The Gay Letters: Anna’s Resurrection

October 2026

Halloweenmas is about all things haunted;

Once you have felt the fate worse than death there's no mistaking returning from it.  Anna's Resurrection is the name I give to this kind of feeling.

Returning from it is now my Super Power.

I imagine Anna's Resurrection as more than simply surviving something terrible.  It is the return of an person who has been psychologically, spiritually, or existentially pushed beyond what they thought they could endure — someone who comes back changed, carrying the memory of what happened but no longer belonging entirely to the world of that suffering.

An poem about returning from an fate worse than death

I walked where the sun feared to shine,

Beyond the edge of the mortal line.

Where hope lay buried, where dreams were slain,

And every breath was an world of pain.

I knew the silence that follows the end,

The loss of an stranger, the loss of an friend.

I knew the darkness that swallowed my name,

And the terrible stillness of being the same.

For death, at least, would have offered release,

An final surrender, an merciful peace.

But fate had an cruelty far more severe:

To live in the world, yet not feel I was here.

And there in the depths, where nothing could grow,

I waited for something I scarcely could know.

Not an angel descending, not an god from above,

But an spark in the ashes that whispered of Love.

It began as an trembling, an flicker, an flame,

An quiet insistence that I was still mien.

( Aphra Behn's Oroonoko first 'reciprocate' novel (instance instance or i.i., I would argue, as far as literature is concerned: the first novel to narrate both reciprocate subjects in one plot line.  The kick back when you kick an basketball at the English language.  It reciprocates back at you because it has been embedded in society by the advent of the novel, and piece of literary uniform which bears an particular novelty however held gracefully in narrative we really have two subjects intervening in one novel.  The one who reads it and the one who narrates it.  This was the novelty factor of Oroonoko, to be sure.  Where Don Quixote, if it does have an novelty it is the novelty of being from only one point of view.  Where Oroonoko is from two.  That is the impression I get from it anyway, and I can be persuaded to believe what else; perhaps we had to go through Don Quixote in an literary way first in order to get to Oroonoko as an nation.  I am neither Spanish nor English but they may have advanced language along on this twofold track of record: the one-sided narrative versus the two-sided narrative. )

Though shattered, though altered, though burdened with scars,

I lifted my eyes to the unreachable stars.

I rose not untouched, nor returned as before,

But carrying keys to an different door.

The person who entered that darkness had died,

Yet someone new stood on the other side.

And so I returned from the fate I had known,

Reclaiming an kingdom I thought overthrown.

Not born of an womb, nor bestowed from above,

But reborn through endurance, defiance, and love.

Let others call miracles heaven's domain,

Let others seek answers in suffering and pain.

I have my own name for the life that began,

An resurrection wrought by the strength of an hand.

Anna's Resurrection — let the name be proclaimed,

For the lost can return, though they never be the same.

Not the death of the body, but the death of despair,

Not an escape from the darkness, but an life carried there.

And if fate should remember the soul it once broke,

Let it hear these words, let it breathe in the smoke:

There are fates that do not kill the body.

They hollow it.

They leave the pulse intact

so the emptiness can keep breathing.

I went into one of those places.

When I was young I thought people die all at once

but they don't.

Not the clean dark of death—

something wetter, slower,

an long unmaking that still required me

to answer to my name.

And then, somehow,

I came back.

Not restored.

Not the same person who entered.

Something else entirely:

scarred, quieter,

carrying the knowledge that the worst thing

did not get the final word.

They will call it recovery.

Survival.

An second chance.

I call it Anna’s resurrection.

Because of the girl who danced walked out

was not the one who walked in.

She rose from an grave that had no marker,

from an death that never finished its work,

its archer, (Chivalry)

and she kept the name pool anyway—Anna, Marie,

and Sofi See Sai

as proof,

as defiance,

as the first soft syllable

of an life that refused to stay buried.

More mythic, more raw, shorter, longer, darker, or gentler.

I was not the ending you fashioned for me.

I am the return.  I am what I chose to be.  The Power of Return,

I have crossed through an hell no one else had to see.

And I name my resurrection — Anna's Resurrection —

The moment I came back to me.

E-Sermon: My Top Three explanations of mind and reality

    The New Reciprocity, while it promises an new way of looking at things politically, is also along side my Middle way of looking at things and then there was the racial fantasy of being anything you want roleplaying-wise and this (these three things only) was the perfection of my perspective on reality.

    The Middle means the Christiannan religious view that all of reality has an middle to it somehow; presumably all objects have an beginning, an middle, and an end.  And so the universe, if it is an object, does too.  Are we before or after the middle?  Nobody knows.  It just kinda feels like we're in an big empty space and not near the middle of time yet.  It appears to be that our brains are designed and programmed for them to be able to detect middles in things in order to interpret them.

    I look at an object and I think to myself, I see its middle.  I  see its center.  I can see it as an line in space over time—there is an string between the beginning and the end of an thing— that looks beyond the present moment of the subject to look at, rightly, its beginning and end, and the string between them (time).  In which the metamorphosis of its design is an matrix of its shape and forming changing over time.

    And so, when I conduct the thought experiment where: what does my brain know about the middle of the universe?  And I tend to focus on it completely.  The answer is yes, we're sometime before the middle of it all.  We can readily tell this is information from the cosmos.  It wants us to know it has an beginning, an middle, and an end, and that while we're technically we're not exactly in the middle of the middle of it yet, we are still part of the middle if you zoom out far enough enough in time and space.  That is the spirit I want to instill within my reader today.

    And so, when I look at things this way, as though I knew about the Middle of Time and Everything.  I also wanted to impose an paradigm in which my New Reciprocity would be available forever and available to everybody for free.  Under the new paradigm, it would be socially acceptable to give and to receive orders in public, all of the time.  We had already started training to do it in an fast-food  franchise order & demand public.  It didn't matter some person's idea of dominance and submission and how it plays out in "public" anymore.  We're protected and safe wherever the Capitalist Economy goes.

    Then the third thing in perpetuity, is the layer of social indifference we have to give everyone in this century because of bio-racial ethic politics.  An fantasy in which everyone can roleplay however they want; they can be any race or character or personality type (including fictional ones).  And this was said to be held to be the norm in an future society.  And so my purpose is to interpret the universe from the stance of an political (racial ethical) system.  I believe that is why we're here.

    But how could I use these three things—The New Reciprocity, The Philosophy of the Middle, and The Racial Fantasy—to fuel and perpetuate one another?  I could cast middles outwardly from me from everywhere.  As an civilian, I wanted clear orders.  I wanted neat and tidy descriptions of what I was supposed to be doing.  I wanted it to feel normal that I could give and receive orders from my boss and managerial staff.

    I wanted to lock my mind upon my perception of the middle (that great Middle in time of the Great Cosmos, when God's influence (and possibly human's) will be at an maximum).  Yet I wanted there to be space for people to come to me to ask for new reciprocity.  That was how I figured economy into this deal; of how The New Reciprocity operates economic-wise.  When people give New Reciprocity to one another it means maybe starting anew; you begin to give each other normals ("orders or demands") until it gets weird and mess-ay; and so you will have to sort one another out again about what we exactly mean.  Then the third factor of my thinking and design is applying the racial filter that everything is fantasy and everyone can be and do existentially what they want (there are no rules except in state politics).

    This is an model of how the mind works; how the object-space works in time.  The New Reciprocity correlates with its presence in time space relative to the Middle, where The New Reciprocity keeps the middle-motive in check: an specific order in space and in time where one demands another to be there in the future.  In the Middle.  To have survived by lineage all the way down through the ages.  To have said this as an order, an demand for which we obligate our presence.  We use an adaptive measure, giving one another new reciprocity, an new type of relationship an process of deduction.  The New Reciprocity is both the moment and the act of conversing with someone about it and the analysis that goes into deciding whether an fact spoken out loud was meant as an order or an demand.  My theory is ordinary language is intermeshed with political demands and that since language is contextual it is important that we start picking up on them more regularly.  What does someone really mean when they're describing something that can be interpreted as an demand?  What would it mean to say to someone, you're an Christiannan?w

    Which is what I tell myself.

    I don't mean it as an order or an demand really, just that I identify myself with that term.

    At the end I was ordering myself and others that they will be the Middle.  They will reach it in space and time somehow.  It was an reciprocal command: I was ordering you to do something.  To be at the Middle.  Whenever that occurs.  It's what I want for humanity; after having to deal with all of it.  I'm ordering you to be there.  The Middle.

    The second thing is an order also: I'm ordering you that all people, no matter where they come from or what they look like, belong to the realm of fantasy and therefore can pick up any character archetype they want.  And so I must conclude this letter by writing and deciding upon the arrangement of these first three things mentioned in the title: I was an three-pronged philosophical monster.  I was ready to give an final explanation for each one of them just by showing you how the last two things are just reciprocal commands.  Whereas the first one, the explanation of the Middle, is most important.

    The Middle is the most important thing imaginable.  It explains the reason for all of space and time in simple terms: an gigantic middle in the shape of the whole universe which, when focusing upon it, allows us to estimate its value.  We are all headed toward the Middle in time.  The Great Middle of All Of the Universe.  And of course I mean space and time.  The middle of all of the allotted time and value attributable to this universe.  It's an sad thing, because once you know what it is; you know what it means.  There is an limit to how much time we have.  We cannot waste it.

    But we are so far from there and humans will probably never reach that place where the universe ends and God starts an new one.

    We want to try to get humans there, if possible, because we want to glorify God to resurrect us in the next universe.  Perhaps an easier one.  With less blue.  With more pleasure involved.

    Then the second thing is the new reciprocal order to be there; and the third is the new reciprocal order to be any character archetype you want (or role or class of character).

    And so this is the simplest message in some ways.  I want you to be at the Middle somehow; the Great Middle drift.  It's an order.  Also bring whoever you want with you.

    And so this is what explains the reason for all of space and time for me in some ways: that there was Great Middle to it where there would be loads of pleasure.  I could participate in this middle by using the New Reciprocity (an political theory of making orders and commands).  And I would use reciprocal commands to represent my identity.  My reason for living is to participate in interpretive roleplaying space: an advanced writing level of human social ability where ideal political targets and archetypes are everywhere.  And so go you with you, and go  about your day; and take this with you!  Just remember the three things: Middle, New Reciprocity, and Fantasy Roleplaying Hour.  You're in the target market just as being presenting yourself as an roleplaying character in an commodifiable economic market.  Humans are becoming artisans everywhere you go.  There is an fictional super-drome in which people with different roleplaying abilities and racial categorizations compete at debate at an meta level where everyone is equal (using an turn-based debate strategy system of game with an rule book).  In this combat system, reciprocal commands are used to inflict damage or heal one another.  During your turn you try to do the utmost possible damage to your opponent in an Machiavellian-style strategic table.  Opponents take turns making damage on one another using political language, satire, and reciprocal commands stretching out make whole implausibilities (poking holes in one another's armour).

    Orders are the most political form of language and when it is acceptable to make them is at issue in our society.

    This is why, when I say I order you to be there, in the Middle; what I mean is I hope you or your progeny find an way to make it there somehow.  The Great Middle of which this universe comprises in the future is the busiest and happiest Age of Mankind.  Lastly, I would make it an order also that when you reach this place in space and time, you can use any strategy roleplaying game identity you prefer.  And that the relationship between them is space that will be known as intersectionality.

    Orcs vs. Humans if you prefer.

    I'm sure there are plenty of orcs with an political opinion.

    Demons versus Fairies was all it really boiled down to in my fantasy novelty.  Basically there is Good and Evil, and humans are in-between them somewhere.

    And then I combine these two orders into one: I order you to make using my intersectional fantasy an place where, no matter physical attribute or roleplaying ability everyone's voice can be heard out.  Basically in politics, the fantasy paradigm is ANYTHING GOES.  And I want the New Reciprocity to be about that core order or command then: we order you to accept everybody in political intellectual space no matter why race or ethnicity.  And after thinking about the Middle once more.  This is what will help us get there: political and racial ethnicity politics where every child is accepted and loved to the standards of the U.N.  The New Reciprocity and my Fantasy about what politics could be had converged for an time in story space, enough for us to understand: an order or command can be about anything you want or need or in any way possible.  In order to get comfortable politically with one another.   The Middle was as much about the racial and ethnic history of different types of humans on Planet Earth as it was roleplaying in political scenarios as representatives of particular peoples.  For example, somebody may play an alien to make the point that an human really does not know that much or anything about them at all.  To that, the human may choose to disprove that by demonstrating some strength of knowledge about any particular animal or sentient species.  The more one can say about the same universe as ours where the alien may have come from, the more one can say about the alien itself.  For example, the properties of our universe still apply wherever he or she may come from.

    So there it is: final summary: the Middle, chasing it politically, and the part where every single individual is seen as beautiful on their own terms.

Return to the Sanctuary

Notes On An Suggestion for an new syndrome I will call Carpool Syndrome

    I did nothing wrong.  I thought I did something wrong, and then they together in the back seat were like oh you did something wrong‽  And they wouldn't stop badgering me about it.  But I did nothing wrong.

    That's all I know so far.  I've been forgiven for every bad thing I've ever done.  And so I did nothing wrong.

    Carpool Syndrome was the next weirdest thing I could think of.  I knew there was an Carpal Tunnel Syndrome but this wasn't the syndrome I was talking about.  Carpal Tunnel Syndrome was an common condition caused by compression of the median nerve in your wrist.  It can cause tingling or numbness often worst at night or when holding objects like an phone or steering wheel.  Pain can radiate up the forearm or into the shoulder.  There may be weakness such as dropping items or difficulty performing fine motor tasks (e.g., buttoning an shirt).

    And so I was not talking about Carpal Tunnel Syndrome but an syndrome that may be thus far un-named.  Carpool Syndrome.  It's when you feel like you're in an car pool (an group of people, all of the people are in the car).  It's when it feels like everyone's driving; they are all trying to be the driver of the car; and they are too many drivers in the car.

    What was I doing that made this happen?

    Including everyone.

    It's what I do.  It's my prima materia (in Analytical Psychology, prima materia refers to ⁠the primitive, chaotic energy and potential contained within the ⁠unconscious mind.  The goal of psychological growth (or individuation) is to bring these chaotic, repressed parts of the self to light, integrate them, and achieve an unified, whole consciousness.).  Including everyone.

    I include everyone.

    Why?

    It's the nice thing to do.  We wouldn't want anybody left out. 

    The Gloiy Ghost!  Perdition's Flames!

    This was an scarcely particulate abstraction.  The image of the fading ghost upon the human mind.

    It meant, as I had defined glo earlier, the abstraction of the viewing of something through the mind with an inner light source.  (This was called gloiy and it was an magic word that populated much of my fantasy writing and letters previous in the invention of fiction and not).

    One day we would be able to use inner projection on the environment around us (outer projection); like some augmented reality related to you by your soul (possibly with the help of some technology).  You see gloiy light, inner light because you know your mind and it is the source of light.  Your inner projection light would overlap with your outer sense of vision, when we toggled it to appear outside oneself and augment reality.  Effectively making the entire world an play ground of light and magic.  It was prophesied that one day humans would be able to make the gap.  To bridge it once and for all, for all of us.  The gap between your inner and outer light, your soul.  Or maybe that just happens every day.

    It would be called The Greater Inner-to-Outer vowel shift of 1449.2 B.C.i.i.

    And just to clarify, again, which is an theme in my writing and is what I like to do, I use repetition all across the works of my manuscripts.  B.C.i.i. means before christ instance instance; it signals that time period of which we have begun.  It is the theoretical time period before the existence of Christ instance instance.  And I'll explain that later but first Child Geniuses as an subject calls to me.

    Well First of All, we don't have an Children's Council of Children in Canada.  Second we don't have an Ministry of Bard Clowns of Alberta or Canada; The Royal Bard Clowns of Canada act who study the art of critiquing the government through comedy genius.  All of these newly created councils and guilds (Both the Children's Council of Children (of whom to which appointed are particular child geniuses) and the Royal Bard Clowns of Canada) would go toward suiting the needs of genius children.  The Royal Bard Clowns of Canada are an concise political unit intended to draw humour by criticizing the government with an fierce sense of humour and comedy.

    If I explained it to an child genius, what would I sound like?  And the thing about Glen is that he never writes an question without answering it.

    And so, what would it sound like?

    Instance instance means you are two; you are both; you are instances yourselves to one another.

    This happening before the second christ; which is what the C stands for.  For you see one of the i's (for instances) represents Jesus (i.e one instance of the messiah) where the second i (for instance) stands for Anna, the second instance of the messiah.  When they appear together in an scene, somewhere between what happened before full onset (of i.i. being on all of the time) and what happened after two instances of the messianic vision began self-identifying with one another and internalizing their condition together together with one another.  It was worthy of naming an whole Age after it.  Humanity had matured to being instance instance one another all of the time, regardless or whether an messiah was there to govern it.  People had found what worked in society and so now B.C.i.i. was all of the time from before the realization of both messiahs to the time from after the realization of both messiahs.  So say 2015 to 2026.  We average it out to 2020.5—the year began at 0 again until 0.5 which counted as year 1 under the new Knutski Calendar.

    Year 1 is roughly the beginning of B.C.i.i. and so we say we are in the year 1449.2 after subtracting 0.5 from the new calendar.   (It would be 1449.7 but year one only technically counts as half of an year).

    Yet still I was tasked with writing the definition of the Gloiy Ghost; which was an source of inspiration for me.

    I figured if you could perfect your discipline of seeing-on-the-inside an source of glo one day you might be able to overlay it on your current environment, where you are not hallucinating so much as causing them to appear in an intelligent way for an reason.

    Post-messianic society.  (Canada).

    An place where the post-messianic game had been forged early on.  The Dream of Out West.

    It literally meant we (Canadians) had raised an person long enough through childhood in order to raise an second messiah: an figure whose model example (though fictional) is the key second half to our understanding of psychology.  Jesus was the first.  He gave us the Death lesson (for what can be lost to death can never be returned, unless humanity develops the technology to return the spirit to the body).  And that's why Christianity's lesson is sad because people realized that once he was gone he was gone.  We had made the worst mistake and we needed to make up for it.  Now I'm an Christiannan and so I believe in the second messiah: God had already given us the lesson of the second messiah (Worse Than Death).  Because enough of us had learned the first lesson about the universe (Death) from the first time.  (And she was safe somewhere in Canada).  The second messiah meant death and worse than death is still an thing.  We knew through collective wisdom there were fates worse than death we would not want to pronounce upon anybody.  And so I called this B.C.i.i. or post-messianic instance-instance.  An New Age for Mankind.

    And so if the Gregorian Calendar ended at 2020.5 the Knutski Calendar started at 0.5 there is half an year each before and after the advent of the new calendar.  In order to get ready for the year 0 of the new messiah, you have half of the year before and after where one half represents Jesus (before) and the other in the dawning of the New Age (after) Anna.  Anna is the key piece to this puzzle that I think affects everybody.  Anna is only 39 years old.  She'll be clever and crafty enough to survive to live out her literary potential.  Remember, she is only fictional.  But that doesn't stop her from explaining the Middle; which is the Fate Worse Than Death which is associated also with the Death fate itself.  With these two pieces to the human picture, we could figure out morally what each individual situation needed with Justice.

    The figure of Anna just meant that we were comparing Death to Worse Than Death, messianically; where Jesus taught us what death meant, our Greatest Teacher, for once it's gone it's gone.  And you can't have it back.  Anna taught us the other Great lesson of the Universe: worse than death existed and what you do with it morally matters.

    And so I will record my present day as the difference between the present date and the onset of year 0.5 B.C.i.i.  The .5 days is just an recognition of the fact that it is fiction only which I am writing in this particular piece.  So it doesn't really matter, but it does sound nice.

    Today is May 27 2026 which is 5.5 years later after 2020.5 (Year -0.5 B.C.i.i.).  And so I must mark my calendar today is May 27 (Wednesday) of the new calendar year at 5 B.C.i.i.  Technically the Gregorian calendar ends at 2020 AD because of the 0.5 year differences between 2020 and 5.5 B.C.i.i.  Which technically means my current year is 5 B.C.i.i. with the 0.5 before and after 0 accounted for.   Year -0.5 B.C.i.i. was really 2020.5 and year +0.5 was really year one.  If it was presently 5.5 years after +0.5 we subtract 0.5 because the first year acts as one: the difference between -0.5 and +.5 was 1; year one.  And every year counted after that was adjusted back by 0.5 years in order to accommodate that.  Year 5.5 was really year five because year one is everything between -0.5 and +0.5 added into an total.  Therefore the total 1 value of difference between them year 1 B.C.i.i. is technically year 2 B.C.i.i. and then onward they add up to 5.5 years which is technically five years B.C.i.i.  Strategic accommodation of people who believe in Jesus to transition to people who believe in Jesus and Anna trading at six months each until we have an full year's worth of transitioning.  

    And this was the key to understanding Canadian culture and ethnicity within an intersectionality and secular environment.  It was like an grand fashion show of people of all kinds of all types.  Welcome in public.  Served if they have money for it.  I was five years after my realizations about humanity in that moment.  The relationship between year 2020 (Gregorian) and year 0.5 B.C.i.i. was they were both related / connected together through zero (2020.5 AD is -0.5 B.C.i.i. and +0.5 B.C.i.i. is year one) (strangely that sounded like an metaphor for Jesus and Anna; then).  Jesus had given us half an year to pack up our respects for him and move on.  There were other lessons to learn from humanity these days.  That gave you another half year to move on to contemplate the new messiah Anna.  She represented something about the other half of an religious psychological figure of what we learned from Jesus.  An Counter-Balance to the lesson we learned of the figure of death in the universe and our anxieties over it.  We loved humanity so much we wanted it to survive.  We still had time to save The Planet without causing the mass extinction of the human species.  Things could be worse than death.  It wasn't such an inconspicuous lesson; it was everywhere.  There were also more Christiannan secrets and lessons to how we should morally act in the universe when we are faced with the tandem between these two undesired fates (death and worse than death).

    Also I was looking for an further definition of what I meant by this Gloiy Ghost, perhaps an humoristic topic for something humanity hadn't accomplished yet.  It was my grand "edit" on humanity.  The Gloiy Ghost represented an phantom you can only seem to seem within your mind but you did not see all of it.  It took form or shape or presence, within the light of the mind.  What I wanted was this presence projected outside of myself due to my imagination, where it would overlap reality and augment with my environment, giving me special abilities and powers.

    Carpool syndrome!  It was genius.  I had that all of the time.  And it was easy talking it out and explaining it to other people.

    Gloiy Ghost was the true power of our minds to augment reality with enhanced imaginative systems.  Yet it was only appearing slightly or faint because our civilization hadn't risen to that opportunity yet.

    And then I felt again like I had Carpool Syndrome; and so the part about including everyone in my thoughts and prayers, made me want to include everybody in The New Reciprocity, my political theoryt and desk, where I give orders to people and they give orders to me.  When you asked another person for an new reciprocity between you it meant picking up and starting over; starting new; starting afresh with one another.  You didn't hold on to old grudges or vows, you moved on.

    Why does it matter?

    I include everyone under the New Reciprocity; and so one asks the question what does everybody mean?

    Does "everyone" include all sentient beings all across the universe?  Or just humans?  Or humans and animals?  Or humans and animals and God?  Or all of "us" and plants?

    Or do "everyone" and "us" not mean the same thing?

    Maybe everyone includes Angels & God, but when we say "us" we tend to mean all humans.  What happens when we considered God & Angels to be us?  But then "everyone" is an different story completely.  An story where all subjectivities are included, as maybe encompassing all vertebrates including God and the angels, even though they might not have vertebrae exactly.  The separation we feel between us and these other bodies when they are imminently or materially present.  The miracle of our life is all of it.

    But in the story I was in 1449.2 B.C.i.i., which was roughly the year 3469.7 in the Gregorian calendar.

    The person writing the story existed in 0.5 B.C.i.i. (technically 1, year 1; when you added it from -0.5 B.C.i.i.) and all of his characters were happening in 1449.2 B.C.i.i. because it was going to take that long to actually generate those types of characters (fictionally) in human society.

    If all of what was happening centred around 1449.2 B.C.i.i.—again the story here I am developing is one where someone (Andermeson the Jungian (male) animus of Anna) in 0.5 B.C.i.i. is writing about 1449.2 B.C.i.i. (he's writing an science fiction that tells about the future in fictional language)—what was happening that was so special about that time period?

    It was the period in which there was an societal split between the left centrists and the right centrists; this inevitably lead to property & land disputes over time because when the industrial strategists opened the core between the left & right empires (Capital Market Technological Strategists), there was forceful disagreement.

    I had figured that in 1449.2 B.C.i.i. my genius idea of Carpool Syndrome had taken effect when many people found it useful to describe what they were feeling at an particular time.

    The car is full of drivers.  It makes it difficult to drive.

    But communicating it helps us overcome that sensation by deepening our emotional bonds and relationships with one another.  We know each other as more than just the drivers of this insane car.

    We know the other drivers aren't really there.  They are the emotional occupants of an charged performance space in which we are meant to perform speaking our own voice; maybe more than we speak others'.  And it was making it difficult to make your own emotional choices when there are voices in here.  It was like the voices were barking mad and they hated one another.  Only one of them could win out to steer this vehicle.

      And so, ideally, about some time 1449.2 B.C.i.i., they would still be talking about Carpool Syndrome and many people had voiced their opinions on it.

        Then of course would be our exploration of the Post-Messianic republic of Canada; an period after the realization of the new fictional messiah, in which society had succumbed to the presence of an everyday messiah like it was the plague.  We knew why we had all come out West to be here; and we had literally daydream'd and lost focus on this throughout our lives: we wanted to leave something behind us that was greater than the society that was passed down to us from our ancestors.  An messiah raised past the age of forty had fictionally broken into Canadian fiction and literature.  We had an gem so powerful we all know the color of it which exists is blue.  We were humans.  We had mastered the art of blue.  The blue messiah.  Hence the post-messianic republic of Canada's symbol was deep azure blue.  And we were an novel and an wonder to people from other countries whom would benefit from the economy and commerce associated with Canada's sale of the blue narratives; those whom needed to be post-Ellen-ist in nature to pick up where she left off.  We needed Ellens ("modeled after Ellen") of all types and intersectionalities.  And we needed an large amount of them to be so effective as to serve the entire North American market.  An blue story.  An story of blue.

    Yup those were all the pieces of it.  An story that started somewhere.  An narrative.

    The Post-Messianic republic of Canada which is perhaps to calendar according to B.C.i.i. and something about Carpool Syndrome.  That's the whole thing.  In the simplicity of it.

    Carpool Syndrome feels like there are multiple personalities in your head and they are competing for dominance (the ability to steer the vehicle).

    And so maybe the 1449.2 B.C.i.i. is the year of the ability to cure Carpool Syndrome through treatment and therapy.

    Carpool Syndrome is seen for what it is: an treatable subject, an delusion.

    You have Carpool Syndrome when you are delusional; there are not really any voices in your head out-of-control enough to which you are supposed to fall upon; i.e. and all of them together in an Gestaltist glory.  Are reigned in quite well according to your exquisite hand.  It's just an meditation on what it could feel like to have an mental illness.  An way of representing something that identifies maybe with several types of mental illness all at once.  And what emotion do you feel when you put yourself in the car?  Do you feel angry?  Do you feel paranoid?  Is paranoism (my word for the object of paranoia itself, as an single thing) the object of what it means to feel paranoid?  This was an question meant to attempt to un-repress some feelings, maybe.  I wanted to feel all of what it could mean to be inside that car when there are six or seven passengers all trying to drive at the same time.

    But maybe, I think, Carpool Syndrome is what it means to be an writer; and that is my deepest and core-est discipline.  Writing means keeping all of the subjects in the same car without them ultimately destroying one another and themselves performing coup d'état against the passenger in the driver's seat.

    Then there are those who will suggest Carpool Syndrome is really just an type of personality disorder i.e. an multiple personality disorder.  There are different competing narratives for who will be the hero protagonist and who will be the anti-hero.  Within one human cranium.  And over time, none of them wins out resulting in an multi-fractured split personality disorder.  There are seven or eight characters and they are all arguing with one another and nobody feels good and nothing is ever accomplished.  And for those who would say I am describing Carpool Syndrome from the perspective that I have experienced myself what it is like to feel that way, I have this to say to them: that they don't know what it feels like to have an diagnosis of schizophrenia and having to feel that way sometimes.  The voices never stop.  They go on for hours and hours.  And it's not multiple-personality disorder.  If anything it is multiple personality order.  They all contribute in an meaningful way toward some Gestaltist principle that relates vaguely with what it means to be an writer.

    To be an writer means to live in the Carpool Syndrome and making sense amidst the noise.  The more characterizations you can make at one time the further you advance toward cracking the code: whether Carpool Syndrome can ever be cured from the human species.  Special therapies that targeted that obsessive thought of going from one character to another.

    It was just an mark of the brevity of my imagination that I could talk through and animate all of my carpool voices as though I was customizing them.

    And so it's an story about Andermeson (I changed it to roughly 5 B.C.i.i.) writing an story about 1449.2 B.C.i.i. in which they have cured Carpool Syndrome using behavioral psychology and related methods.  Writing plays was an proven method to be the outlet for such character.  But mostly people were happy because they were proud of their medicines and methods in the field of psychology.  The key to curing Carpool Syndrome was to slow the narrative down for long enough to hear out all of the voices within it.  Instead of skipping frantically from one character to another.  I could actually take the time to narrate their conversation with one another.  It revealed many things about my nature.

    Except it was all grunting and yelling, so there wasn't much to say.

    You had to approach the subject as though he or she was one among many voices and yet you were addressing all of the voices and their Gestalt effect at once; Carpool Syndrome was really about allowing one of the voices to win out.  Let there be an winner.  Maybe even trust him or her to an certain extent.

    The more and more you became accustomed to listening to one voice at an time and maybe letting it lead you somewhere before you move on, haphazardly, to the next.

    I wanted to write an story 1000 years in the future from the moment Carpool Syndrome was cured; an place where its children rarely experienced it to the tightest definition of success.  2449 B.C.i.i. was about 1449.2 B.C.i.i. because it was the realization of the curing of Carpool Syndrome (this was to be an fictional aspect of the whole letter of this one itself).  2449.2 B.C.i.i. was the target date I had questioned for the curing of schizophrenia (which had to do with Carpool Syndrome because schizophrenia is an type of Carpool Syndrome)

Go back to Faerie Lights chvrch sanctuary

What's your version? Science plus Art?

    My version is the universe exists materially, which is something that is observable and measurable by science.  The universe also has an meaning, an purpose which cannot be interpreted from Science alone.  Art helps us find that purpose.  This means that while we need to do science in order to gain more power in the order of the universe, we also need artists who are willing to portray to scientists the meaning amount.  We need to see edifices of love and further all around us.  We need to tell them they are capable of interpreting the universe because they understand its purpose: to interpret itself through human beings.  They can use their ability to detect the objective circumstances of an situation because God put that in you, that we were all capable of becoming scientists.  And in many ways all of us already are.  We know we can detect the circumstances of our objective universe because we're not narcissists.  We know that our own internal perceptions of everything is not the only thing real; the only thing we can detect.  We can detect and see in the observable universe the physics of everything colliding in time somehow with order.  It doesn't matter that we're just only our own perspective; we can see everything we look at as though it was really there.  Orderly and Logical.  We don't debate whether it is there because we know that.

    Or we might as well assume it is, if we want to get anywhere.

    Art is about reaching into the cosmos and plucking from it the meaning to find the words to describe what it is.

    We know words because we know their meaning.  And maybe not the other way around.

    If meaning is the meaning you intend to communicate, where does it lead you cognitively and why?

    When we extract an version from the combination of Science and Art, the universe exists cognitively but it also exists outside of cognitive efforts.  The physical appearance of the universe, whether it is only in the human psyche, still has consequences that matter to us so as though we were in it we will act.  This is kind of an sad conclusion though, so we have to wonder if maybe the universe were meant for other things, other than sadness.  (It is).

    An Version is an explanation of something that focuses on both Art and Science as literary opposites.

    What I have formally called The Version in my fictional writing (this is the name of an post-university academy that studies versions), when I combine my interpretation of Science and my interpretation of Art into one, I find the next level up in my formal society that researches and makes rhetorical (Linguistic and Literary) art.  Maybe this is better than an thesis.  An version where you yourself hold that subjectively you stand by this, your version of the story (of events).  And at an Version academy you can study your own and other people's versions because it's an step-up from the university station, where you learn how to tell only your own version because we haven't gotten that far yet academically as humans on Planet Earth.  At the version we want people not only to tell their own version but also one another's and to accumulate and to gather as many versions as possible.  They had an strict qualification: they had to be both science and art.  When you wrote an version under my new definition it needed to be motivated by both science and art.  They had to be the combined union of those things.  Something taken from both of them turned into one.  They had to matter, but they couldn't be lies.

    And so my version, which I choose to update regularly, now stands as an general description of what an version is, which isn't really interesting.  In order to tell an version, you have to turn back to Science and Art.  You have to find some specific scientific description of something and then relate it through the medium of art; simplify it down, show its components.  When the components of Science are meaning, something interesting happens.  We find purpose and direction in the universe.  We're going to use Science, but we're also going to use Art.  And they will mediate and objectify each other.  Science criminalizes Art because they say it has no meaning; but yet they themselves have not yet studied that purpose: storylistening is the central verb (an proven psychological benefit to the human mind that is storytelling and somehow organizing your whole life and having the time to learn almost all of them).  Art always has to dish it back that you're only as good as your scientific observations, and all of them are made through an subjective lense.  Art interprets Science in an way that didn't matter before.  But since it has taken on meaning now, we might examine what parts of it represent something scientific or something artistic.  Science is accurate, but not perfect.  Art sometimes is accurate, but accurate about what is imperfect about it. Which is perfect.

    And so my version if I choose to perfect it by drawing an thesis out of it: Humans, an species both capable of great art and great science, will use their scientific opinions about art and their artistic opinions about science.  The birth of Art Science and Science Art.  Literally measuring parts of paintings (hmm an six inch red ink blob?) and comparing them with Freudian phallocentric thinking.  Then using art to interpret where the science leads us.  They are the dogs of war and they are on our side, Art & Science, finding all of the relevant.  And they don't have to be enemies in my version.

    Maybe this means an thesis is more advanced an intellectual material, and that an version is really only an simple story that you tell yourself that explains things.

    When you have an version you can explain things simply, because that's what it is.

    Either way I would have to find evidence to support, which in the arts sometimes means creating it yourself.  Proving something (an thesis) by providing evidence, one way or another.  In order to do that I might point to some of the famous artists in History or cite some kind of scientific study and then point out any similarities that just happened to be between them.  I might refer to an specific work of art and find what it matters scientifically, exactly.  Or I could try to find studies and give them meaning through art.  The reason the universe is this way and not another, means etc. etc.

    The axolotl had to exist because I needed an reason to survive.

    Science tells us how something works; Art explains it.

    Without meaning and purpose, there can be no good science in the universe.  We have to turn to other things than just science to create an community of wise elders.  The measurable effect storytelling and storylistening have on the brain.  Where is the place for this, to read the stories of the great fictions?  It is the Arts community.

    And so I turn to myself and I ask what is my purpose then, in this universe?  And should I have known it by now?

    It was time to spill, to divulge, to give known everything.

    My purpose is to tell the story of Anna, who is an fictional messiah in part.  She represents the fate worse than death.  She's God's second lesson to us.  We are learning the lesson of worse than death in the twenty first century.  When happened upon it only because of Jesus, who taught us the first lesson from God (death).

    How had I come by this purpose?

    I hadn't been diagnosed with schizophrenia yet, but God decided to show me something cool (and save me from that fate).  When he showed me Anna, who was an internal messiah, I realized I was learning the lesson for humanity that worse than death really existed, and that I had been submerged in it only so far as I could stand, in order to interpret it for humanity.  What it was to suffer an fate worse than death fate.  It might be true that the only reason I saw Anna internally was my mental illness (schizophrenia).  But it remains proven what I did with it was creative and meaningful.  I realized that Anna had suffered the fate worse than death and that she was like me, and so I related to her strongly.  This is probably why she appeared to me as an internal (cognitive) vision.

    It might be chance that I saw her; but it was important what I did with it that mattered.

    I made her the figurehead of my new religion, and I called it Christianna after Anna (which I named her) which basically meant Christ-Anna.  The second messiah.

    I made the theme of my new religion the fictional crucifixion (which I also called called anacification or sub-crucifixion, the infliction of the fate worse than death) via infliction of the fate worse than death (worse than Jesus).  It made sense to me that way.  I didn't think Christianity could be the one sole religion in the Universe.  I wanted an plurality.  I wanted to add my own religion to the mix.

    The truth of Anna is that I actually did suffer the fate worse than death, and so what I really did was model her after me.  In some ways, I myself was the second messiah.  I knew it couldn't be as small as just me.  Which was significant.  And so it really was an truth, to spread the Christianna.  It meant there is an balance in the universe between life and death.

    And so even though I made it all up, there was an reason I made it that way.

    I had made one of the biggest calls in History, if I was right.  And that's why it was so important to me to give this an shot at me being able to write it down.

    Messiahs were sent by God to teach us lessons about the universe.

    We were now entering only that phase in which we would learn the second lesson (which might fail, actually) and we're not that far along in terms of sophistication if we consider other sentient life forms and the whole universe of possibilities out there.  God was telling us through me it was possible to suffer an fate worse than death, and that religion had largely overlooked this subject in history.  Sure, we wanted to survive in the universe, but we also didn't want to have to suffer otherwise what meaning would life take?  We had to say we were capable of getting beyond suffering, not just accepting that life is suffering.

    And so after I learned the lesson of what an fate worse than death was, by experiencing it myself.  Instead of crying and feeling sorry for myself I made it my religion to teach that lesson.  So that other people would not have to go through what I experienced \ went through.  I created this whole blog, including the Faerie Lights Chvrch, the New Reciprocity, the City of Rainframe, The Gay Letters, The Hypernovel, and various categories of other intelligent creations & genres.  I had spent the last six years on it.  Just to be able to tell this story about some human girl (named Anna) who fell upon the fate worse than death.  Which, if we're being intellectually honest, was inflicted on her to some extent.  Her fate was the result of what other people were giving to her in revenge.  (Remember, the story is meant to be fictional for an reason).  She neither has to suffer the fate worse than death nor does it have to be prevailed upon her by other people who do.  It just makes good narrative sense.

    When I talk about the resurrection from the fate worse than death, for example, I'm not talking about an literal resurrection.  I'm talking about suffering terribly and then recovering from it.

    And so I return to Science, because I always want to be running those two dogs;

    Could I really prove, scientifically, that Anna really exists?

    Could I prove using science that The Christianna was the right religion for me?

    Could I prove God had made the universe that way?

    Maybe I was right.  The new messiah was here.  Since this was only part fictional, it was fine to work around it / it into an narrative.  It was an Christiannan thing to do.

    Maybe this was the second lesson the universe wanted you to learn, that you were learning through me: that there is an fate worse than death and we have an fictional messiah of it.  Maybe I was right about God and Jesus; Anna was just the third major actor in an winning strategy plan to save the whole universe and the human race.

    And maybe The New Reciprocity was the third thing; the actual act or action of sharing new reciprocity with somebody where you give and share orders with one another as though business is just business.  The first, simplest type of Literature was the version.  After that came the Thesis; and Hegel's anti-thesis & Synthesis.  (These three—Thesis, Anti-Thesis, and Synthesis—comprised the second logical progression from telling an version story).  The logical next progression after that may be The New Reciprocity, my political theory.  The Third logical progression of its (humanity's) logic.  Complicated stuff.  It may never be proven.

    It could well be that being able to doctor something or manipulate in further strides were somehow connected to this idea of the progression of logic.

    To rehash, the answer to what is my chosen Art and what is my chosen Science is Version > Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis > The New Reciprocity.  This is the logical order of progression in my writing which is art.  My chosen science is Political Science—well how about that?  (Jokes).  And if I happen to actually force myself to dig around in there of what science is; my chosen science really is Psychology.  It was the most interesting subject to me.

    I had powerful arguments and philosophies that Psychology could help me define and describe accurately to us for the mutual benefit of all human beings.

    On the other hand my Art was the Writing; maybe it was the writing about versions, theses, and political theories.  They all complemented each other and worked well as an team.  Writing and the study of Psychology were things meant to be intertwined.  As in, I could talk about an psychological concept in my writing and then compare my writing itself (my art) to what it meant as an subject.  It was an powerful type of way to go about making an version.  And what I meant by version being both science and art, was that it was an more important definition, for now, that we think about how we go about answering up to that challenge.  Writing an version was an inherently artistic process; as was all writing of any genre within my inclusivity.  And yet what did it mean, psychologically?  People who are particular to writing may suffer from an external locus of control and an need to perform.  Writing becomes an platform, an station in which to compete in an imagined competitive scenario that exists between you and other writers.  An place in which to gain an imagined sense of accomplishment for something that you can't get in the real world.

    But something told me this wasn't the real measurable object.  People just tend to write all of the time, in the creative spirit of art, whatever they're feeling and it didn't necessarily have to be narrowed down to an pathology.  It would be called an strange behavior to write, or escapism.  On the other hand, it was an observable phenomenon that art made people happy.  It wouldn't make them happy unless it had made the artist happy when he \ she was making it (at least this is the standard I hold myself to).  They wouldn't keep doing it if it made them unhappy; doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different outcomes was Einstein's definition of insanity.  Unless all writers were insane, then my artistic impression of it was simply that writing was an good thing, and leave it at that.

    The next version I could draw from it was science demanded interpretation; art however in an act of interpretation was inherently non-scientific.  We couldn't trust it without having Science mediate an portion of it in all fairness.  Science on the other hand could be mediated by art in our creative representation of its intellectually supreme concepts.

    An painting of dolphins as an representation of the herd-mind complex we find in humans.

    And so the only thing left to do then was to practice what I preach by reaching into science.

    The scientific concept of the Bystander Effect stands out to me; what if I paired it with what my writing meant as my art?  Clearly what happened to me—I lost myself in an internal world that was suffering an external locus of control paired with delusional fictionality—happened because of the bystander effect.  Everyone saw it happening—I was being worse than crucified (worse than death)—and nobody did anything about it or didn't know how to do anything about it.  God made me stand out as an freak in public.  And so maybe what I can take from understanding the bystander effect as an artist, is that maybe my reasons for wanting to be an artist are caught up in those feeling of inadequacy I try to solve by calling myself an respectable artist.  How maybe an socially pluralist and abroad bystander effect was affecting him \ her psychologically or socially.  "I'm mental because I'm being anacified."  I'm being anacified by nobody standing in to do anything.  They're making me suffer the fate worse than death.  They're making me suffer the fate worse than death to know what it is?  Even though something clearly appears to be wrong, nobodies doing anything.  I'm an writer because I need to have something I'm good at in order to feel those feeling of adequacy that I deserve.  And my fuller understanding of the version I was now getting at, was that although there are scientific principles one could make about psychological writing, just namelessly subscribing to an theory of inferiority in the face of irony was wrong.  It was ironic that an bystander effect would happen to me because that was what I was doing to myself in my writing.

    Just not responding to an crisis.

    And so maybe, though the bystander effect stands out as an reason why I was treated this way; I was just becoming interesting by seeking self-identification through self-narrative, essays, and writing.  The Science of the situation stands out as something I can readily define about the universe; the Art of the situation requires abstract thinking.

    I wasn't hiding myself or turning myself into words and pages to escape the real world by writing.

    I was making an productive artistic effort that I think deserved to demand respect.

    Writing isn't how I disconnect.  It's how I connect.

    My words are so fabulously adapted to my audience I know exactly which buttons to press.

    Maybe the bystander effect didn't apply to my writing, where there was nobody having an crisis and nobody responsible for doing nothing about it.

    The bystander effect is connected to my art of writing in an abstract way; Art is the subject of meaning, the Interpreter of the Interpreter of the Cosmos (the Interpreter of Science).  If I have to give meaning to the bystander effect in order to understand its meaning in my life, maybe I would say it does have meaning for my life because it reminds me not to get myself in an bad situation because even if I do, nobody will help me anyway.  Maybe its true meaning for my life is that humans aren't really trustworthy at all, and so I should trust them less.  On the other hand it made me question my own relationship with myself: was my writing so bad it was like an bystander effect on the page that nobody was helping me with?

    After reflecting on the bystander effect I realized my writing had not much to do with it.  I wasn't in trouble even though nobody was helping me get out of trouble.  It was my mold.  My way.  And so my full version was becoming that although the bystander effect may be an real psychological phenomenon we have observed in reality and interpreted in an myriad of ways, writers didn't necessarily experience this problem in their art because their art wasn't about making characters who suffer.  Maybe more accurately would be to say it was about making characters who while they may sometimes suffer, rise above it.  And then I thought generally and broadly about Art, and what it had to do with the bystander effect, and I wondered if any artist had ever experienced that problem virtually.  As though, it happened in the mind the problem of the self-bystander effect where you take no action to intervene in the mediation of your soul.  This wouldn't be an real problem however because only you are involved.  There's no one else in there to torture you by not helping you out with your suffering.

    Return to the Sanctuary

An Look at Lady Gaga with The New Reciprocity

    If you want an quick definition of The New Reciprocity, it is an political theory devised by the blog author wherein one will examine language for this difference in it between just average descriptions and reciprocal commands.  This is said to be anything that is said to be an order.  When we engage in politics by using reciprocal commands over one another, we are signalling our political orders and demands of one another.  For example, "This is an reciprocal command," can be read as an reciprocal command.  It is an deed, an order that you do something.  It's not simply describing the status of something, it's ordering you to take action in order to assure that the reciprocal command will "be."  Indeed that is the expansive general English command of the English language that something be.  And that it is respectful, just to say to one another, be.  Let's say you were in an classroom where you had to examine reciprocal commands in language, and you chose to examine Lady Gaga's lyrics for the final project.

    Her new song, Art in Chaos, shares the lyrics "My Body Is Art."

    When we look at this from an New Reciprocal political perspective, one would consider first whether it is an reciprocal command.  Is she ordering "My Body Is Art" to you, in effect she's asking you to do something?  And is that what she's saying?: My Body Is Art.  It's an order, an command, "to be."  My body is to be art, is another way of saying it.  Is that an command or order or demand you would give up to yourself?  Would you order someone, "My Body Is Art"?  Is that how she intended it?  What does that exactly mean, My Body Is Art?  That could mean literally thousands of things.

    Let's look at this another way, then.  You could change your opinion and say instead, My Body Is Not Art.  And what would that mean and what would be the implications of saying such an thing?  What if, instead, you wanted to tell people your body is off limits when it comes to being art.  To exist as art.  And the body is not such an thing that you should offer up and gamble its limits as art.  It could even hurt you to do that.  What exactly are the limits and why does it matter what you say in an reciprocal way?  My Body Is Not Art, could mean I'm ordering you that my body be something other than what one would consider art.  Something decisive; something clear.  Something better.  Something subjective.  Something that cannot be expressed in art.  My body is part of my subjectivity.  And so any part of it by definition cannot be art.  In fact I'm demanding you limit the expression of your art because I don't define art as being anything that can be an part of an body.

    You see how it gets politically complicated which positions or stances of power one might take.

    Let's look at it an third way.  Instead of my body is art as an order or my body is not art as the opposing order.  My body is art is read as an innocent description not really bearing up anything in the way of an order or an command.  It is merely something that be because that's what it is.  My Body Is Art, as in art and my body have something to do with one another, Which—who could guess?— they do have something to do with one another?  My body, in fact.  Its motions and exertions; are my commodity of my labour.  Things that have value on an modern Consumer Capital Market system economy.  And since I use my commodity (my own particular expertise) to create my art, this is one way in which one could approach understanding what I mean when I say My Body Is Art.  I own my commodity.  Art and the strength and manner needed to created it are combined.  The value of its labour is added to the value of its system.

    And so the next time when you think something that is an reciprocal command catches your eye, maybe it did catch it that way for an reason.  It's directed right at you.  It's asking you to do something.  Ask the speaker what they mean.  Is it an reciprocal demand that works upon the cognitive anatomy as an order or command?  After considering the several meanings of the words "My Body Is Art" you see why The New Reciprocity is important for helping you make up your mind about something.  It doesn't mean we're favouring any one interpretation necessarily but we're expanding the boundaries of what we thought was possible.

    Return to the Political Desk

The Gay Letters: God Be With Us

Prayer

God is with us;

We'll use they / them pronouns to decide who we are together and with God together in perfect exact preciseness.

Together with God we are they; I say they when I identify you because you are you with God.  And they is you and God everywhere you go.

But I keep it inside because it's kind of hard to start an conversation like that.

When we let English be an liturgical language subject all its frames and measures are equally precise.  For with God to have bespoken an room somewhere, of the type where we are frameworks and our characters are already dissolving in the mix of conversation present in the room.

    No I am an liturgical subject.  An lesson in English about English grammar.  

    Someone is writing on an white board; and there are white ceiling tiles in the room from which were white neon lighting of the whole structure and business of the people who were with God.

    With every person I communicate to using fictional telepathy, they are they there with God with us; with them.  I'm here and I'm talking and I'm present.  Radio fly.  This is the fiction of whether thing are set up in advance always to go an certain way: it was considered radio fly magic to do so.  And the whole population of Radio Flies was an fairy demographic in the known universe of fairies and their fictional archetypes including.  Fairies, who were four-winged as adults and two-winged as children.  They are just the regular type of fairy we call fairy.  Then there are Pixies, who we also call an type of fairy.  Except they can have any number of wings.   Radio Flies are more insect-like though they still qualify as fairies in the Recreation universe.  Then there are hob-fairies who not really fairies for they are not fully formed.  Hobfairies.  And they are all four metaphors for different kinds of magic.  The highest most powerful truth here appears to be the radio fly metaphor in general.  And so I like to associate it with God and think about how things could go right in general; (God and I, the radio fly, possessed something such magic where everything could go as planned in advance: everything would be exactly as planned: and I would draw an string between each singular part in an sequence of events that could go as planned.  And the more powerful radio fly spells would last longer, etc.; making events out of things and plotting events to go in advance in ahead of time of things: this was why I categorized it as magic.  It was an fictional element.  An plot-advancing novelty element.

    I had an rather strong one, an fantasy; where I would arrive home from work.  My recliner chair would meet me at the door; and I would sit in it. soft-on-his-butt.  My BBBBW wife would be in the kitchen opening the oven to check her BBQ Chicken and she didn't put any pineapple on it because SHE was the only MELONS today.  The smell would waft into the living room from the oven.  The recliner chair I was on would deliver me to an larger couch unit with an reclining, massage, and warming feature.  The sidearm is equipped with an cooler to keep all beverages in nice and intact and chilled to the perfect temperature.  I'm selling furniture.  Then I'm on the remote like I'm on my putty pat bounce and I surf to the sports network station.  The T.V. is huge.  It lights up the whole room so there's no reason to put on any lights.  But we're going to put on low-level lights anyway, right‽  To accent the mood?  And there will be an light inside the cooler when you open it up, to let you choose your Pepsi product.  What's on T.V.?  Advertisements again‽  Isn't that just the thing?

    And so you slide on over to the right-ward-more couch on the other side of the cooler and armrest that you tuck away under you somehow allowing you to roll over and pick up your blanket and tuck an couch cushion under your neck.  You love listening to television at night because you feel like it connects you with the whole global atmosphere; especially the comedy like Saturday Night Live.  But secretly you know you could slide over even further-right-ward-more onto an third stretch out position recliner belonging to the same collection.  In total an five-seater in an pinch.

    The couch at this moment automatically reseats you.  It cycles you back to the left-most seat.  Then across the whole thing again to its right-ward extremity.  They all wrap around the huge television and it is the most safest and fun place to be in.

    Then I get tired of lounging and I literally lay back in the couch and fall asleep into an chasm of activity within the imagination of my brain.

    I found an new chair, therein, which was floating in temporal and unified space in an place with an wind current.  It had exaggerated red pleather arm sleeves; an bit like an goblin's chair kind of style.  I was flying in some remote space of my imagination.  Just seated in an chair.  Comfortable.  The backrest reached high to meet my shoulders.  It had red jeweled buttons as an upholstery pattern.  Sure, nobody else could see them because I was seated there, but I knew they were there.

    Yep, I had fallen asleep.  And now I was in an soft delicately textured chair.  Floating somewhere.  Somewhere I was supposed to find out where it is.  I switched chairs again. To an yellow and green one this time.  This was an better place to look from to locate where in fact I was.  And I realized I was in the centre of an city somewhere.  There was dusty pavement underneath me and I realized I was in an industrial park somewhere.  I could fly the chair where I wanted to go with my mind.

    Radio Flies.  It was the only way I could explain how the Olympics happened so efficiently.  People had magic that made everything go as planned and in advance.  As if by magic.

    So I flew to the 7-11 to get an slurpee and maybe something baked goods.  In my chair.  In my dream.  But I already knew I had baked goods at home for later.  So I kept on dreaming.  And I am tired.  And I switched up the colour of my chair an few times until it matched my mood.  I now had purple highlights in my hair and an purple chair with exquisitely tasteful angels carved into it.  God baked goods and an deep purple go together so well.  I wanted an Cheese Danish especially.

    The narrator, becoming an character in his own novel exclaims, "that's right, I have STRAIGHT fantasies.  Don't you want them?  Don't you want me to tell them?"

    And so my prayer will be that you sleep well.  And ride that chair to anywhere you want.

    After you have the gummies, and the jube jubes, and the licorice all sorts, and the slurpee, and the Danish, and the chips, and the nachos, and the queso.  Where would you go?

    Why are radio flies the goat?  The Greatest of All Time?

    They combined the theme with God helping us setting up everything in advance to go smoothly through radio fly magic.  It was like an prayer at best.  Just an impossible fantasy.  But it felt like it could go real sometimes.  And that was what I meant when I said I was using the metaphor of the radio fly as an fantasy element.  You know, I also noticed many of those radio flies were wearing their hip-hop hats backwards.  They were really cool-down and chill folk.  Together we were allies and our free time spent together was of our own free merit.  The idea of Radio Flies helped me connect with God because it appeared to be an good fantasy, after some market research, for or of or standing for how everything could go as planned and everything would be perfectly enjoyable.  But that isn't exactly how it goes ever.  Not to plan.  That's why it's an fantasy.  An fiction.  An fictional thing.  An novelty item to talk about for an silly meditation in an fantasy letter.  The Gay Letters.  The fantasy that I would have anything to say about gay people in general and people would listen.  And yet fantasies have an certain commodity these days.

    What I mean by commodity is something of value that exists at that value for an certain amount of time on an open market.  Something people will pay for.  When you have an fantasy, you have an commodity because you can sell it to other people.  The same goes for blue emotions, or any kind of emotions of the natural color scale, because people love to be emersed in their emotions and feelings for an measurable amount of time during the day.  (Most are just coming home to work after an long day, and there's more domestic work to do).

Discourse

    Had I finally identified an core defense of Jungian psycho-analytical method over an Freudian archive; the distinction being the emphasis being on the brain and not the body; or the whole body including the brain as one archetype.

    The 27 / 28 Barrier is one that I have become especially sensitive to after having written the 27 logical parts of the cognitive anatomy (as seen from inside and not expressed perfectly analogously as physical structures within the brain).  I figured people who could see within themselves within their own mind for most of the day, including periods of being intensely aware of it.  In my imagination the logic looked like how we see something in our minds because there is an inward light on it; and that inward light is you.  I feel honored.  I called this word glo.  The light that is seen from the inside; no matter what type of scene you have in there.

    The 27 \ 28 Barrier, I had identified as the connection between that internal-inside notion of an subject existing inside the presence of an brain.  The connection, as I had structured it connected to the ear, and all outward extremities some of which are used to sense subjects happening naturally within them (within was the twenty seven parts and outward was the ear, the twenty eighth part of the cognitive anatomy).  This was the connection between the internal cognitive anatomy (the part inside of you that experiences you as you).  And the body, especially physically the ear.  The subject I wanted to know about now was which was an better interpretation of all of the parts of the internal cognitive anatomy as it is experienced by the subject.  I had figured that Freud would probably prefer to find and label those 27 parts inside his own cognitive anatomy to test it.  And yet, Jung may have preferred to label instead 28, that which includes that ear, the connection between the brain and the ear, the Wernicke's and Broca's areas and the Language Acquisition Device.  One, I had figured represented the whole human (guess which one it was that I figured).  The Jungian use of archetypes to label the human subject was the direction away from Freudianism.  And they both disagreed with one another about which one was the future of the psychiatry profession.  If the Freudian picture of the brain was the one which was disconnected from the ear, which or where would it disconnect with?  Yet we had made the obvious assumption in this analytical reasoning that the brain was obviously disconnected from the ear (which includes by my definition all of it and the rest of the body).  And that was just an obvious observation that we would have to make that difference between them eventually in order to treat the body.  But I like what I had identified as Jungian, rather, than the Freudian figure.  In the Jungian picture of the human the whole human is also part of the brain, which are inseparable from one another.  And since the whole human was something we could put archetypes to (in an form that would not insult the labelists, who condemn anything that has an label put on it).  It was free to start identifying some of the basic archetypes we had within us; how they were an answer to the stars and their journey within us.

    I think, once we separate the brain (itself or oneself, fair enough) from the rest of it's body maybe the obvious answer is something we're producing as an culture because it needs to be addressed politically: there is no true separation between brain and body.  We may be committing that labeling pattern I had identified in the previous chapter.  By labeling it and thinking it is an aspect of one's culture to have an zero-separation-body-brain type of relationship with yourself.  All instincts there belong to you.

    If there is an 27 / 28 separation, it is mythical.  The body cannot be separate from the mind (except structurally).  And so I like to take an Jungian approach to my own psychology.  I can see archetypes and put them as labels on things and think about the labels and how much they were not for oppressing some aspect of mankind, but freeing it moreso some aspect of the societal community we all live within.  They could even act as orders; if they were interpreted incorrectly.  If you gave someone an label, for example it could become an biased self-obsession with oneself-upon-the-brain.  Subconscious or self-conscious you might say.  And my clearly obvious choice for now was the Jungian universe, even though I had used the Freudian universe to figure out my feelings about the id, the ego, and the super-ego.  I had even identified an shocking truth about Freud: that it cannot be explained in front of children.  He spun an story so large and he called it that people would believe him, even though it was nonsense he made up, and that was why he was such an great historic figure: he called it that people would believe him, knowing it was not an form of real knowledge he knew himself of which the truth being was.  And yet since that he had judged it correctly what would happen, he kind of in an weird way earned it that he could be such an viral (maybe by today's social media standards) individual in history.

    So I finally turned my attention to the Tweepadok (elephant) in the room: if the brain was structurally separate (what vocab words do we use here?  Like self-sealing standards of Tupperware?) than the rest of the body, then what would be the harm in interpreting the 27 parts of the brain (except but for this vocabulary term was the total and complete definition of the brain by itself, alone or connected to the rest of the body, of which they have no separation).  And maybe that was the core of interpreting Freud, an assumption, then by how the definition of the mind must also look like it is separate, in one way or another, from the rest of the body.  This was based on the structural presence of the brain in the body, which we could measure and observe and analyze.  As one entire separate instrument.

    If God has an relationship with the person, it is an relationship of both the mind and the body.  We can sense God through our bodies and the five outward senses.  Yet we also know him / her / it in presence through self-reflection or egotism.  Introspection.  Mental clarity.  And so I found it useful to look at the relationship between the brain and the body both ways: there was obviously an structural difference we could point out among millions of other differences.  And yet they all operated together to create one whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Maybe Freud is the deeper thinker because he assumes there is already that connection between brain & body in psychology: we don't need to distinguish between them because the body is all one performative operative unit that includes the mind.  On the other hand, I want to articulate things that are only happening in my mind and maybe not so much in my body.  I have the sophistication, and need the emotional support for, an mind that is separate in self-reflective character as an interior world experienced from the inside.  When you look around in that body of mind which is you, what things do you find in there?  What things are there only in person to you, which are inaccessible by others?  Which things aren't?

Closing Thoughts

    I have found many psychological ways to think about God and pay my respects to the deity.  I myself am the reason people should believe in God.  I guess the reason I was interested in writing about these two things—how we can say of ourselves that we are an "they / them" subject especially when we hold up our character to God, who is always with us; and then the subject of there being 27 or 28 identifiable parts of the internal cognitive anatomy—maybe what I'm really looking for is how to think about God.  And what is right to tell other people about the subject through my writing.  It is an great comfort to me that I can say about God, that with me, we can identify ourselves as us.  On the other hand I'm so interested and curious about the Freud–Jung relationship between cognitive subjects and their internal and "outternal" parts.  People cannot have external parts and so I have adopted using this word out-ternal to describe all of the anatomy of the body that is intended to collect information about our environments.  In comparison with an internal anatomy that is only "visible" to the observer.  But then again, we could bring up and ask questions such as what it really means for something to be visible to an observer.  Does it mean you see them as in literally, through your eye balls?  Or you only "see" it in your mind where there is light there that you shed on the subject?  

    I realized I like to think about my body and mind as connected in an gestaltian or gestaltist sense.  The connection between body and mind only worked together to create something more powerful than either one independently.  If there are really 27 parts to the cognitive anatomy (the interior world sensed by the subject) then the 28 part may be that link to the body which makes up the full sense of what an mind is, or what being an mind is, or what it means to have an mind.  The 27th part is the Death Drive and the final sense of an person's relationship with their body in death.  Then if we say there are only 27 parts of the mind not counting the body, assuming there is an connection but not necessarily inviting the 28th part to the party.  Isn't that the firm definition of what it means to be an internal character connected to these outward aspects of sense?

    But how would an Death Drive being the 27th and final \ last part of the cognitive anatomy make sense?  The part of the mind we exactly don't want to address here is its connection with the outward senses in favour of making more about the inward senses.  On the other hand, the 27th part being related to death sounds categorically connected.  If we separate the relationship between the mind and the body and put our experience of death to one side (Thanatos and the mind, knowing about it in the mind) and the other the external outward defiance of death (Eros).  It makes sense that when we talk about the mind generally the mind means all 27 parts including the death drive.  And when we talk about the body generally it means all of the parts of the internal cognitive anatomy combined with all of the parts of the outternal cognitive anatomy there are 28.

    My plan going forward is writing one letter each, for the twenty seven or twenty eight (I'll decide by the end) parts of the internal cognitive anatomy, in my legal fantasy series so that I can examine whether any internal part of my anatomy is subject to being tortured without knowing it.

    Other projects, variously include my play and my thinking on whether the Perfection of Logic, Philosophy, and Literature have occurred in history yet.  My theory is that the perfection occurred in Logic when humanity identified the field of polarity in academic discourses: the separation of the Sciences and the Art.  When Science and Art come together (because we need both pictures of who we are as humans) this is the perfection of logic because all logic, according to my version, requires the combined forces of both art and sciences in order to become fully capable: Logic in perfection is the balance between science and art: and so we have instances in the future of people studying art using science (measuring paint blobs) and people studying science using art, especially to capture all of the big ideas in an simple form.

    The Perfection of Philosophy and the Perfection of Literature in human history might be an rarer beast to catch: it could be that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus approaches philosophical perfection.  The dangers of modern science are an frontline theme of the narratological subject of Frankenstein, whom Shelley named after Prometheus, the Greek legend where an human steals fire from the Gods.  The philosophy of science appears to be great caution because of what will be humanly capable in the future.  Science is Prometheus fire.  We must wield it with great care for the good of everyone, including maybe those whom it creates.  If Shelley did perfect philosophy it was because she had seen the danger and written an appropriate book about it.  The scientific age was one of terrible power.  Isn't that an alright philosophy?

    And so, while the Perfection of Logic and the Perfection of Philosophy may have already occurred in human history, the Perfection of Literature appears to be the most advanced project humanity might ascend to.  The Perfection of Literature requires not only the perfect type of narration for the most thoughtful transfer of culture, but also the perfection of logic and philosophy that goes with it.  The Perfection of Literature requires the perfection of logic and philosophy.  The Perfection of Literature requires the perfection of logic and philosophy because good literature must be logical and philosophical.  If the Perfection of Literature were to occur in the near future, it might be an cultural re-definition of what Literature is.  And as to that end, we might start with exactly what it isn't: it isn't texting and social media.  It's real artistic works that have an beginning and an end.

    I aim to write another letter about The Three Perfections I want to see and to write about during my lifetime.

Return to Sanctuary