we
say it’s a ghost—this is familiar language—but it doesn’t say anything
tangible. if one said—it sleeps in the personality, embedded through trauma, we
might perk up. as in resting, it must awaken, this haunting, we designate as an
apparition. while the disorder does sleep, it’s mainly awakened, as hereditary,
and we call this a phantom. so the fortunate or unfortunate one—has a ghost, so
to speak, in the personality, and a phantom in the genetics. by phantom, one
speaks to another reality, feuding with reality, ensconced in perceptual
conflict. nothing is inauthentic, nothing is authentic, here is where two might
beg to differ. each one of us are different. people travel far and wide for
many an introduction. or something obscure may take its course. we fail to
assert—many study what most are becoming, cautious concerning its whereabouts.
by some strange occurrence (trauma), something systematic, some alteration began
germinating in the personality. it became an entity—with thoughts, feelings,
motives; if unaddressed, it becomes a deviation from the norm, powerful in
itself, and thus, a threat to ruling overseers. in and of itself, it poses a
concern, in what officials have witnessed, it is of concern, all the way
around, it’s a complete project: one needs to determine if it’s good or bad (the
split)— both are monitored closely—neither are believed entirely. here, we
concentrate on the personality, as split, by the one where the trauma
originated. it’s not always the onslaught activity, but the repetition, while
often, it’s the onslaught activity—nevertheless, an alteration of the self,
cracks, and begins to create itself in preparation to deal with the continued site
of trauma activity. many will tap in. many will exacerbate the trauma. in
everything one gives, it will come back to antagonize. this last part is perplexing.
we wonder if the haunting, by officials, is necessary.
