posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 02:10 AM
In late 2012 (possibly earlier however) I felt my whole body change, then over the next year or two I slowly became acclimatised to what I can only
describe as a 'new' anatomy -- I'm still getting used to it now. New compared to my former understanding/teaching of human anatomy and a new
experience, a body that felt and behaved differently. Since then I still have body problems that are specific to this new anatomy, so it isn't simply
I was mistaken and thought the body was one way but really it was always another. No, this new anatomy brought with it qualitative
which are specific to the setup and character of this new body, which conflict with the body as I once experienced it.
It isn't just a change of a word or spelling with M.E., it is the qualitative difference
felt in the essence of the changed thing. The thing is
no longer the same 'flavour' and this effects our tastes and necessitates re-familiarity with the thing. This would never be necessary if there wasn't
some *reality* to the thing in its former form (or former from our perspectives). This implies there *is* a reality where Berenstein existed or exists
and it had its own flavour. But for whatever reason these aspects of reality can come into conflict. Perhaps an alternate perspective on a thing can
'win out' in a struggle over the essence and information of a thing and that what the M.E. individuals are experiencing is alternate outcomes in these
on-going struggles in how things manifest. The question would then become what makes one perspective successful over another, and how can what
seemingly appears as only a minority perspective compared to the consensus become the new consensus and in the same move turn the former consensus
into a minority perspective or relegated to 'mis-memory' etc.
edit on 26-9-2017 by Orborus because: detail