Accepting Voices -v- Rejecting Voices

[John A]

I am deliberately introducing controversy on a key item of dogma, so have decided to start a new thread amplifying my point made in another thread, because there might be some interesting debate that people find helpful, if they are having a bit of a struggle.

The other thread concerned the recommendation of the author of a book I was given by my brother eight years ago (but haven't read cover to cover, not having found anything of interest to my agenda in the contents list or index - mind you, my interests are rather specialised). The book is called Accepting Voices.

The author and the HVN were actually suggesting that voice-hearers should have conversations with their voices, for pity's sake! (I've been fielding complaints today from comrades for taking along a nwe-to-the-group fellow-sufferer who did exactly that, out loud, during one of our meetings, and I could tell - because I know him, would have continued to do so if asked to stop, rebelling against the wishes of everybody else present.)

This "accept your voices and converse with them" advice is the exact opposite of what I recommend and practise. If I ever wrote a book, it's title could easily be Rejecting Voices.

I learnt - it was a slow, hard process, but well worthwhile - to reject my voices, and made the transition over a six-year period from conversing continually, to conversing only occasionally, thru replying to the voices using only a small repertiore of boring catchphrases (like "leave me alone") whatever they said, to (finally) ignoring them almost completely.

It worked wonders. The 24/7 voices are now so quiet, ten years after the abuse started, that the only effect they have on my behaviour and ideation (if any) is any effect they have subliminally, which is obviously hard for me to assess, and imnpossible for anybody else to assess, other than the perpetrators. Moreover, in my quite wide experience, the voice-hearers who cope best with their voices (using metrics such as employability, absence of negative symptoms, richness of social life, ability to sustain romantinc relationships) are typically those who have heard voices for longest, and perfected the same techniques as I use, either having reached the same conclusions as me independently, or, I'm proud to say, though in all too few cases, having learnt from my teaching.

How can Marius Romme's patients experience lead him to advocate a coping mechanism that is 180 degrees opposed to the mechanism that I and and almost everybody in my circle reports works best for them?

What do the members of this Hearing Voices forum section find works best for them, as a mechanism of keeping their heads straight when bombarded 24/7 with unwelcome voices: accepting the voices and engaging them in conversation, or rejecting the voices and treating them with contemptuous silence, refusing to be distracted by them?

Since when did rewarding distressing attention-seeking behaviour by habitually paying attention to it ameliorate the unwanted behaviour? Whatever the aetiology, whether the voices be exogenous or endogenous (I deal with alleged victims of V2K abuse, but there are obviously very few such here), common sense tells me that what I and others have proved works for us in practice ought to be more effective for anybody than the exact opposite: that ignoring voices will make them retreat into the backwater of attempted subliminal influence: that when (so-to-speak) the front doorbell isn't answered any more, the bogus caller is forced to go away, or to try to sneak in unnoticed through the back door, as I put it when describing subliminal influence by day or dream-content manipulation by night.

 

[Apotheosis]

Since when did rewarding distressing attention-seeking behaviour by habitually paying attention to it ameliorate the unwanted behaviour? Whatever the aetiology, whether the voices be exogenous or endogenous (I deal with alleged victims of V2K abuse, but there are obviously very few such here), common sense tells me that what I and others have proved works for us in practice ought to be more effective for anybody than the exact opposite: that ignoring voices will make them retreat into the backwater of attempted subliminal influence: that when (so-to-speak) the front doorbell isn't answered any more, the bogus caller is forced to go away, or to try to sneak in unnoticed through the back door, as I put it when describing subliminal influence by day or dream-content manipulation by night.

You are convinced of the reason for your own voice hearing, which is entirely different to the reason allot of others give to their "voices", especially on this site. IF there is any reality to what you give as to the reason to your voices, then I would think that the different "reasons" make allot of difference to how the voices are coped with & related to, in fact given for a moment; if what you say is true, the entire nature of both voice hearing experiences are totally different.

You see your voices as being perpetrated by an enemy.

Some others see their voices as the result of a biological condition or illness.

Some others still see their voices as a natural psychological phenomenon & healing mechanism. I see my "mental illness" in this regard.

I know which viewpoint I think is more healthy.

 

[Rorschach]

How can Marius Romme's patients experience lead him to advocate a coping mechanism that is 180 degrees opposed to the mechanism that I and and almost everybody in my circle reports works best for them?

...at a guess because there's 6 billion people on the planet, 1 of 4 who may have mental distress, and he, as a matter of course may have found that his coping mechanism seems to work best.

Personally I argued with my voices until they had nothing left to say. They still pop up their head occasionally, but every time they say something that has been said before, it results in me saying something equivalent to 'Yada yada yada....'

Remember if you ignore them they may still operate in your subconsciousness, which you have far less control on. Pushing them down through the layers of consciousness, is a little akin to not dealing with problems; in the short term a very effective solution.

Without going into the details again (and again and again) this will have much to do with where you believe the voices originate. If external then your 'ignore them they'll go away' is immediately logical. However if they are bleeding from the internal subconcious, however much you ignore them, they are not going anywhere...

 

[Ashami]

There is also the possibility that the 'voices' come from a higher consciousness. There are those that feel extremely honoured and thankful to hear higher voices.

Perhaps it really does depend on what these voices are saying, in which case you would have to listen to them to find out. If the voices are critical it is clear they need to be shut out. If the voices are supportive and encouraging, then why block them out?

 

[Ashami]

How can Marius Romme's patients experience lead him to advocate a coping mechanism that is 180 degrees opposed to the mechanism that I and and almost everybody in my circle reports works best for them?

Perhaps his research spanning 1000 years helped?

 

[John A]

You are convinced of the reason for your own voice hearing, which is entirely different to the reason allot of others give to their "voices", especially on this site.

Correct.

IF there is any reality to what you give as to the reason to your voices,

I'm glad you regard reality as something objective and singular, not something subjective and plural. That very important word "IF" you used signifies that you care about what is true and what isn't, and that's good.

(The "IF" word has to do with propositions that might be true or false, with consequences turning on that. Classical logic becomes fraught when we admit propositions that are capable of being "true for you" but not "true for me". No amount of hand-waving, Douglas Adams-style appeal to the role of the observer in quantum mechanics, of forcing systems into eigenstates, quite compsenates for such a loss of clarity.)

... then I would think that the different "reasons" make a lot of difference to how the voices are coped with & related to,

They do indeed make a huge difference. That's why some of us would like the mental health to start finding out the reasons for voice-hearing before making diagnoses. The mental health doesn't even yet ackowledge that there is a plurality of possible reasons for hearing voices. That is dangerous to civil liberties, even without the invention of V2K.

... if what you say is true

I think there is by now a wide consensus that what I actually say about V2K weapons is not only true, but "old hat". It is what I haven't ever said, which people read into what I write, that remains unnecessarily contentious. Do you understand that yet?

the entire nature of both voice hearing experiences are totally different.

Your casual use the word "both" as though it was common ground that there were only two possible voice-hearing experiences. Since you are sceptical that I understand my own experience correctly, this must mean that you think that there is only ONE voice-hearing experience, the type you have, presumably.

You see your voices as being perpetrated by an enemy.

Correct. Perpetrated technologically by a human enemy, with a code of ethics that'd make a demon blush with shame, so-to-speak.

Some others see their voices as the result of a biological condition or illness.

If you say so.

Some others still see their voices as a natural psychological phenomenon & healing mechanism.

Ah, so there are at least three explanations, rendering your use of the word "both" above inept.

As you were saying,

Some others still see their voices as a natural psychological phenomenon & healing mechanism. I see my "mental illness" in this regard.

They may be right.

But wait a moment, a natural psychological phenomenon cum healing mechanism that is also an illness? That's an oxymoron, surely!

Perhaps it is unhelpful to label you as mentally ill after all.

I know which viewpoint I think is more healthy.

I think that amounts to labelling as unwell people with different experiences from yours, along with those who interpret similar experiences differently. Is that wise?

 

[Apotheosis]

IF there is any reality to what you give as to the reason to your voices,

]

I'm glad you regard reality as something objective and singular, not something subjective and plural........

Talk about putting words in my mouth! What allot you have read into a simple sentence of mine. I was simply stating the fact that it is not proved, nor is it accepted reality that V2K weapons are being used on the public.

You well know what some of my views are on Reality, unless of course you simply haven't read my other posts. I would have thought it obvious from my other postings that I consider Reality to be, very much, multi faceted & to incorporate a great deal of mystery & deeply varied elements, & it to be very much the case that the subjective plays a critical role in the understandings of our experience & place in the Universe.
When you eat an apple is it an Objective experience? The taste, the smell?

The nature of "Reality" & "truth" are not something carved in stone. The meaning of these words have been argued over since time Immemorial & they are likely to always be so argued over, however long our species occupies the Planet; by the likes of philosophers & thinkers, as well as the ordinary man.

They do indeed make a huge difference. That's why some of us would like the mental health to start finding out the reasons for voice-hearing before making diagnoses. The mental health doesn't even yet acknowledge that there is a plurality of possible reasons for hearing voices....

Yes I agree, the mental health system is a sad state of affairs.

[My reply to you continues below, due to restrictions on the size of posts]

 

[Apotheosis]

... if what you say is true

Correct.I think there is by now a wide consensus that what I actually say about V2K weapons is not only true, but "old hat". It is what I haven't ever said, which people read into what I write, that remains unnecessarily contentious. Do you understand that yet?

IF - John is a very big IF!.
I understand your position, "your mind set" & the angle you are coming from on this; from what you have posted.
If you are holding something back, then please share it. What I think you fail to understand is that V2K technology - does not equal - V2k weapons used against the public! - a conclusion which IS NOT a "wide consensus", as you wrongly assume; but rather a conspiracy theory.

I will try to put this subject into perspective here, for hopefully the last time, & spell out what I have been posting to you; although this is going over the same things over & over & over again -

V2k - Last year on National Radio they discussed openly & at length & depth the use of Voice to Skull technology in Advertising; & the Moral/Privacy implications. During WWII , if we are to go with the orthodox history; voice to skull has it's roots with the discovery of “clicks” & other phenomenon heard in the head with high frequency radar tests. The Americans had full V2K capability in the 70's, by all accounts, & the Russians extensively tested microwave technology in the 50's & had full capability in that decade, if we go with general reports. Where is this technology now given that it was first discovered & experimented with over 50 years ago!!?? And this is from orthodox accounts. What of Tesla & his discoveries? Many in the late 1800's – Can we go back further in time to even earlier discoveries & technological implications? Some would say that we could.

If we go with the full gamut of peoples belief in this area; some would say that highly advanced technology has existed from time immemorial – For reasons you “don't believe in”.

If we take a fuller picture of where this technology might be, it is theoretically possible that we have an entire V2K controlled Globe – Utilizing networks of ground stations – including the entire mobile phone network, as well as all mobile phones & many wireless/electronic devices – as well as a massive global V2K satellite system. We could also conclude that the technology is now so advanced that; it implants thoughts indistinguishable from our own, tracks anyone anywhere on the globe, can kill anyone or anything anywhere, can induce any feeling/emotion/thought in as many or as few people as “they” want, Read peoples minds fully, Control peoples responses & actions, fully control the entire Earth's Bio magnetic energy system, & control the weather - In fact & in short, if some accounts are to be believed – V2K is a global system of total control of the entire Earth & everything living on it.

However & BUT – its a big BUT this one John – NONE OF IT IS PROVED!!!!!
As much as you harp on about V2K weapons being a reality, - all you can prove is that the technology for such weapons exists. How this relates to not only these weapons do exist, but are being used on the public – is utterly beyond me. It is possible, yes, but my God, if we go into the realms of the “it could be true” & “it might be possible” - Where do we end up?

Nuclear technology is highly advanced. Are they using contained Atomic blast rays in Iraq? I've read accounts that they are, - it was a technology extensively tested in America in the 50's with underground contained Nuclear detonation. & so do I conclude that there are hand held Atomic death rays which shrink people to the size of crisp packets? Great way of getting rid of people!
What of “Anti Gravity” & Atomic propulsion systems?, reportedly used in the secret “Black” aircraft , namely the TR-3B & many others, as well as wireless high energy transfer & near instantaneous communication over great distances? Do I conclude that America has a network of underground & space based secret stations, which serve as jump off points for terrestrial/space capable secret craft capable of interstellar travel? Right under our noses?

It's a big NO John. Just because there are some radical & potentially “mind boggling” technologies & potential developments; does not equate to believing every single piece of quackery & theory bandied around the Internet.

If we want to go far enough “out there”, maybe, & according to serious AstroPhysical theory – maybe we are just coded implants ourselves in a Virtual computer Simulation program of Old Earth; which “exists” on a massively powerful computer system residing on a future Earth millions if not Billions of years in the future. Being controlled by the future Evolution of Man. Hows that for V2K!. Maybe the “they” you refer to are are future Earthers running a Simulation on “Secret mind control experiments in the late 20th & 21st century”. Which is partly the reason why I asked you in one of my first replies – Who you think is controlling the controllers & what forces/entities are in turn behind them?

If we go with the more fringe elements of thought around “mind control”, the Illuminati, secret technology, Aliens, Atlantis, time travel, & every other bit of out there stuff we can find – & suspend our disbelief - where do we end up? I can tell you – quite usually & probably in the nut house. I don't think it surprising that both of us John have at one stage ended up in there!

can you see a little more of where I am coming from with my thinking around this John? With regard to the bigger picture it seems you are suffering with powerful scitomas & are blind to anything which does not fall within the narrow V2K interpretation & paradigm you have laid out.

[Reply to your post continues below]

 

[Apotheosis]

Correct.But wait a moment, a natural psychological phenomenon cum healing mechanism that is also an illness? That's an oxymoron, surely!

Perhaps it is unhelpful to label you as mentally ill after all.

Yes it's an Oxymoron, if you say so.

I think that the Orthodox MH labelling system is unhelpful, as is the praxis of treating & relating to the entire field of "mental illness" as Illness.

I have however been "labelled" & have to live within a society in which the general paradigm is one of the "psychotic" as mentally ill & disabled.

I use the orthodox framework of mental ill health because it is an understandable language & frame of reference. It is a language which is often vague & open to allot of interpretation, psychiatry is very young & evolving.
If you notice from my posting I often write the words "psychosis", "illness" & others within speech marks to denote their ambiguity. What words would you rather I use? Bananas? or some of my own concoction?

Yes I can identify "mental illness" as having a biological component. I don't however see a chemical imbalance as a singular cause. The reasons for people "problems" are highly complex & multiple. We can however break down the reasons, especially within the context of our discussion, into three main camps. 1.V2K(Yours), 2.Biological psychiatry (Orthodox generally accepted), 3.Alternative [Jungian] (Spiritually based reason).
I haven't gone into any kind of depth on what I consider to be the reasoning for my own experiences, & yet you make assumptions, something I have noticed you do, more & more in your posts.

 

[John A]

Yes it's an Oxymoron, if you say so.

I think that the Orthodox MH labelling system is unhelpful, as is the praxis of treating & relating to the entire field of "mental illness" as Illness.

I have however been "labelled" & have to live within a society in which the general paradigm is one of the "psychotic" as mentally ill & disabled.

I use the orthodox framework of mental ill health because it is an understandable language & frame of reference. It is a language which is often vague & open to allot of interpretation, psychiatry is very young & evolving.
If you notice from my posting I often write the words "psychosis", "illness" & others within speech marks to denote their ambiguity. What words would you rather I use? Bananas? or some of my own concoction?

Yes I can identify "mental illness" as having a biological component. I don't however see a chemical imbalance as a singular cause. The reasons for people "problems" are highly complex & multiple. We can however break down the reasons, especially within the context of our discussion, into three main camps. 1.V2K(Yours), 2.Biological psychiatry (Orthodox generally accepted), 3.Alternative [Jungian] (Spiritually based reason).
I haven't gone into any kind of depth on what I consider to be the reasoning for my own experiences, & yet you make assumptions, something I have noticed you do, more & more in your posts.

What "assumptions" have I made?

 

[Apotheosis]

What "assumptions" have I made?

Plenty; not least of all that V2K weapons exist & are being used on the public in a malevolent way by villainous people.

Is a 5 word response the extent of your reply - to my answer to your last post?

Common John, you can do better than that.

 

[John A]

IF - John is a very big IF!.
I understand your position, "your mind set" & the angle you are coming from on this; from what you have posted.
If you are holding something back, then please share it. What I think you fail to understand is that V2K technology - does not equal - V2k weapons used against the public! - a conclusion which IS NOT a "wide consensus", as you wrongly assume; but rather a conspiracy theory.

I will try to put this subject into perspective here, for hopefully the last time, & spell out what I have been posting to you; although this is going over the same things over & over & over again -

V2k - Last year on National Radio they discussed openly & at length & depth the use of Voice to Skull technology in Advertising; & the Moral/Privacy implications. During WWII , if we are to go with the orthodox history; voice to skull has it's roots with the discovery of “clicks” & other phenomenon heard in the head with high frequency radar tests. The Americans had full V2K capability in the 70's, by all accounts, & the Russians extensively tested microwave technology in the 50's & had full capability in that decade, if we go with general reports. Where is this technology now given that it was first discovered & experimented with over 50 years ago!!?? And this is from orthodox accounts. What of Tesla & his discoveries? Many in the late 1800's – Can we go back further in time to even earlier discoveries & technological implications? Some would say that we could.

If we go with the full gamut of peoples belief in this area; some would say that highly advanced technology has existed from time immemorial – For reasons you “don't believe in”.

If we take a fuller picture of where this technology might be, it is theoretically possible that we have an entire V2K controlled Globe – Utilizing networks of ground stations – including the entire mobile phone network, as well as all mobile phones & many wireless/electronic devices – as well as a massive global V2K satellite system. We could also conclude that the technology is now so advanced that; it implants thoughts indistinguishable from our own, tracks anyone anywhere on the globe, can kill anyone or anything anywhere, can induce any feeling/emotion/thought in as many or as few people as “they” want, Read peoples minds fully, Control peoples responses & actions, fully control the entire Earth's Bio magnetic energy system, & control the weather - In fact & in short, if some accounts are to be believed – V2K is a global system of total control of the entire Earth & everything living on it.

However & BUT – its a big BUT this one John – NONE OF IT IS PROVED!!!!!
As much as you harp on about V2K weapons being a reality, - all you can prove is that the technology for such weapons exists. How this relates to not only these weapons do exist, but are being used on the public – is utterly beyond me. It is possible, yes, but my God, if we go into the realms of the “it could be true” & “it might be possible” - Where do we end up?

Nuclear technology is highly advanced. Are they using contained Atomic blast rays in Iraq? I've read accounts that they are, - it was a technology extensively tested in America in the 50's with underground contained Nuclear detonation. & so do I conclude that there are hand held Atomic death rays which shrink people to the size of crisp packets? Great way of getting rid of people!
What of “Anti Gravity” & Atomic propulsion systems?, reportedly used in the secret “Black” aircraft , namely the TR-3B & many others, as well as wireless high energy transfer & near instantaneous communication over great distances? Do I conclude that America has a network of underground & space based secret stations, which serve as jump off points for terrestrial/space capable secret craft capable of interstellar travel? Right under our noses?

It's a big NO John. Just because there are some radical & potentially “mind boggling” technologies & potential developments; does not equate to believing every single piece of quackery & theory bandied around the Internet.

If we want to go far enough “out there”, maybe, & according to serious AstroPhysical theory – maybe we are just coded implants ourselves in a Virtual computer Simulation program of Old Earth; which “exists” on a massively powerful computer system residing on a future Earth millions if not Billions of years in the future. Being controlled by the future Evolution of Man. Hows that for V2K!. Maybe the “they” you refer to are are future Earthers running a Simulation on “Secret mind control experiments in the late 20th & 21st century”. Which is partly the reason why I asked you in one of my first replies – Who you think is controlling the controllers & what forces/entities are in turn behind them?

If we go with the more fringe elements of thought around “mind control”, the Illuminati, secret technology, Aliens, Atlantis, time travel, & every other bit of out there stuff we can find – & suspend our disbelief - where do we end up? I can tell you – quite usually & probably in the nut house. I don't think it surprising that both of us John have at one stage ended up in there!

can you see a little more of where I am coming from with my thinking around this John? With regard to the bigger picture it seems you are suffering with powerful scitomas & are blind to anything which does not fall within the narrow V2K interpretation & paradigm you have laid out.

[Reply to your post continues below]

No, I cannot see where you're "coming from". I sense that you're jolly angry with me, but I cannot understand why.

There is evidence out there capable of proving V2K abuse, of that I am quite sure. We haven't proved it yet not for want of evidence, because we cannot access some of that evidence (due to FOIA denials), and we cannot find a mechanism (yet) of instigating litigation in which even the evidence we can get might easily be enough to prove the existence of V2K abuse, to the civil standard of proof.

 

[Apotheosis]

No, I cannot see where you're "coming from". I sense that you're jolly angry with me, but I cannot understand why.

What is so difficult to understand about where I am coming from? I cannot state my thoughts around this any more clearly. I have tried opening up the debate around this stuff, as have others. Why are you so reluctant to discuss the reasons, potentials & alternatives around this subject?

I can assure you John that I am not angry with you, far from it. I have felt calm & relaxed in my postings. I have enjoyed some of our recent discussion, & I enjoyed writing & considering my last reply. It is difficult, I know, to gauge "tone" over the wires. Written word, without a person present to chat to is difficult to get intended emotion.

Just simply share your thoughts on the points & questions others have raised, if this is comfortable with you.

There is evidence out there capable of proving V2K abuse, of that I am quite sure. We haven't proved it yet not for want of evidence, because we cannot access some of that evidence (due to FOIA denials), and we cannot find a mechanism (yet) of instigating litigation in which even the evidence we can get might easily be enough to prove the existence of V2K abuse, to the civil standard of proof.

John it may be true. But what I have stated & what you yourself admit to here rightly is that it is not proved. I am quite sure of many things, but I have many ideas around things which I can no more prove myself. It doesn't make ideas any less interesting, but all I have tried to do is bring some level headedness into this, & a state of play as where the land actually lies in what we can say is definite. Surely you can see the folly of stating this stuff as fact? & what the effects can be on persuading a mentally ill person that V2K weapons are a frightening reality, & of which they could be a victim?

 

[John A]

John it may be true. But what I have stated & what you yourself admit to here rightly is that it is not proved. ... Surely you can see the folly of stating this stuff as fact? & what the effects can be on persuading a mentally ill person that V2K weapons are a frightening reality, & of which they could be a victim?

I only state as fact what actually is fact. I don't categorise people as "mentally ill". I cannot see any "folly" in persuading somebody who hears sounds that others cannot hear to consider the possibility that they are being targeted with V2K weapons, however you choose to label label that person, even if you label them as "mentally ill". Rather, I see folly (and cruelty) in withholding, from anybody who hears the sounds, the opportunity of knowing that technological abuse is not, after all, an unreasonable explanation for them to believe applies in their own cases, because (as you admit), "it may be true".

I let people have the basic information, and then let them make up their own minds. I don't insult their intelligence by trying to decide myself whether they are abuse victims or not, and, if I guess them not to be, by keeping it secret from them that abuse (as you put it) "may be true", treating adults like children "for their own good" (so-to-speak),

There is now a new thread entitled "The ethics of publicising V2K". Further discussion along these lines belongs there.

 

[Apotheosis]

Rather, I see folly (and cruelty) in withholding, from anybody who hears the sounds, the opportunity of knowing that technological abuse is not, after all, an unreasonable explanation for them to believe applies in their own cases, because (as you admit), "it may be true".

But there are multiple unproven reasons for voice hearing which are just as viable as your take on things. Reasons which are not unreasonable & "may be true". I can think of many reasons why it would not benefit "the mentally ill" to go into them at depth, any more than it is with V2K.