.
On the other side, it would be nice if we could get around to seeing people
with MPD as normal, well-adjusted people with troubled pasts, as well it would
be nice to see someone with Multiple Sclerosis outside of a wheel-chair living
the full lives most MS sufferers *do* live.
<<I think most of us who were disturbed by the show, would have been less so
had it been made clear that the MP had been induced by the Corps ... but I
see absolutely no evidence of that in the show, other than a tendency to
assume the worst about Psi Corps.>>
Why? What does where it was induced have to do with it? The crimes weren't
random, nor directed against the Corps as such, but more to protect the
secret...
<<Why do people always assume that a critique of something is equivalent to a
call for censorship? I haven't heard *anyone* proposing that poor
depictions of MP on television should be "banned.">>
The first post in the initial thread about this topic came pretty darn close.
In essence, only "bad" depictions of MPs should be banned, while all those
portrayals of racist white people and irrational black people and supercilious
English people and forboding Russians and so on and so forth are okay.
Mikel Midnight
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
In article <199804250532...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
hfm...@aol.com (HFMoon) wrote:
> Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with the first part, but I still, as myself, can't say that this
> single episode of B5 could be called a "biased". It seems to me that most of
> the criticism of the portrayal has been seeing the guy first as a haver of
> MPD, and then asking why this MPD was shown to be a murderer. IOW, it's been
> based on a flase premise, that the initial idea was to show an MPD doing
> something bad.
> It seems much more likely that the murder aspect came first, the MPD
> second,mostly because of the way the "murderer" personality was set up as the
> "gun onthe wall", the clue to the twist-to-come.
> Now, this isn't to say that it was a perfectly fine way to portray an
> MPD"sufferer"(please do not misconstrue my use of that term), but neither was
> Number 1 sleeping with Stephen without bothering to really get to know the guy
> a great way to portray statuesque blond, nor was Stephen's friend from
> "Infection" a great way to portray Archaeologists, Nor is Pembleton's
> over-the-top anger a great way to portray Black Catholics in Baltimore.
But we see statuesque blondes, archaeologists, and Black Catholics in a
variety of roles on television (not as many as we ought to probably). But
outside of a very few number of trauma-of-the-week TV movies (Sybil, When
Rabbit Howls) almost every *dramatic* depiction of an MP on television has
been a murderer. It's a sterotype, and jms has stated repeatedly that he
is concerned about avoiding sterotypes in the show (although he has
apparently been unconcerned with this particular thread).
> <<I think most of us who were disturbed by the show, would have been less so
> had it been made clear that the MP had been induced by the Corps ... but I
> see absolutely no evidence of that in the show, other than a tendency to
> assume the worst about Psi Corps.>>
>
> Why? What does where it was induced have to do with it? The crimes weren't
> random, nor directed against the Corps as such, but more to protect the
> secret...
If the Corps had programmed an MP, (a) the character would have been a
victim of the Corps in the same way that Garibaldi was, not merely a threat
to be extinguished; and (b) it would have been credible that violence had
been programmed into the attack alter specifically, rather than what was
actually depicted which suggested that MP's are typically violent once they
are "outed".
> <<Why do people always assume that a critique of something is equivalent to a
> call for censorship? I haven't heard *anyone* proposing that poor
> depictions of MP on television should be "banned.">>
>
> The first post in the initial thread about this topic came pretty darn close.
> In essence, only "bad" depictions of MPs should be banned, while all those
> portrayals of racist white people and irrational black people and supercilious
> English people and forboding Russians and so on and so forth are okay.
I don't see anywhere in the post the suggestion that anything should be
banned, or a suggestion that stereotypical portrayals of other ethnic
groups are okay.
I've said this I think three times so far on this and related threads and I
am beginning to wonder if people are simply incapable of understanding
basic distinctions.
All sterotypes are bad. Stereotypical depictions of irrational black
people are bad, and stereotypical depictions of murderous MP's are bad.
However, we have seen more than one sort of black person on B5, which
suggests that not all black people are irrational. One sees more than one
sort of black person on TV in general, which suggests (again) that not all
black people are irrational. MP's are no more dangerous to the general
population than any other sort of person. However, almost every dramatic
depiction of an MP casts them as a murderer. When dramatic presentations
of MP's become more accurate and balanced in general, depictions of them as
murderous won't be a big deal. However, a presentation by a creative
person of a murderous MP under present-day circumstances from a writer who
has claimed to be concrened about presenting stereotypes, strikes some of
us as irresponsible.
Mena Ryan
Mikel Midnight wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Keep it up and there will soon be a law against convicted felons owning
> > bricks.
>
> Why do people always assume that a critique of something is equivalent to a
> call for censorship? I haven't heard *anyone* proposing that poor
> depictions of MP on television should be "banned."
Because a lot of times it does. Someone will always suggest it and
when people don't think for themselves
and the mob mentality has kicked in, laws change and not always for
the better. An example would be the air bag thing. Remember how they
were such a wonderful thing and they became required on cars? Now we
find out that they can kill children and smaller adults. People are now
calling for them to be removed. You just can't win with a public that
is
prone to knee-jerk reactions.
Mena
Damien R. Sullivan
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
Glenn.A...@solutia.com (Glenn A Thibert) wrote:
>Season 3: Half of the actors "rotate in" to face front when their credit
>appears, the other half do not. Was this rotation effect intentional, and if
>so, why do only half of them do it?
There was no significance to the rotations. We tried finding some at the
time (like whether or not the character "changed" during the season), and
eventually JMS revealed that he was somewhat shocked at the level of detail
we'd pick at. We all thought it was perfectly natural by then, and were
somewhat disappointed.
>Season 5: I noticed you changed the end of the credits! The ship no longer
>has your name painted on it as it swings into view, it just says Babylon 5 and
>your credit appears in normal text. Why the change? I liked it before..
1) It's a _station_, as in being stationary, and not moving. Not a ship.
2) Err, did you notice the Psi Corps logo in place of the B-5 logo earlier?
The B-5 shield got bounced to the end, thereby displacing the graffiti. Is it
permanent? Tune in for the next new episode and find out...
-xx- ROU Random Identity X-)
For years a secret shame destroyed my peace --
I'd not read Eliot, Auden or MacNiece.
But now I think a thought that brings me hope:
Neither had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope.
-- Justin Richardson.
Steve Brinich
Jill Crowther-Peters wrote:
>
> SPOILER SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Okay let me have a stab at this.
>
> Psi Corp guy does not know that the blip was only a P-10. He ONLY
> knows what the evidence shows him...a dead man with a shredded mind.
>
> Bestor KNOWS that the blip is only a P-10, and that ONLY a P-12 can
> be a mind shredder. Notice his expression when he tries to make both
> statements jive with each other.
>
> on one hand on the other hand
> "He's a mind shredder" "He's only a P-10"
> BUT the victim was killed BUT He's only a p-10
> by a mind shredder
>
>
> "Okay, THERE IS SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW"
>
> In order to make both of these statements true, Bestor el al, had to
> find the link. That link was split personalities.
> Both statements were true, when seen through the filter of the mental
> defect.
> Sooooooooo.Yes, the blip (forgive me I forgot his name) is both a P-10
> and a mind-shredding P-12 due to his multiple personalities.
>
> Can I go home now...my head hurts...
> Jill
Didn't the other senior Psi Cop at HQ warn Bester that Harris was
a mind shredder? That indicates that Harris' known personality (a P-10)
had been trained in that skill.
However, it makes sense if Bester recognized the _extent_ of the
damage wrought by Harris as something beyond the capability of a P-10
even with mind-shredding training. The solution is that the P-12
"guardian" personality also had access to that skill (multiple personalities
don't necessarily differ in _every_ aspect, and the mind-shredding skill
is just the sort of thing a guardian personality would glom on to).
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Kylinn
Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>Anyway - all this misses the point. The mundane was given to Psi Corps
>so we could see the sweet, hero-worshipping intern casually 'lose her
>virginity' (so to speak) by chucking her first mundane out an airlock.
>
> After all the time spent showing us how the Psi Cops can see themselves
>as good folks doing good works, I knew jms had a punch in the face
>waiting for us. The basic ... evil ... in that last scene was still a
>shocker, to me at least.
Hmm --- my reaction to that scene was very different. It was
an "oh, god, here he (jms) goes, pushing our buttons again".
Threw me totally out of the show. I don't mind being
manipulated for a dramatic point - that's what a lot of good
writing's about, after all - but I do mind when I can see the
hand of the author hovering over the stage, so to speak. It
was just too much; like all those "obey" signs all over Psi
Corps HQ. A bit less blatent, more subtle, please.
I had a similar problem with Bester re-playing the recording
of the teep "cracking" 3 times. I mean - sheesh - _I heard it
the first time - one replay would have been more than enough.
Heck, we're _B5_ fans - we're the obsessive-compulsives who
count candles, watch backgrounds, and listen to *every* word
for arc clues - we don't need to be beaten over the head to get
the point, thank you very much!
Steve Brinich
Rhiannon wrote:
>
> Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> since it is thier method of surviving, I don't understand someone saying
> "It's a bad thing." It helped them survive something horrible they should
> have never gone through, how can that be bad? Why is being "different"
> always considered being "bad?" I usually hear the "MPD is bad" statement
> from someone who has no knowledge of the illness other than what they have
> seen on TV.
Obviously, the meaning is that it's bad that someone suffered the sort
of abuse that caused MPD, and that someone is now going through the
difficulties created by MPD.
I found Harris to be rather sympathetic, especially given the implication
that his condition was caused (or at least brought to the surface) by
one of Psi Corps' lovely little experiments.
> Newsflash folks, most MPD people are more likely to injure themselves than
> to hurt someone else. Most of them are frightened and confused. Most of
> them are utterly appalled at society and just want to be left alone.
Which is just how Harris was depicted -- wanting to be left alone, and
lashing out when cornered.
HFMoon
Spoiler space for TCiM,TCiF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<But we see statuesque blondes, archaeologists, and Black Catholics in a
variety of roles on television (not as many as we ought to probably). But
outside of a very few number of trauma-of-the-week TV movies (Sybil, When
Rabbit Howls) almost every *dramatic* depiction of an MP on television has
been a murderer.>>
And how many have those been, exactly? I can count three, of which the B5
portrayal was much better and less "evil".
<< It's a sterotype, and jms has stated repeatedly that he
is concerned about avoiding sterotypes in the show (although he has
apparently been unconcerned with this particular thread).>>
I'd say it's more of a stereotype that people with MPD are nuts, are 100%
crazy-in-the-head, which is the way I keep seeing them portrayed. Again,
though, the point as I see it is that, while it wasn't a great portrayal of a
person with MPD(wasn't a saint, IOW), it was far from the evil predjudiced
stereotyping that JMS has been accused of with this.
I agree that we need to see more well-adjusted people with MPD, just as we
need to see more normal people of every particular type on television. But that
doesn't mean we should eliminate those portrayals that are not sterling silver.
If the complaints were towards JMS that there should be a normal,
well-adjusted MPD sufferer on the show, then I'd be agreeing. But by
complaining that the murderer was an MPD sufferer *simply because* he was had
MPD is, IMHO, wrong. That is, as I said, just my opinion, though.
<<If the Corps had programmed an MP, (a) the character would have been a
victim of the Corps in the same way that Garibaldi was, not merely a threat
to be extinguished;>>
?? The character was a victim of the Corps no matter what, since his "crime"
was brought about by the knowledge that the Corps would "put him away".
<<and (b) it would have been credible that violence had
been programmed into the attack alter specifically, rather than what was
actually depicted which suggested that MP's are typically violent once they are
"outed".>>
I saw no suggestion at all about MP's in general, just the "protective"
personality of that particular person in that oppressive situation, when the
knowledge that MP's are "put away" by the Corps. In contrast, the Character was
quite peaceful and nice most of the time, showing violent tendencies only under
threat.
Again, if his "outing" had been portrayed as happening outside of the Corps,
if he had just gone violent for no other reason that a teep had discovered his
"secret", I might agree with your point. But as it is, I can't call the
"Protective" personality's actions anything but justified, at the very least to
his POV.
As for the last bit, again we disagree. Yes, all stereotypes are bad, but not
all stereotypes are untrue. There are racistc white people, and there are
irrational black people, and there *are* violent people with MPD. The same
people who would be tricked into thinking that all MP's are violent murderers
because of what they've seen of individuals on three different shows(one of
which wasn't even violent, but was the victim of the violence) are the ones who
will look skeptically at the portrayals that don't fit with their ingrained
stereotypes.
When that second MPD sufferer shows up on the show as a murderer-in-hiding,
I'll be right on your side asking what the heck is it.
Bob
Someone posted:
>Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>so we could see the sweet, hero-worshipping intern casually 'lose her
>virginity' (so to speak) by chucking her first mundane out an airlock.
kyl...@aol.com (Kylinn) responded:
>Hmm --- my reaction to that scene was very different. It was
>an "oh, god, here he (jms) goes, pushing our buttons again".
>Threw me totally out of the show. I don't mind being
>manipulated for a dramatic point - that's what a lot of good
>writing's about, after all - but I do mind when I can see the
>hand of the author hovering over the stage, so to speak. It
>was just too much; like all those "obey" signs all over Psi
>Corps HQ. A bit less blatent, more subtle, please.
My reaction was that, just like in my world, some
people and organizations act more subtle than others;
some are so blatent it hurts. I think the Corps is
into some rather blatent methods.
>I had a similar problem with Bester re-playing the recording
>of the teep "cracking" 3 times. I mean - sheesh - _I heard it
>the first time - one replay would have been more than enough.
>
>Heck, we're _B5_ fans - we're the obsessive-compulsives who
>count candles, watch backgrounds, and listen to *every* word
>for arc clues - we don't need to be beaten over the head to get
>the point, thank you very much!
Yes many of us are. We have to remember that the
show doesn't live or die on what a few hundred or
thousand very loyal and observant fans think. The
main audience is the millions who are more casual
watchers. If important points are too subtle for
the normal teevee fans to catch, they will never
become rabid fans. I think we have an obligation
to do all we can to make as many people as possible
become loyal fans of the show.
Bob Joesting <valen AT psicorps DOT com>
PsiCorps is your friend.
Trust the Corps.
Dwightg
In article <199804222243...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Kylinn <kyl...@aol.com> wrote:
>Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- --many snips--
>
>I had a similar problem with Bester re-playing the recording
>of the teep "cracking" 3 times. I mean - sheesh - _I heard it
>the first time - one replay would have been more than enough.
>
>Heck, we're _B5_ fans - we're the obsessive-compulsives who
>count candles, watch backgrounds, and listen to *every* word
>for arc clues - we don't need to be beaten over the head to get
>the point, thank you very much!
I think you have provided the counter to your own argument. Yes, *we*--the
B5 OCs who act as you say, who go to the trouble to read and post
here--get the point. I would suggest, however, that *we* are a vanishingly
small minority of viewership, that many people may not have the historical
viewing background of the show (with any given episode they are seeing the
show for the first time); and most people do not watch television as
carefully.
--DwightG
WWS
Bob wrote:
> Someone posted:
> > No Spoilers for The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father
> >
>
> >Heck, we're _B5_ fans - we're the obsessive-compulsives who
> >count candles, watch backgrounds, and listen to *every* word
> >for arc clues - we don't need to be beaten over the head to get
> >the point, thank you very much!
>
> Yes many of us are. We have to remember that the
> show doesn't live or die on what a few hundred or
> thousand very loyal and observant fans think.
>
> PsiCorps is your friend.
> Trust the Corps.
Some people say "Obsession" like it's a Bad Thing.
--
<*>
______________________________________________________WWS____________
That's my new thought for the week.
Kylinn
>>Heck, we're _B5_ fans - we're the obsessive-compulsives who
>>count candles, watch backgrounds, and listen to *every* word
>>for arc clues - we don't need to be beaten over the head to get
>>the point, thank you very much!
>
> Yes many of us are. We have to remember that the
>show doesn't live or die on what a few hundred or
>thousand very loyal and observant fans think. The
>main audience is the millions who are more casual
>watchers. If important points are too subtle for
>the normal teevee fans to catch, they will never
>become rabid fans. I think we have an obligation
>to do all we can to make as many people as possible
>become loyal fans of the show.
>
But part of what makes B5 such a good show is that its
not normally deliberately "dumbed down" to the supposed
level of the "average" viewer. Change that to attract the
mythical "average" viewer, and you don't _have the same
show anymore, just something based on it with the same
name. The early seasons assumed that the viewers were
reasonably intelligent/alert people who could and would
"catch" stuff without being beaten over the head with it;
the same should be true of the later seasons.
Notice I'm not objecting to re-iteration of _background plot
stuff that new viewers wouldn't know; I'm objecting to overly
heavy-handed showing of current plot points. Sometimes I
just want to say "We get it, we get already - move on!"
Rebecca Eschliman
In article <blaklion-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>, Mikel
Midnight wrote:
> I think most of us who were disturbed by the show, would have been less so
> had it been made clear that the MP had been induced by the Corps ... but I
> see absolutely no evidence of that in the show, other than a tendency to
> assume the worst about Psi Corps.
>
Oddly enough, I had the exact opposite assumption, that the idea jms was
playing with was how a disorder like MPD could introduce an element of chaos
into the super-ordered world of Psi Corps, not that Psi Corps had been the
agent of chaos by engendering the disorder (although that might be one of
those lovely random unintended consequences of Psi Corps rigidity -- I must
admit, I'd like to believe in that sort of cause-effect relationship). Psi
Corps, particularly as expressed by Bester, think they've got all their
superior bases covered. A telepath MP I found less a signal that "all MP's
are homicidal" than "Psi Corps, you think you've got everything nicely
organized -- how about a telepath who can shift between P10/P12/Pwhatever
without your knowledge?" The removal of unstable telepaths as a tactic to
which Bester & Co. referred means that Psi Corps is not yet able to deal
with the random/arbitrary/chaotic areas of life. That, to me, means that
their order needs re-ordering.
-rje-
And then there was a star danced, and under that was I born.
Rat & Swan
Rebecca Eschliman wrote:
>
> In article <blaklion-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>, Mikel
> Midnight wrote:
> > I think most of us who were disturbed by the show, would have been less so
> > had it been made clear that the MP had been induced by the Corps ... but I
> > see absolutely no evidence of that in the show, other than a tendency to
> > assume the worst about Psi Corps.
So far as I could see, I agree, there WAS no evidence the MPD was
induced by the Corps.
The test would be whether or not the person 'fractured' at what age and
what age the Corps took him in. Personalities TEND to be the same age
as the person is at the time of the splintering trauma. Thus, if a
person is harmed at age four and again at age twelve, you may find a
child and a pre-teen among the 'selves'.
> Oddly enough, I had the exact opposite assumption, that the idea jms was
> playing with was how a disorder like MPD could introduce an element of chaos
> into the super-ordered world of Psi Corps, not that Psi Corps had been the
> agent of chaos by engendering the disorder (although that might be one of
> those lovely random unintended consequences of Psi Corps rigidity -- I must
> admit, I'd like to believe in that sort of cause-effect relationship).
Well, I tend to agree with you that the MPD was a 'surprise' to PsiCorps
and they haven't yet figured out a method to deal with it. The fact
that the fellow was not discovered during routine scans implies that the
Corps does not see MPD as a possible hazard of their training methods...
either because it is too infrequent or because it is never found among
children taken in as infants. Any MPD's picked up (Bester DID say it had
happened before) could have been caused BEFORE the person came into the
corps.
If they thought their training might cause MPD, believe me, they would
SCAN the beJesus outta every T'p... Things 'going wrong' just don't FIT
into the Corps framework.
> PsiCorps, particularly as expressed by Bester, think they've got all their
> superior bases covered.
And they don't! I think that one of the reasons Bester wants to bring
Harris back is because they want to.... NEED to... 'take him apart' to
find out WHERE the disorder came from! Like the FAA and the FTC goiong
over and reassembling a 747 that has crashed, down to every last wire
and switch to find the cause of an air crash... they DON"T want it
happening AGAIN and if they have to dissect the t'p to find the cause,
they WILL!
> "Psi Corps, you think you've got everything nicely
> organized -- how about a telepath who can shift between P10/P12/Pwhatever
> without your knowledge?"
Intriguingly enough, give a human society a sufficiently advanced
technology development or power and the very FIRST thing they'll DO with
it is to examine it for its potential as a ...WEAPON! Imagine a t'p who
can fool everyone into thinking he's a P-5... even other scanning
t'ps... and BANGO, he is really a P-12 Psi-cop... If the group he's
infilttrated is Blips.. well... No, I think the Corps, after the
initial surprise of discovering this condition, wants to use it against
non PsiCorp telepaths and against mundanes in general.
> The removal of unstable telepaths as a tactic to
> which Bester & Co. referred means that Psi Corps is not yet able to deal
> with the random/arbitrary/chaotic areas of life. That, to me, means that
> their order needs re-ordering.
And of course, that is the LAST thing they'll admit... Lotta denial
there, Fringies!
Kind of reminds me of the tobacco companies. Loudly proclaiming that
cigs are safe, no proof that they cause cancer... hysteria... public
being misled by the fear mongers... while their INTERNAL memos show they
were aware of the dangers ans were trying to cover it all up. they
could ONLY keep THAT ball in the air so long... If the PsiCorps knows
what's going on, they're NOT telling anyone and probably not even
telling most within their rank and file.
Swan
The Corps is Father... hey Dad, can I borrow the keys to the Omega...
Stacy Brown
On 26 Apr 1998, Kylinn wrote:
> Notice I'm not objecting to re-iteration of _background plot
> stuff that new viewers wouldn't know; I'm objecting to overly
> heavy-handed showing of current plot points. Sometimes I
> just want to say "We get it, we get already - move on!"
I know what you mean. In a couple of the early Season 3 episodes, when
Garibaldi is talking to G'kar in his jail cell, G'kar *always* mentions
that he is inprisoned for assaulting Londo. Now, I'm pretty sure
Garibaldi remembers exactly why G'kar is in jail. I could understand
mentioning it once, but not every single time.
Stacy Brown s...@comp.uark.edu
http://www.uark.edu/~slb Desktop UNIX Support Team
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do so many people use Windoes 98?" "They're lemmings."
-- Anonymous
em...@yahoo.com
In article <blaklion-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>#1/2,
blak...@best.com (Mikel Midnight) wrote:
>
But
> outside of a very few number of trauma-of-the-week TV movies (Sybil, When
> Rabbit Howls) almost every *dramatic* depiction of an MP on television has
> been a murderer.
Re; Sybil and MPD, here are some excerpts from an April 24, 1997 New York
Review of Books interview with Herbert Spiegel who worked on the Sybil case:
MBJ: I find it odd that you are not mentioned anywhere in [Flora Rheta]
Schreiber's book [about Sybil], in spite of the fact that you clearly played a
crucial role in the case. The only place where your name appears is in the
acknowledgments, which I would like to quote here: "Dr. Herbert Spiegel, who
did age regressions on Sybil and described her as a 'brilliant hysteric,' gave
several hours to a valuable discussion of this case, which he knew
first-hand." How come [Sybil's therapist Cornelia] Wilbur and Schreiber didn't
credit you for your role?
HS: I think they were both angry with me because I
refused to collaborate with them on the book. Wilbur
had decided she was going to make the Sybil case
into a book, because she couldn't get it published in
professional journals. So she engaged Schreiber, who
was a professional writer, and they both came to see
me to ask me if I wanted to be a coauthor with them.
That was the original proposal: since I had all this
information about the case, would I join in with them?
We didn't spell out the fine print, because we didn't
even get to the big print. I said, "Hmm. That's
interesting." I had a lot of stuff to show them. But
toward the end of our discussion, they said they
would be calling her a "multiple personality." I said,
"But she's not a multiple personality!" I think she was
a wonderful hysterical patient with role confusion,
which is typical of high hysterics. It was hysteria. Back
in those days, Multiple Personality Disorder was not
yet in the DSM. To me, a multiple personality meant
you had to have an "alter"葉hat is, a distinct alternate
personality葉hat was enduring, assuming control over
the person for a considerable period of time, and that
there was an amnesia barrier between one alter and
another, as in the case, reported by William James, of
Ansel Bourne, an American who forgot his identity
and developed a second personality.
I didn't see this at all in Sybil. I saw her "personalities"
rather as game-playing. I wasn't angry at Cornelia
about this. I thought this was an ingenious way of
identifying different episodes and events in Sybil's life,
and if they wanted to label it or name it in a given way,
that was fine. But I thought this was all emerging
simply [because of] Connie's wanting to make sense
out of the disparate life experience that Sybil had. I
could change Sybil's state of awareness just by
regressing her to this and that, but that didn't make her
a multiple personality. It didn't mean that a personality
was enduring or was taking charge of her life. So I
told Wilbur and Schreiber that it would not be
accurate to call Sybil a multiple personality, and that it
was not at all consistent with what I knew about her.
Schreiber then got in a huff. She was sitting right in
that chair there, and she said, "But if we don't call it a
multiple personality, we don't have a book! The
publishers want it to be that, otherwise it won't sell!"
That was the logic behind their calling Sybil a
multiple personality. I gathered from what Schreiber
said that she had already been thinking along those
lines after she had had her first contact with Wilbur,
and that Wilbur, as a result, intensified the importance
of what had started off as a casual thing, because it
would make a sellable book. So I said, "OK, go
ahead, but I don't want to be identified with that."
Both women were very angry. I offered that they
could have the data, but they felt so angry with me
because I disagreed with them on their diagnosis that
they refused. I never heard from Schreiber after that. I
ran into Cornelia Wilbur at a psychiatric meeting
somewhere, and where ordinarily she would at least
nod and say hello, this time she turned her head the
other way.
MBJ: This reaction on their part seems to indicate that they expected much
from you and that they considered you as a very important player in the
case, doesn't it?
HS: Well, they did ask me to join them. But after I
refused, they decided that they could do without me. I
suspect they did no more than what most do when
writing up their reports遥ou make up your own
stories.
MBJ: With the benefit of hindsight, do you regret having taken that position?
HS: Had I known at that time that this was going to
start a whole new cult, a whole new wave of hysteria
restated in a new way, would I have wanted my name
more closely associated with it? No, I'm embarrassed
by it all! I think this chapter of MPD will go down in
history as an embarrassing phase of American
psychiatry. Other countries are not taken in by it,
except possibly some Dutch people who came over
here and learned about it here, but basically it's a
hysterical response to hysteria.
MBJ: In her book, Flora Rheta Schreiber describes herself as one of Sybil's
friends, whom she allegedly met in 1962, eleven years before the book
appeared. In her interview with Moshe Torem, however, Wilbur relates how
Schreiber, when she approached her about the possibility of writing up the
case "for popular consumption," "said she would not begin the work until the
patient was completely integrated as one individual." Do you think that this
pressing and obviously market-oriented request for a therapeutic happy ending
played a role in Sybil's eventual "fusion" in one personality?
HS: Yes, I do think that way, and it is quite consistent
with the way other fusions take place. When the
hospital insurance starts to run out, or when families
say, "Look, we've spent enough money on this, we
can't pay for this anymore," that's when fusion takes
place. It also is consistent with another whole point of
view: is it really necessary to dissect, reify, and label
all these alters to get a fusion? This so-called "fusion"
is a putting together of what was artificially broken up
in the first place. When I have people with transient
dissociations where they temporarily lose their sense
of identity謡hich is consistent with a "grade five
syndrome"悠 put them together. I fuse them right
away, just as Pierre Janet did. The point is to help
restore a sense of control as soon as possible. I would
also like to say that all of this multiple personality
business rarely takes place when financial resources
are not available or when the patient has no legal or
social reason to evade responsibility. It seems to be
related to the amount of money the patients have to
indulge in this kind of invalidism of histrionic display.
Then when that money starts to run out, or the legal
issues are resolved, the fusion takes place. That is a
sad commentary on the motivation of some therapists. [...]
MBJ: [Y]ou would say that the writing of the book was therapeutic?
HS: Yes, I think it was. As a matter of fact, I think
having Sybil appear in front of the classes at Columbia
was a therapeutic thing for her too. She felt so
important. She looked forward to it. It gave her a sense
of being an important person. One of the very
interesting and persistently subtle qualities about a
highly hypnotizable person with "grade five syndrome"
is that they have an ongoing sense of inferiority. It is as
if when something goes wrong they feel immediately
that they are at fault擁n contrast to the borderline
personality disorders, where if something goes wrong,
it is always your fault. Sybil was a good artist, and she
was exceptionally bright耀he had an IQ of 174傭ut
she never made good use of it because of disruptive
influences in her life. To get this kind of support over a
long period of time enabled her to go out on her own
after the book went out. It's unconventional, but I
would regard it from the patient's point of view as
favorable for her.
MBJ: One final question. Why didn't you speak out about all this before quite
recently?
HS: Because I was never asked, as you are now
asking me. I did discuss this with my students and
colleagues, but did not feel pressed to put it into print
until now. Also, I think it is important to tell this story
now that there is such mischief going on with the abuse
of "recovered memories." To me, the role of therapists
in this whole phenomenon of multiple personality and
victimization is more intriguing than the patients
themselves. The therapists, with some exceptions, have
become unconscious con artists. They are taking highly
malleable, suggest-ible persons and molding them into
acting out a thesis that they are putting upon them. I'm
intrigued by that, for you can't do that with obsessive
compulsives, you can't do it with schizophrenics or
depressed people. But you can do it with highly
hypnotizable people.
I think in this respect that the MPD phenomenon of
Sybil is an artifact that was created by Connie Wilbur.
Another interesting thing about this is that most of the
central enthusiasts involved in the Multiple Personality
movement do not know much about the subtleties of
high hypnotizability and the histrionic personality. They
think that hypnosis is something you do _to_ somebody.
They don't have the basic understanding that hypnosis
is a phenomenon that frequently goes on without
formal instructions intended to induce a hypnotic state.
You don't hypnotize another person; all you do is
identify their capacity and then show them how to
purposefully go into and exit from the trance state擁f
they don't come out of it spontaneously. Formal
induction ceremonies can elicit hypnotic phenomena,
but are not necessary. Most "highs" [highly hypnotizable
people like Sybil, or "grade fives"] often enter
spontaneous trance states. Wilbur did not know that
at all. With one or two exceptions, most of the other
luminaries in the MPD field know very little about
hypnosis. They all acknowledge that MPDs are highly
hypnotizable, but most of them do not even measure
for hypnotizability. They now have a "Dissociative
Experiences Scale," or DES, that Putnam and
Bernstein have developed, but that doesn't
differentiate the highly hypnotizable person from the
psychopath, the borderlines, or the schizophrenics. It
picks up dissociation, but you need to measure
suggestibility too. You see, hypnosis involves
absorption, dissociation, and suggestibility. You have
to have all three at high levels. Dissociation alone is
not enough to identify the hypnotizability.
If the MPD therapists knew more about hypnosis,
their diagnoses would be more accurate. As it is now,
they don't even know how they are molding their
outcomes. They manipulate both the highly
hypnotizable and the psychopath. The "grade fives"
are highly suggestible and gullible, and they just do
what they're cued to do, quite innocently. They seem
like pure multiples after they're coached. But most of
the patients that the MPD experts have in the wards
are not highly hypnotizable, so what they are actually
playing around with are borderlines and psychopaths
who enter into the game for different reasons.
These patients are full of anger and guile. They feel
victimized and tend to blame others for their
misbehavior. They then find a doctor who can conjoin
with them to develop a story of abuse which appears
to be a multiple personality disorder, thus giving them
a new kind of status in society. They will make use of
all this alleged or real abuse which took place in their
life, as a way of getting recognition: "Look, I'm a
multiple!" They don't have to do it on their own
anymore. Nowadays, they have the collusion of a
therapist who is showing them how to do it. And then
they can have hospital stays for months to years that
the insurance companies pay for. But I understand that
the insurance companies are wising up and are cutting
down on this. This may well be the end of the whole
epidemic that started with Sybil, for I predict that the
"fusions" will come much earlier now.
Source:
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1997042460F@p6
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Maia Bernstein
On 1 May 1998 em...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Re; Sybil and MPD, here are some excerpts from an April 24, 1997 New York
> Review of Books interview with Herbert Spiegel who worked on the Sybil case:
There is a fascinating article on the subject of MPD in the April 6, 1998
issue of _The New Yorker_: "The Politics of Hysteria" by Joan Acocella.