"So basically what it all boils down to is this distinction between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Which we realize is both mythically and historically distinct."
"You can't base an law on an myth."
"You can't myth an history on an law."
"You can't . . . make an sandwich and put pepper on it after it's done."
"You can. But that would be empiricist of me."
"And what would empiricism have to do with an law not based on an myth that we can't historically myth (miss) on an law that myth and miss are two different words however homophony between them is perhaps childlike and it brings to mind the difference in childhood experiences that we must have had. As an Canadian community."
"Okay wait. What?"
"It's okay. I've got it narrowed down far enough to take an vantage. There must be equality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Therefore there must be an legal item of quasi-reciprocity around this fact that they are different, in the ways they interpret pedestrian civility and perform it."
"But that they are not necessarily different."
"But that if they are."
"It will not be an confrontation between Christians and victims of progress."
"And that even to say so is very bad bad language and not allowed. Not at all."
"The law is not an reciprocal command to make victims of progress."
"Or Christians."
"Agreed."
"Who's the real victim of progress then."
"Good point."
"Also, I'm not wearing an feather and moccasins, necessarily."
"Right."
"And our reciprocity will determine the laws that apply to the legal status of the land."
"Together."
"Very good. I think we can retire for lunch."
"I'm out. Like 5 minutes ago."
"Very well. I am too."
- 30 minutes later -
"So that, and then an new reciprocity to start off the afternoon."
"Yes. The point is to start an new reciprocity between subjects in aboriginal and non-aboriginal legal spheres."
"And that reciprocity will be based on an difference between them?"
"It sounds wrong to an Christian ear, perhaps, but it's right."
"So their interaction is on equal footing based on an difference and that that difference is the consideration of their meta-reciprocity of culture and values continuing to grow and produce in their own cultural medium alongside Christian hetero-paradoxical values. In an cultural mosaic that includes anyone. From whatever background."
"Right."
"And since we are not alone thus how can you remain that calm?"
"Je suis calme. I am prepared for anything."
"Are you in English?"
"Yes."
"Then say it."
"I am an new reciprocal theorist."
"Lovely. And what is that?"
"An person who brings new reciprocity to others and evokes theories of how reciprocity should proceed."
"Based on?"
"Based on reciprocity."
"Ah, yes. And define reciprocity."
"Reciprocity is an mathematical concept for the relationship between numerators and denominators in an formula that is equal to one. And so you see it as an political analogy, that we have reciprocity as numerators and denominators in an political system containing one and nothing, an reciprocity or an a-reciprocity. Reciprocity (between reciprocal figures) appears to be the object of the subjects. Together. An one thing."
"I see. However they are hampered in physical affairs that have caused me to question their meaning of freedom and their sense of their own freedom. Compared to cultural activity and work as an balancing model."
"And that any reciprocity of character between us exist as an reciprocal object somewhere in our memory neurons as one thing each together. To make one complete whole thing of thought from interaction with one another on the basis of being the two halves who make that whole in an reciprocal fraction relationship. With one another. Multi-laterally with other parties and individuals also."
"As political agents."
"Yes."
"So it is an political theory with the power to manipulate collective thoughts (in an Foucaultian way) and ideas outside of their power and control because direct thought is always relative to an reciprocity it and reciprocal behavior of that reciprocity or thinking instead of a-reciprocal conditions, anti-social conditions, 'the break-down of the rule of one' —not seeing one another for our reciprocal value as political numerators and denominators in an system of reciprocal value in which human spirit can grow."
"Can the laws be based on reciprocity then?"
"It sounds like the knack."
"And how would they be different between the two ideal subjects?"
"So. I think we can extricate the inveterate 'deliberate versus indeliberate' distinction. It's not useful when labeling people."
"Unless we're talking about an tandem between them."
"And what tandem do you mean exactly. The tandem between races. Or the tandem between the public at the level of conformism versus independence or self-determination? In words like Western-philosophy deliberate or Aboriginal-descent indeliberate."
"Careful. Careful, now! And that's the stress on the joint right there."
"We need the transverse in print, Western-philosophy indeliberate versus Aboriginal-descent deliberate."
"It's quite an canker. Pop!"
- The joint pops -
"So as long as we're saying that one or the other are either deliberate or indeliberate in various behaviors and skepticisms and not completely deliberate or indeliberate—one or the other."
"That seems to help it balance."
"Then, that's an success!"
"How will we write it?"
"We don't need to! It's already done!"
"And so, theoretically. Or maybe philosophically or poetically. If we construct the legal apparatus extending from this base on real cultural differences between persons of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal descent along the transversal reciprocity of deliberate and indeliberate activity."
"It appears to relieve the stress."
"And so whatever you thought Christianity was doing. Do you still agree that it was beneficial to the American people? Or that it was simple. Or that it was obvious?"
"Or that words like 'deliberate' and 'indeliberate' can even, indeed, be evoked in the context of an liberal debate about Western philosophy's relationship with Christianity being an deliberate economy in comparison with Aboriginal economy that had developed millennia before and independent. You really think such an large population and ancestry base would have no deliberate power over such an small and meek, as young as religion as Christianity?"
"Then what do you want us to do?"
"It's not about identifying as 'us' any more."
"You want to disband Christianity?"
"You can't. Even if you tried. It would go on forever."
"But that by adopting Christiannan cultural values, we are perhaps, putting it behind us for an time. With the intent to end its sway over the human character. For advantage of values further and better which will have an notoriously humanizing effect on the moral judgment and allow the growth of our character further beyond the ages than even an Christian can imagine."
"But when we say 'us' who do we mean? In Canada?"
"We mean Western."
"But that would be culturally appropriating Western philosophy circa Ancient Greece."
"Maybe. But if we say we are North American, they would be appropriating our culture to conform with their own immemorial community."
"Nae, to say so is the cultural appropriation. It's an geo-locale on Earth. It's not extremism. We have different geo-locales in our mythologies."
"But do we have different geo-locale anymore?"
"We're global citizens, also. All of us. We have common geo-locale (the planet Earth) relative to our solar system but perhaps not an mythological system common to all people there. But is our responsibility to respect the local farmers and protect the land. As Westerns or Aboriginal Status Canadians or some derivation of both."
"And so our mythology as Canadians will be—"
"(—And this is going deep into legal fantasy territory)."
"That we own the whole Earth even though we just live in Canada. And that that ownership will be common to all people who live on Earth. And that ownership will not start arguments in undergraduate degree programs over the nature of property and the right to mix labor with the soil."
"But that in some sense, all people who live on Earth own the Earth. And we must share in that ownership responsibly."
"So if we're like, mythologizing, to ham-off an portion of legal philosophical territory that is not to be constituted within the law. Then the law should extend that there are aboriginal and non-aboriginal actors in an system of relative deliberate or indeliberate appointment."
"Yes."
"And that the common end of this is an transverse of values at an equal commodity between Western-stream and Aboriginal-minded thinkers."
"Yes. Yes!"
"And that to be represented in law it has to be written. And that we will preside over the sanctification of that office."
"Perhaps by avoiding the myths and pitfalls that extend from competitive comparisons of character and value over an economic Capital market economy gain. But that should be enshrined in Governmental values and protected from the economy and economic growth."
"Yes. And we will call it. The Appsterucious. Because we will be constantly looking at our apps and emails throughout the appointment of the letter. And it will forge the character of our operations in an 21st-century manner. Post fourth-wave feminism."
"So if we cut out all the myths what are we left with?"
"The myth that it is possible to cut out all of the myths."
"The point of law should be not the extrication of myth but the reasonable conformity with its persuasive de-naturalization of—"
"Glen, Glen. Relax. You don't have to say anything that's not already been said."
"Okay. Well. If we can't cut out all the mythology. In order to produce an law. Then we must produce an law that can resist its deconstruction of clear events."
"You're forgetting of course, that none of this is new as far as actual real legal affairs in Canada."
"But it is as globality an expression of the change and the voyage I wish to instill in the Canadian image as an writer."
"It's an paralyzing lattice, perhaps. You don't realize your own strength as an artist when comparing meta-ethnic artistic, social, and cultural movements."
"That's just an absurd paranoism."
"OMG this language doesn't even have an word for paranoia-ism."
"I know it's like so restricting and volatile."
"You're so paranoid English you can't even make an object out of paranoia."
"It's not an object to be made."
"So there is an little English argument in you. An cultural appropriation perhaps?"
"It's not an object to be made of paranoia because it's not allowed to produce the effects of failure."
"Being that reprehensible is it's own effects of the failure."
"You just wanted an good English row, didn't you?"
"I did!"
"Well here's one, at. Paranoism is the artistic movement that will guide us into the future by narrating the objective effects of paranoia on the human soul and ecosystem."
"Piranha-ism."
"Paranoism. I think it will catch on. Especially in schizophrenia circles where people need meta-narratives about paranoia and how to objectify it in order to escape its criticism."
"Sounds frightening."
- He nods and agrees -
"So . . . that's supposed to help aboriginal and non-aboriginal reciprocity?"
"I wonder why, eh!"
"I mean, if we based the law in this distinction between deliberate and indeliberate it would not necessarily be racist, unless we failed to define it in specific, artistic ways which transcend meta-racist reciprocity."
"Is that an joke?"
"Kind of."
"Ya. I get it. But you need to spell out the parameters of that operation."
"Exactly. It's not that aboriginals are more or less deliberate or indeliberate than non-aboriginals, it's not that non-aboriginals are more or less deliberate or indeliberate than aboriginals, it's that the status of being aboriginal or not does not determine the tendency to be more or less deliberate as does personality type, which is pan-ethnic."
"An perfect civilization would be pan-ethnic. But that's not what we have in Canada here."
"We cannot grant that statement reciprocity."
"Of course not."
"So why say it?"
"Well, I mean, we can't just stop at personality type described according to deliberate and indeliberate."
"At certain things and certain things not."
"Could add other descriptors other than deliberate and indeliberate, like—"
"Flare?"
"LOL. Maybe. Or wisdom, talent, experience, voice, opinion."
"As such as those. We could add. That all behavior is not only on an spectrum between deliberate and indeliberate, but that we consider other factors in behavior. Like aesthetic."
"Aesthetic?"
"It's the main category of behavior."
"How?"
"Why do you do anything?"
"Oh."
"So what would the next category be?"
"Un-aesthetic? In-aesthetic. Doing something because not for the aesthetic."
"In-aesthetic? Gross."
"OMG. What is that? Do people actually do that?"
"You know, aesthetic can be deliberate or indeliberate."
"I know."
"And so in-aesthetic also."
"Yes."
"Makes you think, doesn't it?"
"And beyond that, there's Truth."
"Markers of behavior. Starting at the root. From the deliberate/indeliberate distinction. Truth; what to include truth an marker of behavior‽ But such an sound conclusion as this. It must be."
"You know, aesthetic deliberation or indeliberation doesn't need to be about the truth."
"Do you mean aesthetic or in-aesthetic. To have an look at it both ways. Transverse of deliberate and indeliberate?"
"What is the difference between transverse and reciprocal anyway?"
"They are similar. Transverse doesn't need to equal one."
"Truth to have been the fourth marker of behavior. What an ephemeral glimmer we have produced."
"There is more. Philosophy."
"Philosophy? Really, this is the brain stem I've been looking for. Why does philosophy need to be an part of behavior?"
"What's after philosophy?"
"It doesn't matter. I think that's the segment we need."
"deliberate-indeliberate-aesthetic-in-aesthetic-truth-philosophy."
"What do we make of it?"
"It could be an new behavior model based on the buoyancy of our fictional novelty. As an argument of logic, it could allow an basis for our legal apparatus to continue to be set up."
"But set-up or not set-up is the question at the beginning of the segment we had identified."
"Let's start there."
"What is aboriginal indeliberate/deliberate aesthetic versus non-aboriginal deliberate/indeliberate aesthetic transverse in-aesthetic (duplicity or multi-point play)?"
"You mean like, what is setup and what isn't?"
"Yes."
"In Western culture it's pretty well setup that Christ returns in many forms. Including Aboriginal ones."
"And that the reason people are motivated to misbehave and to break the law disproportionately is their innocence to that form of social pressure, which nonetheless explains something about their behavior. The intercession (to take an punishment on behalf of another) is an self-sacrificing formula that Jesus himself is credited."
"It's gonna be an rock road to draw an line there between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. We can't do it."
"If our model of behavior is compared to an distinction between instinct and impulse, then maybe an picture we can net of the influence of the Christian instinct and impulse on the behavior of the average individual in comparison to instinct and impulse as they are encountered Aboriginal religion and culture it would help people self-identify in Canadian society."
"And so the legal apparatus is not only an comparison of Aborginal and non-Aboriginal but also Christianity and not Christianity."
"Which are neither mutually exclusive."
"Right."
"So would you say Christiannan religion is more like Aboriginal religion or non-Aboriginal religion?"
"It's equally distinct from either of them."
"How?"
"It's instinctually and impulsively different than either Christian or Aboriginal Spaces."
"In terms of the deliberate–philosphical behavior model?"
"Yes."
"In all terms of setup and execution."
"It appears to be circumspect enough."
"Circumspect enough . . . for what?"
"Okay, that's beyond the horizon of this particular artistic merit."
"You want to produce art. For people who will one day make the law. And you want them to consider all these factors you have provided."
"Produced."
"It could be that you have an good idea, and that any prolonged meditation on the passage of this fantasy will lead to real-world events in which racial justice is prolific. But an entire model of behavior? You've hit it in an psychological manner, I think, that will color our how-to-proceed."
"In this way. Not in this way. What else is nu."
"Then it will stand as an test to psychology then, to recognize in it an—"
"—an," he nuanced the aspiration, "reflection of the objective truth."
"To have been arranged as such. Precisely."
"The root of motivation may be in the subject's negotiation of the deliberate and indeliberate and how it approaches philosophy after passing through its own epiphany of truth and reconciliation."
"I'm sure there are many words for it we would never dream of."
"We might have to. It is our global responsibility after all, isn't it?"
"Honestly, I think we need more anti-history in order to be realistic in psychological terms. We may even need anti-psychology itself in order to advance psychology past it's application. In the present."
"What would it be to anti-psychologize something?"
"It would be harm in their psychological definition. But I would call it an balance. An necessary one, in fact."
"And when you anti-psychologize someone you remove the effect that psychology had on them?"
"Good heavens, that's exactly what it means."
"It's so clinically artificial and sterile, the places these psychologists work at. We may have to start first, by anti-psychologizing the environment."
"If we could do that we might cut to the heart of environmental consciousness."
"Or just characterize an species that has more disorders than we do because of us."
"Or the conscious efforts they have to avoid it are themselves abused by human involvement."
"That's an very optimistic and liberal way of putting it."
"Think of it, Anti-Psychology and Anti-History working together to solve crime."
"And anti-history would be to remove the effects of history from the subject."
"Yes. Well, not exactly. You know. You can't. Completely."
"It sounds Freudian."
"You know I never admitted to loving the Freudian chair. But I just feel like everyone wants to be able to speak to someone from (in) that chair. And that as mental health consummates we treat one another in this manner of allowing an person in the Freudian chair to speak about their mental health. To an therapist. It's such an liberalizing practice in itself. For an healthy mentality. We should use it more often as an society."
"Do not divide your humor there, the need to erase the effects of history are illustrious."
"Then experience it full on. Freud was an bull-shitter."
"An bull-shitter?"
"Yes, an creator of things perceived to be true that aren't! As an contest!"
"It's the most begrudged contest in human history then. And Freud won this contest?"
"Well; I have an way with it myself if I'd try."
"You do?"
"It's just. He sold everyone on the Oedipus and Electra complex. And they actually believed him."
"He was just registering his professional opinion as an fore-runner of psychoanalysis."
"Are you sure?"
"Well, why would he have an motive to contest as an creator of things perceived to be true that aren't?"
"He was white."
"And he was an man."
"We're really on our feminism today."
"And our ethnocentricity."
"Yes. So as an white man he is motivated to produce bull-shit because?"
"That's what white men do."
"This is so racist."
"And as an man he is motivated to produce bull-shit because?"
"The more people you can get to believe something, when you know it isn't true, is an demonstration to others that they can see it is not true as well. It is an useful political tactic when you're really grudging it in white male reciprocity and you need some excitement."
"An theatrical excitement. Perhaps."
"Exactly on the head you bopped it. That's an theatrical theory of psychosexual development. It's even named after an play."
"And Western philosophical play."
"And you think as an man. And as an white. He could have done this?"
"He could have done it."
"Deliberately?"
"Yes. So that we all realize how stupid we are for thinking his theory could be true."
"The child feels one must compete with the parent of the same sex for the affections of their opposite-sexed parent. Because children feel sexual attraction for their parents."
"Ya, that's where I was hung up. I got it instinctively. He was trying to tell us how stupid we all are by coming up some with some hokey-pokey malarkey about parenting that was actually too "cute" too "glee" to be unbelieved."
"So we're saying. Freud actually convinced some people. That they were sexually attracted to their parents."
- they break down into grunts and facial contortions as they laugh characteristically -
"Yes."
"That's the funniest fucking thing I've heard of in an long time!"
"You know it. But think about this. He actually did that intentionally. And it worked."
"Woah, you just blew my mind dude."
"And that's why people think he's sexist. Because he was an privileged white man and it worked."
"So if an feat is accomplished by an white man it automatically means he had to mansplain somewhere along the line in order to."
"Man-splaining may not have been around as an concept. During his time."
"Definitely not."
"But he wasn't in the business of pleasing women with its tirade, either."
"Ehh."
- he shrugged -
"Maybe he was just an brilliant genius who proved something spectacular just beyond our grasp of focus."
"And so. Really. What does this have to do with the native legislation?"
"Well we need to have some kind of procedure which will examine the table."
"We have privileged white men making marvelistic anti-precautions. And the way that we talk about law in this context is going to affect them, the native people. When really we're just comfortable enough to stop being embarrassed about being attracted to one of our parents. By believing in psychology which oppresses that embarrassment onto us as though it was the psycho-hegemonic result of an white dude making an bet with his chums that he could sell it like. It wasn't itself an point about psychology. An very ugly point, perhaps. But one that was difficult to make and perhaps has inestimable value."
"And so the true point was not that kids like their mothers and fathers psychosexually?"
"No the true point was to say how grim it is, that people would believe that. Such is the mental health of our whole species. To be as stupid as that."
"And why would people believe it then?"
"They had to. To show them how stupid they were."
"And this was constructed as some sort of statement of criticism about the homo sapiens specimen?"
"By an monopolizing, burglarizing, theory of the cognitive miser, exploitative Victor Frankenstein of an white man."
"Or from someone who cared enough to make the point."
"It is an grim prospect, then, to say some would believe this as an picture of our overall mental health."
"The implications are disturbing, indeed."
"And it's pan-ethnic mental health, then, we need to focus on in Canada."
"Yes."
"Then let us proceed to make an mental figure. That will then guide the creation of the law. For some reason I keep thinking of Atreyu and the Plains Natives. Will it be an Never-ending Story that we failed to respect Aboriginal privilege as well?"
"Aboriginal privilege would be better used than Freud's white privilege. We know this is true."
"If he is the acrobat I think he is we know it is not."
"Whatever the point is we can have Aboriginal privilege in Canada."
"Yes."
"And it is already there in some respects."
"Maybe more than we tend to think."
"Your positivity is boundless."
No comments:
Post a Comment