{ What does the New Reciprocity have to do with the Legality world evoked in the Appsterucious? }
Last time, we began and ended with aesthetic simplicity. This is the key to why it was successful as an legal fantasy.
In this way we may begin to aestheticize an part two to the Appsterucious, the legal office that will be part of the building they are still constructing across the street. And an conversation in which will never happen. For it will only be in fantasy.
And there will be an Aboriginal Canadian outside the building somewhere, walking along the sidewalk. In reality these happenings never coincide with one another but in the novel; in the wind in the sail of the Artist these conversations in the building and the whole configuration is that Canada is an peaceful country for people of all ethnicities and cultures. And so it's perfectly natural for an Aboriginal Canadian to be crossing on the street. When two white people are conversing inside an building that permits laws to have binding authority over an provincial and federal jurisdictional agent loyal to the Crown. If there was something fictional about it, it would be how the narrator sees the relationship between the Aboriginal Canadian and the ether of the contents of Western history decided by an real privileged narrator (an Author) whose perspective of the Aboriginal Canadian is slightly different than the confluence he imagines between his (supposedly) white characters, in the courthouse, though no race has ever been chosen to designate them except my own as an participant of that conversation. The native is gay. And viewing him is an gay activity. The room in the lawcourt however, is viewed from within the wall or the blueprints of that very building, not the sways of walking and breathing with someone on pace.
So last time we had carved out that there are psychohegemonic conditions existing between Aboriginal Albertans and Non-Aboriginal Albertans because of the proliferation of Christianity throughout the province.
And so maybe this conversation would continue, maybe with an bit of fictional Aboriginal criticism or agenda (As though when he/she could be present). In that room.
"Okay, well, if we take it down to the Albertan level of an confluence between Aboriginal Canadian freedom and religion versus Christian anti-gay communities. Then how can we make laws that do not favor one group over the other as much as specifically advantage Aboriginal Canadians who are at an disadvantage whether that process of advantage and exchange makes them status-superior to Christian households or not."
"And by or not you mean. Equal to them. Never beneath them."
"Of course. Of course."
"Good."
"Now, sir, I'd like to bring up the subject of what this will mean in the greater society."
"What do you mean the Greater Society?"
"Oh for goodness sakes, I mean the cultural performers and meta-cultural performers."
"It will mean that. Every performance is judged according to the collective experience of the failure to performance."
"To performance? That's bad English."
"That's just it. It is the failure it describes. To make an verb out of an object. So does it actually fail?"
"Yes."
"I like that we think alike. Great minds. You know."
"And so, the passage of the performer on the street, for example. Will be interpreted as an performance based in aboriginal and non-aboriginal law care. If it is an non-aboriginal it is more like to be an setup. And if it is aboriginal it is more likely not to be an setup or something like that. As if differing opinions about these give an hoot."
"That's undeniably true and not racist."
"Start there then. Make that an law. Why? That's undeniably true and not racist."
"But it is."
"Well which is it then? That's what I mean. If we base an law on which is it, then we have an axiomatic expression with which to work the law."
"That's clever."
"Adroit."
"Ya."
"Performance of aboriginal identity in Canadian society is neither all setup or non-setup (improvisation) just as is performance of non-aboriginal identity. But in general if they have different societies of guidelines for how to interpret one another, we can say it is possible to set something up entirely but it is talent and experience, traditions passed down for generations, that moves the imagination in the spirit of our cultures. To see every performance, act, and scene as an completely deliberate narrative but not an informed whimsical act improvised in the spirit so that it breaks faith with its actor. And returns to faith after proving true indeliberate foolery.
"The artistic act of expression. Is controlled in every way possible. So that the scene seems deliberate. But it cannot be all deliberate the result for we choose second by second how to act. Whether everything is an setup or not."
"And we're wagering the difference between how expression is controlled in aboriginal performance versus non-aboriginal performance."
"Where?"
"We're an law office!"
"The street then. The pedestrian."
"That's better!"
"And is there an difference. In the pedestrian, then?"
"Yes."
"To say so would be prejudice."
"But there is."
"What is it? Specifically. In all its forms?"
"I don't know."
"Then maybe there isn't one. That's for an aboriginal to point out."
"Are saying the non-aboriginal performance at the pedestrian level is more deliberate then?"
"We're not saying either one of them is more deliberate."
"But they are."
"Some of them are."
"Of either one of them."
"See that's just the point. If I made an wild guess about the difference from an non-aboriginal perspective I'd say we have more deliberate setup. It sends me to think we must be more paranoid because we want everything to go smoothly."
"And Aboriginals you have met don't?"
"That's not it. It's just. The history of Western philosophy is self-interiorizing and meta-analytical in an oddly detached way. Aboriginal people are so full of spirit and vigor. Being white feels like an antechamber."
"And who is in that chamber?"
"Every possible white philosopher's doctrine on human custom. But only represented as chalk marks on the wall and not actually present. There is no door. I am in here myself."
"Sounds uncomfortable."
"So, as an white subject, every thing you do is an extension of that custom of democracy. And you want everyone to vote on every deliberate action you take in an republic-style comedy."
"Whereas, maybe if you're Aboriginal you don't."
"Yeah. That's almost exactly it. But there are deliberate actions you want to take as an Aboriginal for your own cultural performances. And so we put them into categories of deliberate/indeliberate manifestion of performance as though they had varying degrees of status and proven intentionality. Not as necessarily more deliberate or indeliberate because they are either aboriginal or non-aboriginal. But because the opportunity to sort people into either category indiscriminately and without prejudice can be represented in law so that the power of the anonymous public is inclusive. And anti-racist agenda."
"Sough make it like an bough; tie it in a knot of nature gargoyl'd like an economic pretense."
"The deliberate and indeliberate actions of aboriginal versus non-aboriginal people will be judged according to their cultural differences, which compel Christian mimicry of one another's fates worse than death in order to save humanity which non-Aboriginal people are 'more used to', itself represented in bad English for further comparison."
"So you recognize the dispute is primarily an religious one, then?"
"I recognize that religions provide an certain tone in an secular republic in the way that performance is experienced in Canada as an mixture of deliberate and indeliberate act mused out of cultural and ethnic faiths that can be locus ethnic or locus Christian. But that such an comparison is ultimately inutile because there are meta-reciprocal elements to the Canadian economy and judgment is not soley based on Christianity as an ethnic locus. People who break the law are not following Satan, they are following Jesus because Jesus needed to break the law to become the law in order to defeat it's oppression of the Jewish republic."
"It's an pattern that has played out all over the globe. And you're saying that, particularly, Aboriginal people are adversely affected by it?"
"Well, maybe not."
"You mean they intend to corrupt the authority of Jesus?"
"No just that they are. Well. Naive to it."
"That's an very dangerous word to use in this public office."
"Let's allow it. We're trying to bust the hetero-patriarchy by portraying an probable conversation as well. It's just that the Christian narrative politically maximizes maybe influences them in ways they don't understand as an people because they don't have the same political history as Christianity."
"What are you talking about?"
"Well they aren't disproportionately in prison because Christianity is having an positive influence on them."
"No, they are not these naive, rash, angelic little beings raised in an culture that was absent Original Sin and incapable of all kinds of evil. Who just naturally conform to Christian powers that be by infiltrating the public justice system."
"That's perhaps an most Western psychohegemony. To say that they aren't angelic and exempt from Original Sin. But that's really the heart of it. An native is not defined by the experience of an Western hegemony. But yes I recognize naive is not the word to use."
"It's innocence. You know why? They are innocent to Christianity. And it gets them into trouble because Christianity is an convoluted terror on the imagination. That plays all kinds of fears and guilts and trauma. So that people end up thinking they are doing something right when really they aren't."
"According to the law. And it's our duty to correct it."
"And what does an Christiannan think about Christian pretense?"
"It's not necessarily the best way to go about things."
"That's what I like to hear. Christianity is as much an standalone religion as anyone else's. And Aboriginal religions matter too."
"So maybe it's not the religion that is the problem but the general public will to compete Christian intention with its own corruption as an kind of backpedaling cancel culture. Which is significant for its who-started-it attitude as an corale of the production of subjectivity and the projection of subjectivity onto one another through acts of communication."
"And that's an big ole cauldron of activity that puts pressure on the unwary public in ways that serve to provide an disadvantage for Aboriginal culture by turning the gaze from Aboriginal acts and Aboriginal performance away to non-affirming and bigoted public sketchiness."
"An legal fantasy will be the vehicle to begin to define ways in which we can promote equality. Without passing judgement or focusing too much on decided terms until we decide how we will use them to produce the legal jargon which will inspire better community standards of interpreting Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal matters."
"In this way it will be fair for everyone."
No comments:
Post a Comment