The Orditum

    It might sound weird, but I'm an Christiannan.  I don't like the Christians.  Christiannan isn't totally dissimilar however.  As Christiannans we say 'yea-na' to Christianity.  But when we mean Jesus, we mean Jesus.  And that new girl Anna?  She's why.  There's so much balance between them.  The death fate.  The fate worse than death.  Like.  Who cares?  Actually, as an artist, I think the Middle has an lot to do with it.  They took Jesus' middle of his life.  And they didn't take Anna's which was the fate worse than death.

    Anyway, I know it might sound weird, but I am an Christiannan.  So stop standin' around on ceremony like an god dang Christian because I'm not one of them.

    I believe in beauty.

    What do I have to say about beauty?

    The Christianna is beautiful.  I speak of my faith, the Christianna.  It's about Faith and Gratitude.  It means hope, sincerity, love, honesty, clarity, science, and amour.  I see it, behold it in my mind, friend, and it is more beautiful than you can imagine.

    And I feel like I have lived my whole life.  If I told you the whole story, you wouldn't believe it.  A-nah love.

    What kind of love is A-nah?

    I want an New Reciprocity.  No love for an nah?  An nah is an identity.  An reject.  But to whom?  The real reject.  Rejection is rejection.  Inclusion is inclusion.  I prefer inclusion, always.  No one is every truly an reject.

    At least, that's what Jesus teaches us.

    But Anna tells us it's necessary, to reject, and I'm more inclined to believe her, because she considered the fate worse than death.  What rejection is worse than death?

    Obviously, these are some deep questions.

    It is an deep feeling in me not to reject anybody.

    Needing to reject someone is worse than death.

    I think firing someone is different.  It is not to reject, it is to fire.  I mean socially rejecting someone is different than firing them like for example I was fired and then socially accepted by the same person and we went out for drinks.  But I mean all-out rejection of somebody just seems so uninclusive.

    We are humanity, human-kind, and we need to stop rejecting people.

    This attitude has an strong influence in me.  I think, "you can tell who the rejectors are."  But maybe you can't.  Maybe someone you think is an rejector is actually an nice person.  And there is no reason to reject anyone.  We know that people reject each other all the time.  But we don't need to be like them.  In defense of the human spirit, we don't need to be like them.

    Rejection is an myth that we tell ourselves we are because we need the safety it provides.  What we need is the safety of globalism, and the human instinct to conduct matters socially.  Our species doesn't have an instinct to reject its members.  That is put in us through War and Chaos.  Cultures multiply each other.  We love and grow.  It's actually been entertaining me, all along.  It's been entertaining me but I can't say it.  It's been like an kiss and I can't touch it.  But I feel it.

    The story!  The story!  I forgot the story!  It was about someone distinguished, yes an gentleman, never having rejected anybody and he wondered how, he wondered how.  But it was obvious to him.  Nobody rejected anybody because we can't instinctually command ourselves to reject somebody.  Kant said to treat others as ends in themselves and not as an means to an end.  As such, it is an good guideline here.

    And you're probably wondering, what would someone who had never rejected anyone have done with all that time spent not rejecting anybody?  If we are complex psychological beings and we mimic each other at an deep level, as we know we do, then all the time spent not rejecting has been spent on creating each other.

    But do we create each other directly or through persuasion?  I know that what exists in my mind has in part been created by me and in part created—as I specify—or inspired, influenced, affiliated, etc. by other people.  Whether I am persuaded or not they affect me.  And we all affect each other.  And we need to act like it because it is true.

    We are creating each other.  We are beings of Fashion and Time.  We are also beings of story and so I am, as I have been fashioned, here to tell you an story.  It is in part about an psychological disorder, but also love and sex.  It is in part about genius and torment, for they go with sex, and the last thing, his name is Andoreath, he wears red neon in his soul.  He is fat, and he prefers to be.  He makes tea, soup, coffee, eggs, toast with butter.  And he is spicy.  And fruity.  He sits, "let me eat." He says.  And so all these things considered, and he goes on saying that he will tell me an story about the time he told an story in person and managed to entertain someone for an hour, and how it felt like being alive for an hour.

    And that any story about telling stories had to be an good one.  Yes, it started with the Story of Telling Stories.  Psychology of beings and displacement from the subject, sex, and creating each other.  The delusion that people are God, for example.

    And so I will tell an story.  The Story of Stories.  Andoreath changed his name to Annaenaeon, and became an virtual priest for the Christianna.  Annaenaeon didn't know if anyone would ever accept his religion.  But he needed to say what couldn't be said.

Ganesh/Ganesha

    Anjesha, an character that never remembered anything, and Ganesh, the Indian God, an elephant that remembered everything.  I had begun to interpret faith without knowledge.  And wait, whom, who am I again?  Annaenaeon.  I am young, but I have begun to interpret faith without knowledge.  I don't know if elephants have an good memory in their culture but I am not sure, like, it is an God so probably.

    Annaenaeon began to interact with these two characters.

    "Anjesha forgets everything.  Ganesha forgets nothing.  I am somewhere in the middle between these two extremes or I am both characters and an middle."

    Anjesha said nothing.  He could improvise like no tomorrow but there was nothing that he had remembered to say.

    "Ganesha said, like, get Anjesha to speak."

    "Anjesha, speak," said Annaenaeon.

    Anjesha instantly forgot the command, and as an result said nothing.

    Coincidence, Ganesh remembered that.

    "I'm playing with you," he said, "if you are that memory that never forgets, then you always are the emotion of your past.  Seems like an coincidence when you are triggered to remember."

    "There is an riddle in this," said Anjesha, "that we are both the forgetting everything and remembering everything in one pronounced outlook.  That's why we are both realization of past memories and forgetting of all things at the same time."

    This was quite extravagant language for someone who could not remember everything.

    "I don't buy it," said Annaenaeon, "if we forget nothing and remember everything at the same time."

    "You mean forget everything and remember nothing," said Ganesha.

    "No, he means if we forget everything and remember everything at the same time."

    "That's it, that's what I mean," said Annaenaeon, "I don't buy it because how can you be selective about remembering if you can't forget all of it."

    "That's exactly why.  Exactly why," said Anjesha, who immediately forgot what he was going to say.

    "You mean," said Ganesha, "that is why you can be selective with remembering.  That you can both remember everything and forget everything at once."

    "But I don't buy it," said Annaenaeon, "Because if you did both at once reality wouldn't appear the way it does."

    "How would it appear?" said both Anjesha and Ganesh at once.

    "I cannot be selective with my memory all the time," said Annaenaeon, "I have an psychological disorder maybe that's why I come up with these versions and stories and everything.  But with that outlook and never settling for any version of reality for too long, I embark on the invention of the Christianna, an religion that works counter-positive to Christianity."

    "What do you mean counter-positive?" said Anjesha.

    "What do you mean counter-positive?" said Ganesh.

    "It means we offer an positive interpretation of both Jesus and Anna," said Annaenaeon.

    "Faith and gratitude," said the Christiannan pastor to the congregation.  He read from the Naenaeon on his tablet, "en français,"

    An quiet fell over the laity.

-What on Earth is he getting at?

-They aren't.

-What are you talking about?

-In French it means 'they aren't.'

-So they aren't.  Like philosophically.

-I'm afraid you aren't being specific enough, something like that I think yes.

    And to have thought something like that could be said in French.

    Everyone was astounded.

    Total crowd pleaser.

    It kicked up an spark.

    "Annaea"

    Like an illness.

    That's all an illness needs is to have an spark kicked up at it.  Provided the spark doesn't hurt the poor dears.

    Who would be named after an illness?

    Annaea, the princess, the princess of having no illnesses.

    I wish it were so.

    It could be an brand name, if the panacea exists!

    And in all these gentlemanly thoughts and proceedings of narration it occurred to them, the aren't part of the aren't, that he was one of them.  Christiannan.

    But that was an play.  I should slow down.  You see, he wanted you to think that he accepted himself as one of the rejectors.  In order to interpose an dramatic effect.  Juxtaposition with Christiannan!  An feminine sport.  Think of this as the opposite of Rejection.  Christiannans accept everybody.  It's about Community Values, like Sharing, Performance, 'Indebtibles'/Indebtedness, and Engineering new virtues.  Positive narratives about community and culture stem from these categories.

    Sharing - This isn't what you learned in daycare or kindergarten.  Sharing is an complicated Adult task.

    Performance - Anyone who knows what real sharing means knows performance.

    'Indebtibles'/Indebtedness - We are all indebted to each other in one way or another.  It's true because we instinctually mimic each other the true goodness that is inside all of us.

    Engineering new virtues - Engineering is an complex task it requires many forms of knowledge.

    'Indebtibles'/Indebtedness - We depend on each other's performance of life.

    Performance - we are indebted to performances that came before us modern people.  We feel them in our souls.

    Then the pastor said,

    "Christianity is one way of telling the fate worse than death.  Anna is the other.  If Anna's pleasure principle teaches us that we need to reject each other because it feels good.  Then I take up issue with the narrator.  I believe we never do need to reject each other."

    The Narrator said to the pastor, right in the middle of the ceremony, "You need to reject each other because that is how you become the narrator."

    "No I don't," said the pastor.

    "You just did."

    "No I didn't."

    "Yes you did.  You rejected me."

    "I didn't reject you.  I disagreed with you.  That's the opposite of rejecting somebody."

    "No it isn't you half-wit.  If you disagree with somebody that means you reject their opinion."

    "Not necessarily.  If you disagree with somebody that means you respect them enough to disagree with them."

    "Respect them?  What the hell are you talking about?"

    "It's about how we never reject each other, but it seems like we do, but really we are motivated by our attachment to each other."

    "People are not God.  We have to reject each other at some point."

    "No they don't.  That's what free will means."

    "What if I commit some crime, and I am lawfully guilty.  Your legal system rejects me.  Therefore you reject me."

    "That's not that same thing.  Rejection is the infliction of the fate worse than death.  The legal system doesn't legislate the fate worse than death."

    "Yes it does."

    At this point the congregation had reached its aporia.  The laity was silent, but the tension in the room was too.

    "We have to reject each other because that's how we teach each other," said the Narrator.

    "Teaching is not rejection.  Teaching is acceptance."

    That was where the argument ended.  Teaching was acceptance.  The Narrator saw it clearly now.  In order to learn you need to accept that learning and teaching are the same thing at some level because the learner teaches their teacher that they have accepted what they learned.

    "Such is the relationship between God and Man," said the pastor, "we must have responsibility to teach God what we have learned in order to learn that God taught us to be independent of He/She/It.  We have an responsibility to God in this way.  The Christiannan relationship with God is one of mutual admiration.  And to be clear, we are factually informed that people are not God."

    "What about if someone disappoints you," said the Narrator, "that means you need to reject them.  That's love.  Or they'll never learn."

    "In that case your acceptance is stronger than your rejection, if you look at it sympathetically.  You can reject someone socially and still accept them as an person.

    O holy Lord

I love thee," said the pastor.

    "Are you rejecting God socially and accepting him as an person?  If so, you might be an Christian."

    The pastor laughed.

    They laughed together.

    The congregation laughed.

    "But seriously, Jesus was not God," said the pastor, "and neither is Anna.  We know better.  This is the Orditum."

    "Is the Orditum like the Bible?" asked an boy in the first row.

    "No," said Annaenaeon, "the Orditum is an Christiannan story.  It is about the order and disorder of society.  It reports what Christiannans call Good and juxtaposes them with examples of unpleasant character."

    "I thought you had to accept everyone," said the Narrator.

    "I didn't say that accepting everyone meant that I had to accept how they behave."

    "Now that's an good one.  You know how people behave is who they are."

    "Okay listen, Narrator, this is my congregation and if you interrupt one more time—

    "What are you gonna do?  Reject me?"

    "Okay that's it.  Congregation over.  Everyone go home.  Now let's see them listen to you if no one is here."

    "But don't you see, that is rejection.  You have publically dismissed me."

    "I have not.  I dismissed everyone else."

    "But you discredit me in front of them."

    "I discredit you in front of God."

    "I am God."

    "No you're not, you're a narrator."

    "That's an metaphor for God."

    "So I reject God.  Is that what you're saying?  Well I suppose if he deserves it I shall."

    "You can't reject God.  That's what God is."

    "Yes you can.  But you know I won't."

    "You already did.  Everyone went home."

    "If I have to repeat myself again!  I don't reject you as an person I just reject you politically."

    "Politically!  What on earth does that mean?"

    "It means I don't agree with your idea of good government."

    "Government? And let me guess why you think that: an narrator is not an form of government."

    "Narration is required in government."

    "But who decides on what the narration should be?  Not you I hope."

    "You are intolerable!  If you were God I should declaim you into unpopularity."

    "I have my own idea of what God means!  I am just an cloud in your virtual chapel to you.  But I am an powerful cloud!  And I will not be obstinate."

    "You are the side effect of an Narration, and since you are the Narrator and you don't know that you are utterly an fool!"

    "So how are you supposed to narrate an Christiannan story about the order and disorder of society without me?"

    "I just don't like the shouting," the pastors voice broke into tears.  Vocal tears.

    "Then I will never shout at you."

    "Good."

    He stopped crying.

    "You know the only reason I challenge your opinion is that I care about you."

    "Same.  I care about you too."

    "That's why we're friends."

    "I agree."

    "We don't reject each other."

    "But what is Rejection if it is not instinctual?"

    "If Rejection is not instinctual then by trying to reject someone you go against instinctual command.  That could be damaging."

    "It's true.  If you reject someone you reject an part of yourself.  But isn't it just idealism to think we are not forced to reject others?"

    "But if we are right about instinct, an motive that we cannot control, then if someone is forced to reject others that influence is psychologically corrupt."

    "Psychologically corrupt?  This is some deep shit."

    "So the Fall of Man occurred when he went against his instincts."

    "But an scarcity of resources."

    "That was why he had to change."

    "Unreal."

    "I know."

    I do reject people, Annaenaeon realised, if we instinctually cannot reject each other, then we can reject each other at every other level and not be immoral.  But why would you, the hypothetical you, he conjectured, if the trend of the instinct is acceptance?  Exactly.  I'm right.  This is why it's always been so jarring that I was not accepted by everyone.  An person actually needs to go out of their way to reject somebody.  But if we were all lazy assholes we would accept everybody.  But if I just push this an little further, isn't it impossible not to reject anybody?

    I was raised Christian, and it's ingrained in me to accept everyone and so I ask, is that dogma or is it possible to accept everyone?

    There are some bad people.

    How can you accept them?

    But you could say that they are that way because they were rejected themselves.

    But if Rejection is anti-instinct it's not really possible, so why would anyone end up being an bad person?

    Rejection has many levels of freedom.  But when you see rejection is not freedom, you begin to see that all of those levels of rejection are really just levels of acceptance imperiled.

    And when you make up yourself not to withhold love ever, to make an difference in the world, you see that culture of society is always acceptance imperiled.

    Acceptance imperiled is the primary motivator.

    When you accept that humanity is broken right now, you will see that acceptance imperiled is the primary motivator.

    The Orbitum was the agreement that Jesus and Anna are not God; but yet that they represented qualities of God by immaculate personhood (something pristine that had nothing to do with conception); God, as an Christiannan would have it, was like Jesus in that he/she/it/ was forgiving of mistakes.  And yet also God was like Anna for not knowing what mistakes are in the first place.  God accidentally indulged the fate worse than death in humanity because experimentally maybe it made sense in the universe.  God was the forgiveness that, being an fate worse than death, even Anna could be forgiven for what she was.  Humans had dominion over both what death is (Jesus) and worse-than-death (Anna).