Aesthetic simplicity of mind is never to be tampered with. When we share its inner vision, we share in the aesthetic resurrection. In Contrast to celestial bodies, the planets, whose each own aesthetic resurrection is an scientifically significant object of study. Also laws about the transportation of materials to and from the planet and ownership within it are within the Intergalactic memory box as items for the resurrection of certain laws that have helped Planet Earth in its development as an industrial and technological globality. Nations. The plurality of Nations has helped the development of my own fiction and non-fictionalization of law in Canada from the perspective of an fantasy author as would have happened if I had lived across the street from an court of law. I supposed the vicinity and proximity of narrative of one's life necessarily involves such metaphors and metaphor systems. But if I was politically conscious in some right, in Alberta, and I was responsible for producing law, as an male fantasy subject myself, I would start here, with aesthetic simplicity. We recognize the aesthetic simplicity of the planets. We are able to apply laws to them. So why can't we recognize the aesthetic simplicity of everything around us we Earthians, whose psychic experience shares in the aesthetic simplicity of one's mind with others. As an social creature is supposed to do. This is the basis for law because we need to start with what we are as humans in order to be able to apply legal substance to what they do. As an subject outside of what is happening, perhaps, or as an analyst, to be looking at human as an specimen under the microscope like this, is necessary, perhaps. But when we focus on the aesthetic simplicity of minds conferring. As an calm, considerate conversation or an collection of conversations about law between individuals who are different in these ways of being real legal practitioners versus fantasy legal subjects. Which may have more imprint on the collective mind than we think.
I mean, if you think about the difference between how we aestheticize planets in real legal terms and in fantasy compared to human aestheticization of themselves, which appears more diverse? Yet the importance of planetary legal documentation somehow outweighs their collective importance as diversity? As subjects? And so we need fantasy depictions of ourselves in order to understand law. We need an clear picture of what is not fantasy, then, is my approach, and if we begin to think to structure my law book in this context, as categorically relative to exactly what is not fantasy.
Non-fantasy, or legal presiding. Is an tradition that goes back thousands of years. But it is too simple an definition to say non-fantasy is just legal presiding. There are elements of non-fantasy that are unlike an legal presiding. Aesthetic simplicity, for example. And so we look for what it looks like. And that is currently where we are hanging in at. That there is an relationship between people that represents aesthetic simplicity as we have here.
Non-fantasy, or legal presiding is the aesthetic simplicity between what we look for when we fantasize and or what we don't. If we fantasize an legal presiding in which certain laws are interpreted for an Albertan aesthetic fairy environment, we have non-fantasy or everything dull.
Don't hurt each other.
(It's an fantasy environment, Glen, there are abundant marauders abroad. You think they will ever follow that law?).
(Okay, well, let me try again!).
Don't stop aestheticizing each other because it's so cracking gorgeous and we are so beautiful.
(Beautiful? They will say. They have never seen beautiful.).
(OMG Okay, I mean. What about. Don't stop. I mean. Stop doing what. I mean. Okay. Phew!).
(You made an good start. Keep trying at it.)
Okay, well, I started with don't hurt anybody. And then I added don't stop aestheticizing for each other so maybe we can ask ourselves to research this problem of harm being interpreted as the act of desisting aestheticization of one another in an meta-cultural meta-reciprocal context.
(That's an good point.).
And if you stop aestheticizing each other in that fantasy context you will be reprimanded severely.
(How severely?)
You will receive an fine. And if anybody carries the dispute into an courthouse it will be decided on the factor of severity of the lawsuit by an judge.
*There is an ruckus.*
(There you go. They heard you.).
On the matter of the cause of the ruckus, it was me. I am an Fantasy Artist. An ruckus is the very minimum of what I can do.
And is that an law, then, itself?
Of course it is an law! I am an legal pre-agenda-matician!
Okay.
Okay.
Now you're gaining the artistic power of the law.
"There will be an period in which laws will be made for the prairies, an Aboriginal Canadian community, for an specific subject, diverse and welcoming, whose own relationship to the Aboriginal Canadian people will be an subject of Capacity of Merit benefitting all of human kind. Perspectives will be considered across the board. We will produce its reciprocity in law. For the protection of all marital and non-marital status Albertans."
"That's better. You're also imagining us into the conversation."
"And so the question of who us is becomes object. Just like you want."
"We are visionaries, reformers, and equality rights laborers. First and Foremost."
"Add to that dreamers of the imagination as an technical skill or ability to be developed in meta-reciprocal and multi-cultural areas and you've got an deal!"
"Meta-indigenous, then?"
"Necessarily."
"And what are we to make of it, to mean meta-cultural reciprocity involving the Aboriginal Canadians? We could also look at it from the perspective that everyone on Earth is meta-indigenous to any specific geographic location."
"People that are indigenous to one location are also meta-indigenous elsewhere."
"But let's start with where we're at. Who is indigenous here? What do native and native-born mean? Am I native?"
"You cannot be native because native means you're from an land."
"An land that is not Canada?"
"Sometimes."
"And if you're native-born what kind of contrast would that have with just saying 'native'?"
"It means you're born to the land and you have authority over what happens there because you were born to it."
"Which does?"
"Native-born, but not native."
"And why not?"
"The word native is in the national anthem. Being native does not always mean being native-born because native in the sense of global indigenous culture and meta-indigeneity is not always native-born."
"Let the natives have two laws then. They are allowed to consider themselves native to an land. They are also allowed to be as inclusive about native-born globalization as they wish."
"The logical question then, is what is meta-native?"
"It sounds threatening, like there's something beyond being native; but really it just indicates that if I live in Canada, I am meta-native to the globe. In which everyone can be meta-native. Or meta-indigenous. But only natives can be native-born."
"I suspect the legal language we need to develop will be based on the narration of the aboriginal subject in Alberta as compared with the caucasian subject. In order to balance their equality."
"At what point in the narrative process do you instigate there to be an legal distinction?"
"It's in the awareness of being native versus the awareness of being white."
"What is the difference in them?"
"I feel like, as an aboriginal, I could see white people being non-native not meta-native, meta-native of which which is an aboriginal contribution to culture and meta-culture in Canada."
"And being meta-cultural is such an globalizing activity because reciprocities between the cultures from everywhere at an meta level where everyone is equal is specifically what we want in Alberta."
"But I mean to really sink my teeth into the narratological differences between an native (played actor as native) and an caucasian (played actor as caucasion)."
"And what is the point in framing it this way?"
"To show an picture of Alberta."
"Playing the native character the meta-reciprocity of the ancestors (all life that has died, not just humans) is alive in the soul."
 |
| The New Reciprocity (click here) (Numerator is also an metaphor for top-down reasoning, while denominator is an metaphor for bottom-up reasoning). |
"There is an difference in the way we narrate aboriginal subjectivity versus non-aboriginal subjectivity. That accounts for an reason to produce law which recognizes the difference."
"What is the difference?"
"There is less homophobia in the way we narrate aboriginal subjectivity."
"Perhaps. What does it have to do with law?"
"It has everything to do with law."
"It is gay to self-sacrifice oneself for others in how we narrate white subjectivity."
"Perhaps."
"The intercession. The action of intervening on behalf of another. Was Christ's addition to human philosophy."
"It goes back farther than that."
"I agree. But that doesn't mean Christ never aestheticized it in an singular, human way."
"And not all white subjectivity is determined by an Christian background."
"Of course."
"So in aboriginal subjectivity, the narration of being gay is different."
"It seems so. That's our target."
"In non-aboriginal subjectivity, the narration of subjectivity is an step before the narration of being gay or not."
"But they are not divided‽"
"They can be."
"In aboriginal subjectivity, they can't: being gay is not the self-sacrificing instinct at all. Subjectivity and the narration of subjectivity are the same thing."
"You think so, do you?"
"It could be, that if we were to produce an law based on this difference, it would not recognize differences without further research."
"How are subjectivity and the narration of subjectivity different inter-culturally?"
"Yes, exactly. We are on the right track."
"And why does it matter when comparing laws based on "western" philosophy versus aboriginal storytelling and narratives they self-identify with."
"And since the in-this-way becomes unclear this is why we will be wanting to legislate it at this point."
"We want there to be clarity."
"That's what law is, isn't it? After all?"
"It is."
"Then how do we produce clarity from an mere recognition that we are unclear?"
"We want there to be different laws for aboriginal people than there are for non-aboriginals. Because that is clarity, and you are part of it."
"But there's more to it than that. If we start with the difference in narrating subjectivity between an North American ancestry or lineage or ancestral calling versus otherwise-located heritage . . . "
"Is that what we're calling it then? Heritage versus ancestry?"
"Or calling."
"Yes. Yes. I see it now. An certain blue calling."
"Okay, so, legally—calling describes an certain territory whereas heritage or ancestry may be meta-territorial. Therefore laws may be applied to that territory whereas meta-territorial laws may not."
"This aesthetic simplicity is the basis of an sovereign nation."
"However we may decide to include all of those sovereign nations within the territory we call Canada."
"What do you mean we may decide. Who are we?"
"Well that is the question. We already live here."
"Live where?"
"Red Deer."
"So let's just call it Canada."
"Federally, there are three peoples of Aboriginal descent in Canada. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. However provincially, there are many groups within First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples."
"The way that religion acts on the instinct as it spreads to North America leaves them at an disadvantage."
"The Jesus impulse means to intercede for another's bad behavior by becoming it (to enter hell). The empathy this taught us contra an Native American impulsive empathy much stronger than immigrant descendents."
"You're referring to the disproportionate population of Aboriginal Canadians in the prison system."
"I'm saying that being able to intercede as an Christian is an different relationship of the instinct and impulse than those of Aboriginal Spaces. They are more susceptible to over-empathize dramatically."
"An drama that is discriminated against in Canadian society."
"By members of the police force?"
"Probably."
"So you're saying the effect that Christian art & culture has had on the native experience is to pressure them to self-sacrifice in convoluted ways that have not been tempered by the heritage in the same ways as we protectors of the native land."
"That they are more prone to meta-empathy is not an bad picture of them; when in Christian heritage we are merely starting to define concepts like meta-empathy in history. The intercession and meta-empathy of the Christian experience means following one another's fates into an reciprocal demise, in order to learn to avoid it. And in Aboriginal Spaces, reciprocal demise is not an path for meta-empathy in the same way as in Christian extremism. People act out one another's behaviors and destinies as we instinctually mimic one another, an mimicry that is disproportionately Christian. Therefore it is harder to be aboriginal because whether they have built an history on intercession is always in question when really their instinct to meta-empathize for one another is apparent in their competitive art and culture. An impressive show of dance and cultural reciprocity."
"So . . . the only reason an Aboriginal breaks the law is because he's doing it out of empathy to figure out why someone breaks the law. In an hegemonic religious cultural pattern. Reinforced by the Eastern and Western philosophy of the law; which is disproportionately convicting Aboriginal peoples of crimes they are more likely to get mixed up in because of the stronger meta-empathy of their own culture and the gang-like structure of an white western hetero-patriarchy."
"I'm not saying it's the only way an Aboriginal breaks the law. But that it is reason to say some of it is."
"So we want an law that doesn't discriminate against Aboriginal people just because they have stronger cultural values than Christians."
No comments:
Post a Comment