Look @ m(E)
I am not iT
I don't
have iT
.

U approve m(E)

********

Look @ m(E)
I am iT
I have iT
.

U disapprove m(E)

********

Look @ m(E)
I hAVE iT
I am not iT
.

I accept m(E)

********

U reject m(E)
.

Look @ m(E)
I am not iT
I don't
have iT

Time perhaps now to dabble in some Sign play in order to aid in the Commonsensical Understanding of all such mU mode responses. Each can be placed in the following binary bit holder (_@_._._) a sign that both refers to some indexical mU response and signifies also some particular series of Infantile mU mirrorings.

The placeholder before the @ signifying then a m(E) or U the first after the @ a 'Look at m(E)' or 'Don't look @ m(E)' response the second after the @ an 'I am iT' or 'I'm not iT' response and the last an 'I have iT' or 'I don't have iT' one. The above 3-bit responses and their routines can be encoded now as follows:

(1.3.1)

Look @ m(E)
.

(m@1_._)
.

U accept m(E)

********

I accept m(E)
.

(m@11_)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)
.

U accept m(E)

********

Iaccept m(E)
.

(m@110)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)

(1.3.1)

(1.3.1.2.1)

Look @ m(E)
.

(m@1_._)
.

U accept m(E)

********

I accept m(E)
.

(m@11_)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)
.

U accept m(E)

********

I accept m(E)
.

(m@110)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject U
.

(m@010)
.

U rejected m(E)

********
.

(m@100)

(1.3.1.2.1)

(1.7.1)

Look at m(E)
.

(m@1_._)
.

U approve m(E)

********

I approve m(E)
.

(m@111)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)

(1.7.1)

(1.7.1.2.1)

Look at m(E)
.
(m@1_._)
.

U approve m(E)

********

I approve m(E)
.

(m@111)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject m(E)
.

(m@100)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject U
.

(m@010)
.

U rejected m(E)

********
.

(m@100)

(1.7.1.2.1)

(1.7.0.1)

Look at m(E)
.

(m@1_._)
.

U approve m(E)

********

I approve m(E)
.

(m@111)
.

U disapprovem(E)

********

I disapprove m(E)
.

(m@111)
.

Look @ m(E)
.

(m@100)

(1.7.0.1)

(1.7.0.4'.1)

Look @ m(E)
.

(m@100)
.

U approve m(E)

********

I approve m(E)
.

(m@111)
.

U disapprove m(E)

********

I disapprove m(E)
.

(m@000)
.

U reject m(E)

********

I reject U
.

(m@001)'
.

U rejected m(E)

********
.

(m@100)

(1.7.0.4'.1)

This last response (m@001)' 'Don't look at m(E) I have iT and I am not iT' (m@001)' primed intrigued m(E) at first along with all those Others that went for having before being. What could possibly be the reason for such differently ordered answers?

Simple. All such respondents, let's now call them Oedipal mU moded types had been exposed in Infancy to the desire of their (m)Other's and (f)Other's for One another either solely their Mum's for their Dad or their Dad's for their Mum or both for eachOther unlike their pre-Oedipal being before having (br)Others and sisters.

Some (m@001)' 'Don't look at m(E) I have iT and I am not iT' respondents however are totally unaware of any such desire hence my reason for associating such types with their pre-Oedipal mU minor (br)Others and sisters.

Intriguingly they were the only ones that proved to be the exception.

In establishing the nature of the desire in each case all that needs to be asked is:

'Who introduced U to their desire for the Other first'
'Was IT Mum for Dad or Dad for Mum?'
'Who was the One that wanted the Other
more than the Other wanted them?'
'Mum for Dad?' 'Dad for Mum?'

Intriguingly some pre-Oedipal subjects if asked prove also to have an awareness of such a desire. Another exceptional fact that I will explain later on.

Before exploring the Infantile mU mirrorings of all such Oedipal types best that we now explore the mU mirrorings of all 3 bit mU major types each the product of some pre-Oedipal or Oedipal mateful pair.

The 3 bit mU (m@001)' minor primed mode proves critical in the appearance of all such mU major types.

In all such types having each repeatedly passed through this (m@001)' rejecting the rejecting Other mode in the midst of repeated (m@000) falls and repeatedly experienced all those critical m(E) feel m(E) rejecting U feelings in the process acquire then a resultant empathetic understanding of all rejecting Others unlike their mU minored minor moded (br)Others and sisters who are only ever privy to those feelings of m(E) feel U rejecting m(E).

Such feelings facilitates then their crossing to the Other side of the Mirror and their identification with the disaproving mU minoring ways of their attendant mU major Other be iT a (f)Other or (m)Other

This Mirror crossing though is only open to the infants of some mateful pair. All infants of some mateless (m)Other and some unknown, unavailable (f)Other are solely confined then to some solitary mU (m)Other induced minor mU mode. Let m(E) explain.

Having rejected and identified with the disapproving ways of some mateful (m/f)Other the bold little One can then present themselves unanxiously to the Other half of such a mateful pair and act out triumphantly with him or her one of the following minor inducing routines:

Other half
Presentations

.

him/her

********

m(E)/I

.

(U@111)

disapprove

(m@000)

.

(U@011)

dominate

(m@100)

.

(U@101)

demean

(m@010)

.

(U@110)

belittle

(m@001)

.

him/her

********

m(E)/I

.

Presentations
Other half

.

Other half
Identifications

.

I/m(E)

********

him/her

.

(m@111)

disapprove

(U@000)

.

(m@011)

dominate

(U@100)

.

(m@101)

demean

(U@010)

.

(m@110)

belittle

(U@001)

.

I/m(E)

********

him/her

.

Identifications
Other half

These unmatched combatants size-wise eventually split and the further emboldened little One returns then to the originally rejected and disapproving (m/f)Other half and triumphantly rounds on them in the Other half form of a mU minoring oNE

Triumphant
Returners

.

him/her

********

I/m(E)

.

(U@111)

disapprove

m(E)

********

U

disapprove

(m@111)

.

(U@111)

disapprove

m(E)

********

U

dominate

(m@011)

.

(U@111)

disapprove

m(E)

********

U

demean

(m@101)

.

(U@111)

disapprove

m(E)

********

U

belittle

(m@001)

.

him/her

********

I/m(E)

.

Returners
Triumphant

In establishing which of the mateful pair had acted as such an Other half mU minoring form reveals then in the case of all mU major moded Ones which of the pair had acted as the returned, engaged and dallied with One. A Mum or a Dad.

In the case of all mU major (m@111) types there is no need to seek out an inverted answer. By simply asking 'Who was the One U could both be IT and have IT for Mum or Dad?' reveals straight away who was the One most disapprovingly engaged and disapprovingly dallied with.

In the case of all (m@011) mU major types asking, 'Who was the One U could be iT and have iT and then not be iT and have iT for Mum or Dad?' reveals the inverted answer. If iT was a Mum then the Dad was the One most domineerigly engaged and disapprovingly dallied with if iT was a Dad then the Mum.

Whilst in the case of all (m@101) mU major types asking, 'Who was U're Mum or Dad's favourite, in Infancy, U're sister or (br)Other' supplemented with 'Who was the One in Infancy U could not be iT or have IT for Mum or Dad? reveals the inverted answer again. If iT was a Mum then the Dad was the One most demeaningly engaged and disapprovingly dallied with if iT was a Dad then the Mum.

Lastly in the case of aLL (m@001) mU major types asking , 'Who was the One in Infancy that U could be iT for but never have iT for Mum or Dad?' reveals the inverted answer yet again. If iT was a Mum then the Dad was the One most belittlingly engaged and disapprovingly dallied with if iT was a Dad then the Mum.

If we follow the convention of using (_@_._._) brackets for a Mum and {_@_._._} brackets for a Dad then the whole range of pre-Oedipal mU modes can be encoded in iconic form as follows:

mU mINOR mAJOR mU

0 : (m@000) (m@111) : 7
1 : (m@100) (m@011) : 6
2 : (m@010) (m@101) : 5
3 : (m@110) (m@001) : 4
3 : {m@110} {m@001} : 4
2 : {m@010} {m@101} : 5
1 : {m@100} {m@011} : 6
0 : {m@000} {m@111} : 7

mU mINOR mAJOR mU

So what of aLL Oedipal mU minor and major modes, how do they work out? Slightly differently.

In establishing the nature of the Oedipal desire whether, Mum for Dad or Dad for Mum and which of the pair had been the minor inducing One contradictions arise.

In some minor moded Mum for Dad types it is not the expected Dad that is the minor inducing One but the Mum.

Likewise with some major moded Mum for Dad types it is not the expected Mum in their case that is the minor inducing One but the Dad.

Such contradictory responses confirm beautifully the fact that all Oedipal Infantile subjects are individually subjects of either One or Two turnings of Infantile Desire.

A singly desiring Mum for Dad or Dad for Mum turning or a doubly desiring Mum for Dad for Mum or Dad for Mum for Dad turning that produce non-contradictory and contradictory responses respectively.

If we follow the convention of using ({_@_._._} brackets for a single Mum for Dad turning and {(_@_._._) brackets for a single Dad for Mum turning and also {(_@_._._)} brackets for a double Dad for Mum for Dad turning and ({_@_._._}) brackets for a double Mum for Dad for Mum turning then the whole range of Oedipal mU modes can be encoded in iconic form as follows:

mU Mum:Dad Mum:Dad:Mum mU

0 : ({m@000} ({m@000}) : 0
1 : ({m@100} ({m@100}) : 1
2 : ({m@010} ({m@010}) : 2
3 : ({m@110} ({m@110}) : 3
4 : ({m@001} ({m@001}) : 4
5 : ({m@101} ({m@101}) : 5
6 : ({m@011} ({m@011}) : 6
7 : ({m@111} ({m@111}) : 7

0 : {(m@000) {(m@000)} : 0
1 : {(m@100) {(m@100)} : 1
2 : {(m@010) {(m@010)} : 2
3 : {(m@110) {(m@110)} : 3
4 : {(m@001) {(m@001)} : 4
5 : {(m@101) {(m@101)} : 5
6 : {(m@011) {(m@011)} : 6
7 : {(m@111) {(m@111)} : 7

mU Dad:Mum Dad:Mum:Dad mU

Such are the Ways of all Infantile Turnings whether Oedipal or pre-Oedipal mateful or mateless. All are to be found throughout all present day Family Groupings. This has not always been the case though according to our Darwinian (br)Others.

Our Chimpanzee cousins according to them first diverged from their Gorilla ancestors some 8 million years ago. Mirrored Mirrorings could have only then appeared sometime after such a split. Mirrorings that had continued on within our upright Hominid line of Ancestors following their split from our Chimpanzee cousins some 6 million years ago.

Given the Communal Group ways of living of our present day Chimpanzee cousins pre-Oedipal minor inducing Turnings are necessarily the norm amongst all of their offsprings, each being the product of some mateless multi-Male coupling (m)Other and some unknown unavailable (f)Other.

It can be safely assumed then that such Communal pre-Oedipal minor inducing Group ways of living had been the norm for the past 6 million years amongst our Chimpanzee, Hominid and 200,000 year old Ancestors Homo Sapiens.

It was only with the arrival of the Gene for Speech dangling still from the short arm of our 7th chromosome, according to oUr materialist (br)Others some 30,000 years or so back that things changed changed dramatically.

The First Hearing of the Law, that Appropriating and Divisive Law, had appeared then. 'This is Mine. That's Ure's and U now owe m(E) What U make m(E) take So settle down as That's iT!' such Speech Acts heralded then the demise of the Communal, Hunting Mating and Gathering Ways of living.

And the ascendency of the divisive and appropriating ways of the [Fenced-oFF] and [Fenced-iN] newly arrived Mateful Pair and the appearance of mU major inducing Infantile Turnings in the passing both Oedipal and pre-Oedipal.

Things have changed little since even in Modern Day times things remain much the same apart from the different kind of tools and products used in daily living.

Ever since Adulthood has become a Theatrical Space in which all major moded subjects in their opening First Act do unto substitute (m)Other and (f)Other's that which there very own mother and father had done unto them throughout their own childhood to be followed later by Second Acts in which they allow (m)Other and (f)Other substitutes to do unto them that which there own mother and father had done unto them.

Minor moded subjects on the other hand in their opening First Act allow (m)Other and (f)Other substitutes to do unto them that which there own mother and father had done unto them throughout their own childhood to be followed later by Second Acts in which they do unto substitute (m)Other and (f)Others that which their very own mother and father had done unto them.

Most if not all mU moded Oedipal subjects in their opening scenes first Act Out with some solitary (m)Other or (f)Other substitute scenes from their pre-Oedipal past before acting out with some mateful substitute pair those from their Oedipal infantile past explaining perfectly why some Oedipal subjects masquerade as pre-Oedipal ones when answering the mU questions.

The Cast of 3-bit Character parts, the Dramatis Personae, upon this Theatrical Stage of Adulthood is as follows:

Act I mU mINOR Players

0 : (m@000) ({m@000} ({m@000})
1 : (m@100) ({m@100} ({m@100})
2 : (m@010) ({m@010} ({m@010})
3 : (m@001) ({m@001} ({m@001})
0 : {m@000} ({m@000) {(m@000)}
1 : {m@100} ({m@100) {(m@100)}
2 : {m@010} ({m@010) {(m@010)}
3 : {m@110} ({m@110) {(m@110)}

0 : (m@111) ({m@111} ({m@111})
1 : (m@011) ({m@011} ({m@011})
2 : (m@101) ({m@101} ({m@101})
3 : (m@001) ({m@001} ({m@001})
0 : {m@111} ({m@111) {(m@111)}
1 : {m@011} ({m@011) {(m@011)}
2 : {m@101} ({m@101) {(m@101)}
3 : {m@001} ({m@001) {(m@001)}

Act II mU mINOR Players

Act II mU mAJOR Players

7 : (m@000) ({m@000} ({m@000})
6 : (m@100) ({m@100} ({m@100})
5 : (m@010) ({m@010} ({m@010})
4 : (m@001) ({m@001} ({m@001})
7 : {m@000} ({m@000) {(m@000)}
6 : {m@100} ({m@100) {(m@100)}
5 : {m@010} ({m@010) {(m@010)}
4 : {m@001} ({m@001) {(m@001)}

7 : (m@111) ({m@111} ({m@111})
6 : (m@011) ({m@011} ({m@011})
5 : (m@101) ({m@101} ({m@101})
4 : (m@001) ({m@001} ({m@001})
7 : {m@111} ({m@111) {(m@111)}
6 : {m@011} ({m@011) {(m@011)}
5 : {m@101} ({m@101) {(m@101)}
4 : {m@011} ({m@001) {(m@001)}

Act I mU mAJOR Players

All mutual encounters of such 3-bit Act I and II Characters, each acting the part of either having or being some substitute (m)Other or (f)Other inevitably ends in mU mINORing scenes of mismatched Calamity, those that do however match are simply replications of the Infantile Mirrorings of each Characters part. Such matching Mirrorings shake out as follows:

Act I m(E) mINOR /mAJOR U I Act

0 : m@000 U@111 : 7
1 : m@100 U@011 : 6
2 : m@010 U@101 : 5
3 : m@110 U@001 : 4

mUtually Matching

0 : m@000 U@000 : 7
1 : m@100 U@100 : 6
2 : m@010 U@010 : 5
3 : m@110 U@110 : 4

Act I m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U I Act

0 : m@111 U@111 : 7
1 : m@011 U@011 : 6
2 : m@101 U@101 : 5
3 : m@001 U@001 : 4

mUtually Matching

0 : m@111 U@000 : 7
1 : m@011 U@100 : 6
2 : m@101 U@010 : 5
3 : m@001 U@100 : 4

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

You see there are basically two types of matching encounters, one of which is mUtually ReciProcating the Other mUtually IdentIfying none of which can be found within any of the unmatched Ones:

Act I m(E) mINOR /mAJOR U I Act

0 : m@000 U@111 : 7
1 : m@100 U@011 : 6
2 : m@010 U@101 : 5
3 : m@110 U@001 : 4

mUtually ReciProcating

0 : m@111 U@000 : 7
1 : m@011 U@100 : 6
2 : m@101 U@010 : 5
3 : m@001 U@100 : 4

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

Act I m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

0 : m@000 U@000 : 7
1 : m@100 U@100 : 6
2 : m@010 U@010 : 5
3 : m@110 U@110 : 4

mUtually IdentIfying

0 : m@111 U@111 : 7
1 : m@011 U@011 : 6
2 : m@101 U@101 : 5
3 : m@001 U@001 : 4

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U I Act

All unmatched, un-IdentIfying and non-ReciProcating mirrorings can take any of the following forms and more:

Act I m(E) mINOR /mAJOR U I Act

0 : m@000 U@001 : 4
1 : m@100 U@111 : 7
2 : m@010 U@011 : 6
3 : m@110 U@101 : 5

mUtually misMatching

0 : m@000 U@010 : 5
1 : m@100 U@110 : 4
2 : m@010 U@000 : 7
3 : m@110 U@100 : 6

Act I m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U I Act

0 : m@111 U@011 : 6
1 : m@011 U@101 : 5
2 : m@101 U@001 : 4
3 : m@001 U@111 : 7

mUtually misMatching

0 : m@111 U@110 : 4
1 : m@011 U@010 : 5
2 : m@101 U@100 : 6
3 : m@001 U@000 : 7

Act II m(E) mINOR / mAJOR U II Act

I leave it to yourself and your Imagination to work out the possible combinations of all of the goings on within each of such mismatched mirrorings not forgetting the crossed Over mU mAJOR disapproving ways of all mU@111 types, the domineering ways of all mU@011 types, the demeaning ways of all mU@101 types and the belittling ways of all mU@001 types.

Such un-matched and matching mirrorings are grounded aLL in opening LooKs of either limiting acceptance or total approval. All eventually invert and lead to Acts involving looks of total rejection and limiting disapproval performed by both mINORing Act I mU mAJOR and Act II mU mINOR Ones but also by mINORed Act II mU mAJOR Ones.

Minored Act II mU mAJOR Ones when acting out their reactive rejection of some newfound disapproving Other and their crossover identification with some equally disapproving mU mINORing Other equally end up giving out such critical Loves laboured lost LooKs.

Act I mU mINOR Selves only having ever experienced the m(E) feel U rejecting m(E) feelings in Infancy and never having been given the space, unlike their mU mAJOR counterparts, to experience and explore those critical feelings of m(E) feel m(E) rejecting U are totally unequipped to entertain such a re-active Self-serving performance.

As a result of this Infantile Lack mU mINORed Ones absolutely missed out in mastering their own rejected m(E) feelings through any such re-active invertingmUmAJOR crossing and consequently their Imaginary based Real mU mINORing acts of Act II can often go vicious and murderously wrong way beyond any reasonable limit.

In all such socially based Encounters Orders are naturally dished out by the mU mAJOR [111] types based on the Directives both Moral or otherwise issued by the mU mAJOR [101] demeaning types and critiqued all by the belittling mU mAJOR [001] types.

Whilst mU mINOR [000] types busily do the bidding of All just like their defeated neighbouring fellow labouring mU mINOR [100] types.

Exiled and exiling mU mINOR [010] types just sit iT out, awaiting the arrival of some far more favouring (f)Other or (m)Other.

Unapproved mU mINOR [m@110] types innocently cannot ever please whilst the distant mU mAJOR [011] Ones sit above iT all doing the bidding of None.

All such types occupy and act out as well though their allocated Social Role their linguistically socially constructed mAJOR or mINOR Role.

Act out in ways that also lead to catastrophic Scenes of mU mINORing mismatched Calamity due to their socially allocated mINOR or mAJOR Role not matching up with their underlying Infantile mU mode mAJOR or mINOR.

Such are the ways of aLL Social Encounters whether matched or not.

Sexual Encounters are no different involving identical Act I and II 3-bit players aCTing the parts of either having or being some substitute (m)Other or (f)Other and ending all in scenes of mU mINORing mismatched Calamity unless they happen to be unknowing mUtually reciprocating Ones.

There being no Gene for Sexuality according to our Materialist (br)Others aLL se(x)UaL behaviour be iT HetERoBiOrHoMO or Other can only ever be grounded then in aLL such mAJOR and mINOR mU modes.

All mUtually matching sexual encounters can be depicted at their simplest horizontally just like all unMatched temporary affairs as follows:

Act I mAJOR

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

****** ****** ****** ******

U@000 U@100 U@010 U@110

Act I mINOR

Act II mINOR

U@111 U@011 U@101 U@001

****** ****** ****** ******

m@000 m@100 m@010 m@110

Act II mAJOR

mUtually ReciProcating

Act I mAJOR

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

****** ****** ****** ******

U@000 U@100 U@010 U@110

Act II mAJOR

Act II mINOR

U@111 U@011 U@101 U@001

****** ****** ****** ******

m@000 m@100 m@010 m@110

Act I mINOR

Within the Heterosexual Act of a mUtually reciprocating encounter, no different from any unmatched one, it is Act I mU mAJORS who do the business whilst Act I mU mINORS and Act II mU mAJORS simply accept what is given, contrariwise within the Homosexual Act it is Act II mU mINORS who do the business whilst Act II mU mAJORS and Act I mU mINORS simply accept what is given.

Given the nature of these up and down curtain raising Acts, Bisexual behaviour can be found amongst mU mINOR moded subjects who in their HeterOsexual Act I scenes passively accept what is given whilst actively dishing iT out within their subsequent Homosexual Scenes from Act II.

As well as mAJOR moded subjects who contrariwise, in their very own Heterosexual Act I scenes actively do the business whilst passively accepting what is given within their subsequent Homsexual Act II scenes.

Similarly in the case of some mU mINOR and mAJOR Oedipal {(_@_._._)} and ({_@_._._}) double turners, they too can act out bi-erotic scenes with some solitary and separate Homoerotic (m)Other and (f)Other substitutes, before bedding down into regular Heterosexual Acts after finding themselves both having and being the love object of some substitute (m)Other and (f)Other pair.

Paedophilia on the otherhand is only found amongst mINOR moded subjects, subjects those who bypass all Act I Scenes and hurriedly enter Act II Scenes in which they do the business unseen to innocent little matchless Self-Substitute.

In the case of all mUtually IdentIfying encounters All either never begin or end as follows:

Act II mAJOR

m@000 m@100 m@010 m@110

****** ****** ****** ******

U@000 U@100 U@010 U@110

Act II mAJOR

Act II mINOR

U@111 U@011 U@101 U@001

****** ****** ****** ******

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

Act II mINOR

mUtually IdentIfying

Act I mAJOR

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

****** ****** ****** ******

U@111 U@011 U@101 U@001

Act I mAJOR

Pairs of Act II mU mAJORs and Act I mU mINORs aLL fall asleep whilst passively awaiting the Other to do the business and all eventually awaken, sometimes on the floor, to find that nothing has ever come to pass.

Whilst with those Other pairs of Act I mU mAJORs and Act II mU mINORs, each desperate to do the business, nothing ever mutually comes to an end, unless each independently has brought along some inflatable doll or electrical device of their own chosing with which to complete the business.

Unmatched, un-IdentIfying and non-ReciProcating sexual encounters are no different. They too can take any of the following horizontal forms and more:

Act II mAJOR

U@010 U@110 U@000 U@100

****** ****** ****** ******

m@000 m@100 m@010 m@110

Act I mINOR

Act II mINOR

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

****** ****** ****** ******

U@011 U@101 U@001 U@111

Act I mAJOR

mUtually unMatching

II mINOR

U@111 U@011 U@101 U@001

****** ****** ****** ******

m@011 m@101 m@001 m@111

Act I mAJOR

Act II mINOR

U@001 U@101 U@111 U@011

****** ****** ****** ******

m@111 m@011 m@101 m@001

Act II mINOR

I leave iT to yourself and your Imagination to work out the possible goings on within each of such mismatched encounters not forgetting the crossed over mU mAJOR disapproving ways of all mU@111 types, the dominating ways of all mU@011 types, the demeaning ways of all mU@101 types and the belittling ways of all mU@001 types.

In the case of Oedipal male single {(_@_._._) and double {(_@_._._)} turners, all feel secure in the face of any Adult rival's desire, as do their female ({_@_._._} and ({_@_._._}) counterparts as a consequence of single turners having won the love of their infantile rival's love object and double turners having both been and had the Object of theirs. Adult rivals therefore had posed no threat for either of them.

On the otherhand in the case of male double ({_@_._._}) turners, their having identified in Infancy first with their 'Mum's desire for Dad' and then their 'Dad's for Mum' All find triangular happiness in Adulthood when in the midst of their (m)Other substitute's wifely love for themselves and some mutually (m)Other loving outside best buddy friend, a substitute (f)Other figure both for theirself and their chosen wifely (m)Other.

Likewise with female double {(_@_._._)} turners their having identified in Infancy first with their 'Dad's desire for Mum' and then their 'Mum's for Dad' All find triangular happiness in Adulthood when in the midst of their (f)Other substitute's husbandly love for themselves and some mutually (f)Other loving outside best sister friend a substitute (m)Other figure both for theirself and their chosen husbandly (f)Other.

Such female double {(_@_._._)} turners of Modern day times also have the option of finding such triangular happiness by acting the part of some stripped naked nonwifely (m)Other substitute for some (f)Other client substitute in the midst of a band of fellow stripped sisterly working (m)Other figures and moneyed, loving (f)Other substitute figures, both for their naked selves and their fellow money loving (m)Otherly sisters.

Likewise with Modern day male double ({_@_._._}) turners they too have the option of finding triangular happiness by acting the part of some suitably dressed non-husbandly (f)Other substitute for some stripped naked (m)Other substitute in the midst of a band of suitably dressed (f)Other figures and stripped naked money loving (m)Other substitute figures, both for their suitably dressed selves and their moneyed, loving (f)Otherly buddies.

Things are a little different in the case of Oedipal male single {(_@_._._) and double {(_@_._._)} turners and their female({_@_._._} and ({_@_._._}) counterparts. Rather than fearing the desire of any Adult rival for their chosen (m)Other or (f)Other substitute they fear more their substitute's desire for any Other Adult.

In Adulthood male single ({_@_._._} turners, having solely identified in Infancy with a 'Mum's desire for Dad' in confronting their chosen (m)Other substitute's desire for some other (f)Other substitute tend just to go with the flow, look after the kids, perhaps, whilst filling up her absence with a bit of Body building, perhaps, in preparation for her return, after her newfound (L)Other drops her for some Other or for some future encounter with some Ideal Body Daddy desiring (m)Other yet to come.

Similarly in Adulthood female single {(_@_._._)turners, having solely identified in Infancy with a Dad's desire for Mum' in confronting their chosen (f)Other substitute's desire for some other (m)Other substitute, tend just to go with the flow, look after the kids, perhaps, whilst filling up his absence with a new set of Clothes and a bit of silicon enhancing Boob building, perhaps, in preparation for his return, after his newfound (L)Other drops him for some Other or for some future encounter with some Ideal Body Mummy desiring (f)Other yet to come.

In the case of male double {(_@_._._)} turners, their having identified in Infancy first with a 'Dad's desire for Mum' and then a 'Mum's for Dad' know full well that triangular happiness does not await them when confronting a (m)Other substitute's wifely love for some other (f)Other figure and his mutual love for her, his newfound (m)Other figure, and hence bow out early in the hope that they can replace her with some Other wifely (m)Other substitute just like him.

Similarly in the case of female double ({_@_._._}) turners, their having identified in Infancy first with a 'Mum's desire for Dad' and then a 'Dad's for Mum' know full well that triangular happiness does not await them as well when confronting their (f)Other substitute's husbandly love for some other (m)Other figure and her mutual love for him, her newfound (f)Other figure, and hence bow out early in the hope that they can replace him with some Other husbandly (f)Other substitute just like her.

Such are the ways of aLL Sexual encounters whether matched or not.

Groups or rather Groupings both Ancient and Modern, being linguistically constructed fictions grounded in Ancient times upon Approriating and Divisive Laws laid down primarily in the Name of the (F)Other, that All appropriating (F)Other, have long been constituted and maintained by mU moded subjects no different from oURselves.

Within all Ancient Groups it must have been mU mAJOR domineering [171] type (br)Others that ended up controlling things by dishing out Orders, based upon the Noral and Legalistic Directives of their demeaning mU mAJOR [101] (br)Others unsatisfied (br)Others mU mAJOR who had aLL been individually passed over for a far more favoured (br)Other or sister by some mINOR [010] inducing (f)Other before their crossing to that shore, that resentful [101] mU mAJOR shore where they had erected and laid down then the Noral Law.

That Legalistic constraining and restricting Law laid down purely in the Name of the (F)Other, that far more favouring nonsensical (F)Other, as a demeaning form of comeback for their very own unfavouring actual (f)Other and as a useful instrument in the literal Cruxifiction of any or all more favoured (br)Others.

A convenient fiction, that had eventually superceded the natural pre-Linguistic M(u)rality of Communal LiVinG based purely upon U mirrored Sympathy and (m)E mirroring my fault Shame - bi-fOLD shame - shame in upsetting a mU miNORing (m)Other and shame in upsetting (br)Others and sisters in the form of such a mU miNORing oNE aLL such innocent shamefuLL aCT feelings being superceded and perverted then by the guilty siNfuLL wORDs of the (F)Other that proved very useful for aLL [171] mU mAJOR controlling and domineering (br)Others.

Such Ancient Groups must have first appeared on the shoreline of the Levant the first Staging Post of our ouT of Africa Speaking (br)Others some 30,000 years or so back.

That Levantine (F)OtherLand of all three Abrahamic Religions each and aLL grounded in the Legalistic constraining and restricting Law of resentful demeaned and demeaning [101] past (br)Others.

Hebrew Speaking resentment grounded all in an unfavouring exiling [13121] d-Littled mU mINOR fall whilst Christian resentment is grounded upon iT's very own unfavouring exiling [17121] domineered mU mINOR FaLL.

Our Koran reciting (br)Others on the Other hand, in
reciting the Legalistic constraining and restricting Words of Abraham's (F)Other, all based on the resentful Words of past [101] (br)Others are also unwittingly reciting the belittling crossed over mU mAJOR [001] Words of past submissive [131] unsatisfied mU mINORed Ones. The makers of Critical Reason.

All three fictions have long proved useful to our [171] mU mAJOR controlling (br)Others right up to the Present Day.

Another major Staging Post was that of Our into India (br)Others where far more tolerant [1701] mU mAJOR types eventually took control still backing though the Appropriating and Divisive Laws picked up whilst passing by their "Levantine" (br)Others.

Their more open and less controlling Orders resulted in a proliferation of groupings Caste Groupings so called grounded still within their very own hierarchical variation of the Laws of misapproriation grounded in that Kharmic Norality based entirely upon the approving and disapproving Ways of their (M/F)Other mU Nature.

Such Ways eventually gave rise to the two mU mAJOR Dharma Religions. The HindU [111] mUDharma talking of eternal cycles of Selfully being and having iT or not. The mU Buddhist [011] Dharma of forever never selfully being iT and yet still being and never not having iT that selflessly passing show of sensory eVENTs.

Long changeful talk useful to all [1701] mU mAJOR Controlling (br)Others in postponing the change of aLL mis-Appropriating and Divisive Laws between all selfs and Others.

Our into India and out of Africa (br)Others having all originated from Chimpanzee band-sized Groups, Groups of 50 to 150 individuals aLL individually recognised by one anOther. There probably would have only been 50 or so chimpanzee-sized Bands that ever emerged in that very first Talkative Outing.

Bands of Homo Sapiens (br)Others talking (br)Others. Homo Loquens (br)Others now called that had banded further together following the first Hearing of the Law, the Law of their [101] mU member (br)Others forming linguistically structured and constructed Groups grounded all in the following (w)E singular Group mU talk:

The 8 'have' iT Group mU mODEs

Look @ Us
(w)E are iT
(w)E have iT

********

U have IT
U are not iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are iT
(w)E have iT

********

U have IT
U are not iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are not iT
(w)E have iT

********

U have IT
U are iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are not iT
(w)E have iT

********

U have IT
U are iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are iT
(w)E don't
have iT

********

U have iT
U are not iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are iT
(w)E don't
have iT

********

U have iT
U are not iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are not iT
(w)E don't
have iT

********

U have iT
U are iT
Look @ U

.

Look @ Us
(w)E are not iT
(w)E don't
have iT

********

U have iT
U are iT
Look @ U

The 8'have' iT mU mODEs

(w)E singular Group mU talk all grounded in past History. The history of past encounters of individual Groups with some neighbouring Other. Some similarly Approriating Divisive Other. Encounters All that ended and still end in horrendous deathly Scenes of mismatched Calamity.

The ancestral past histories of all such Groups occupy that dramatic Historical Space in which all newly mAJORed masterful Groups, upon entering their opening Act I scenes do unto some newly enslaved mU mINORed neighbouring Group that which had been done by some Other past masterful mU mAJOR moded Group to their very own historically enslaved ancestral mU mINORed (br)Others.

All are followed by Act II scenes in which they too are in turn enslaved upon the mINORing entry of some mU mAJORed newly unenslaved enslaving Group.

The nature of the tools used in all such masterfully enslaving acts has long defined the Periodic Histories of all such Groups: Firstly the Stone Age followed by the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the recent Industrial Age and lastly the Atomic Age.

Within the hunting gathering Stone Age period vicious and murderous mU mINORING acts had been the order of the day at the Group periphery when encountering Other rival Groups and at the centre in lean times of food and females.

Such vicious and murderous mU mINORING acts have proven to be the order of the day throughout aLL Groups of subsequent Historical Periods especially at their periphery but also at their enslaving constraining and divisive Centre.

Nothing has changed much throughout the whole of Human History, witness the peripheries of the Groupings of our present day Jewish, Christian and Muslim (br)Others and their enslaving, constraining and divisive Centres and those of any modern day Mafia-style Group, vicious and murderous mU mINORING acts abound.

Individuals each we all individual member subjects of some such Group.

Groups that have all had the same identical Past History, irrespective of how their present day BiG Chief Representative answers when asked,

'What sort of Lot are U'res' Are they a
'Look at Us' or 'Don't look at Us'
'We are IT' or 'We're not IT'
'We have IT' or 'We don't
have It' type Lot'

Identical Group Histories we all. All containing traces of each Group mU answer.

Traces that each individual member subject carries within their own head on top of their very own mU mode that contaminates all encounters of individual members of different foreign Groups.

Such is the Way of all Groups and their individual member subjects.

Our so called primitive mU mINOR moded (br)Others first came into their own on the shoreline of Asia Minor just around the corner from their Levantine (br)Others and sisters.

Being only too well aware individually of the consequences of the mINOR inducing Ways of their mU mAJOR moded (br)Others and sisters they had abandoned each and all to their very own talk and Things, (F)Otherly Things, and simply sat down then most probably on the shoreline of some windy Beach and simply just Thought.

Thought of the simple beingness of iT all, in the case of our [110] mU minOred Ones who by talking of all That is just simply is and all that is not just simply is not and cannot ever bE so were able then to empty their World of the Void and just sit there being apart of iT a part of some naturally occurring Voidless Blocked Universe.

Look at Us. We are iT. No need not now not to have iT. We simply are iT- are iT All - iT being that single Voidless Block Universe of no Change possible.

Mu mINORed [m@100] Ones had focused their thought rather on the lack of Being of any of iT the never long being of any of iT and the always just had iT just had iT had iT feel of iT All and ended up talking of Rivers of iT endlessly changing Rivers of iT Look at IT Look at IT All. We are not IT and cannot ever bE IT so nor not ever have IT so surfacing naturally so as endless Rivers of Change.