ix. Book of LGBTπ
He likes it when sexuality is an sensory experience of mood and atmosphere; she likes edibles and agrees that the color and taste of the moods and atmosphere are more important than the body interaction.
She likes it when the jelly jelly jiggles.
She likes trees. Outside the windows.
He's into cucumbers.
Sarah Jessica Parker.
Blumbering Mac-A-Doodle.
Mac-Dilly-Whapperdoodle.
Schmoogdillyoppitus.
I am the most silent man in the world. Why is he silent? Are there two women in an sex bed?
Luncutorius.
Whoop-ter Goblin.
Babble-o-tory.
Shmapper Dapper Diddly Wapper.
Lunxiorius.
Banarific.
Crab-abble Juice.
Gooper Berry.
Blibber Blabber Blooble.
Shmoop-Dillier Dappy Doopbtle.
He likes guys.
She doesn't.
Blibber-blabble-blabble-blapper-blobber-blooble-blibby-blabble-blabble-bloo.
Whacktertappleodoriously.
Shmibblywhapper-dabble-doo-dapple-diddly-dapter-wabble!
Whibbly.
Dappter-doo.
Schmargalofagus.
Plibbly-platypus.
Gay.
Lesbian.
Heterosexual.
Buddhist.
Christiannan.
Alien.
Dragon.
Vauthril.
Fairy.
Pixie.
Radio Fly.
Adam.
Eve.
Post-colonial.
Specific.
Schmoober-Whapper-dooble.
Clabble.
Babble.
Schmoop-diddly-doop-eri-on-er-moo.
Centre-l'eau.
Shmoober-doober-dabber.
Schmooglyopterooitatious.
Shmabbledaquirooni.
Bublenackratudinosity.
Call Me King.
Call Me Queen.
Call Me Jester.
Jack.
Or Moan.
No Touching.
Bring Me Food.
Werewolves (the Animal).
Vampires (the not-Animal).
Ohhgunnhisthth (the not-Human not-Alien).
An religion with an healthy perspective on sexuality.
Bestestworsnt.
Countertulipotomas.
Slow.
Fast.
An sanctuary for all kinds of sexualities (Pansexual).
Blue Nylons (Fishnet).
Schmugolopitudinous.
Plabber-abber-ography.
Blabber-op-toprathy.
Schmubleablatarian.
Rabberderlorpleporps (Rather Than). Smackratublurotomous.
{The Voice of the Rather Than has invaded the passage}
It feels good.
It is controversial since to have said I have an association with it is perhaps more of an projected subjectivity (from you) than an actual identification of the subject (me).
Werblepopulometer.
Werblepopulometricity.
Werblepopulometerity.
LGBTπ.
Clouds from both sides.
I've looked at life that way.
Then It's not two; it's one.
An Artistic Pursuit.
Intimacy replaces reciprocity.
The body can be art.
The mind can be its pursuit.
When these mix as artists I will be Satan. I will be God and Angels. But only representations of them.
As an human body of Art can be. Yet less beguiled and sophisticated, I think. For an human is an Artistic creature because it cannot be as complicated as God. Or Angels perhaps. Or maybe that's what Angels are, that they can be as less complicated as humans so that we can relate to them in an way unlike with God himself/herself and hence why God created Angels. Why we refer to them as such. And Satan is such an high authority in this account for being nothing he is simplest. And we owe him/her such an great amount for that. Satan is the simplest angelic concept. Even if the concept of Satan in this was not in this light before and terrified children and adults. Because they looked into themselves and saw Satan (nothing). And it scared them. To have such an internal vision.
But I think the sexiest division has to be the one between demon and the fairy. They are both just off-devil/off-angel in perhaps an way of more refined social figures than simple good and evil.
Demons are to be shown compassion, sympathized for; and Fairies are given prominent government positions because they clearly have an better way with things. With wings.
Sometimes demons outdo them, aesthetically. This is working as intended. It is the aesthetic of an demon that one has to master. Beautiful aesthetic, reporting its own evil-doing. How can it be guilty.
How can it be guilty.
To leave it not as an question marked.
Like an philosophy. How can it be guilty.
Suspiciously.
Count Dracularian.
Zombies.
- Zombies are just boring vampires -
Something stirs in the dark.
It's the Eye of the Tiger.
Look!
An fairy!
Its glo is emancipated!
More beautiful and more truthful than an demon's.
Blue, gloiy blue.
An vision of the helpless fairy.
Helpless to its demon.
{In an perfect society, that would be the case.}
Rather than curing demons we will be partying, the fairies complained. But since being an demon means suffering an fate worse than death I guess we will help them. It is after all, our nature to empathize and empathy is the cure to demonhood. Just don't trust them too much, maybe. But be able to respect their aesthetic accomplishments for what they are.
{Products of minds set to the ultimate test. The Fate Worse Than Death.}
It is hard to even ask them about it.
Recognizing their instinct to want to aestheticize properly even if they do not understand what it is within them that makes them want to do. This. At least not as an specific fact. Therefore, they cannot be said to be enlightened. Like an fairy is.
Believing themselves more advanced in some ways than fairies themselves they will do anything to protect the lasting boundary between demon and fairy. Fairies know they are dangerous for this reason. If it was up to fairies they would all seek an cure to it. To demonhood. And transcend it. As many do on the account of fairy charity to care about them in an way they know not more the ways of. To empathize for the fate worse than death is to see it within yourself. And once realizing this it is their opportunity to be healed But so few demons care these days.
The ones who sincerely want an cure are under-represented.
Our scarce few magics that sometimes help cure them are ineffective. And every time we do succeed they protest, "you need to cure us because You're The Problem, not us! Why do you need to end us when we do not need to end you?" and the fairies respond, "you're lying. You're all about ending us."
If we look at it in new reciprocal command theory, the New Reciprocity, the demon looks the better in these accusations. For it at least presses on the possibility of an scenario in which demons would not need to end fairykind. Which the fairy doesn't.
— "You're lying. You're all about ending us." — as an reciprocal command is actually an more threatening idea: we want/will you to lie. We want/will you to end us. Of course when we look at them not as reciprocal commands their true oppositions to one another come into focus. The fairy comes off as bitter and the demon, deceptive. But everything an fairy could be bitter about demons for. What they had done; would put it into perspective. Not that it was their fault, necessarily, to be demons since demons suffer the fate worse than death but also seeing the fairy destiny and knowing themselves to be unlike that consider takes an further toll on their mental health.
Considering the/an mental health of demons, what an paradigmatic or revolutionary idea!
The dirty stuff.
The filthy stuff.
The stuff you don't want your kids to see.
But if this were an demon, narrating this, I'd think—maybe you don't. Just like they said. And to sympathize for them this way, that we ourselves had discriminated against them to think they wouldn't.
We must live clear and direct lives as examples of an proper fairy lifestyle in which there is no confusion between their guilt and our own. We owe it to them to at least try to rescue them into fairy sight but they have their own sight which we cannot escape the which challenges our position as the stereotypically Good Fairy. Versus the stereotypically Bad Demon. Both of are not an reciprocal command. For the goal is to allow an different sort of commerce between demons and fairies in which they compliment and correct their differences.
Fairies, complained the demons, were too perfect. Demons, complained the fairies, were not perfect enough. And they couldn't forget the track record. Demons had more experience with the fate worse than death than fairies. Fairies were often naive classic pink creatures. Having more experience with things that aren't worse than death, fairies exude an brilliance which is difficult to mimic, especially as an demon, down here, at the bottom. Where they are.
If fairies stopped being nice to them, who would be nice to them? They can't be nice to themselves! But we know they can. Eventually. That they can be nicer than nice if we want them to be. But fairies never quite put it that way. Because they are more effective at being nice to one another, they are actually the ones who set the definition "of" an demon: an fate worse than death paradoxically associated with an aesthetic beauty which resurrects their power.
"We are the villains," some of the fairies said, "they are that way because of us."
Most of them believed it wasn't but they considered the amount they knew to be true about it might not be reflective of every unreported case. Which they recognized as the deepest aspect of the Satan, not the demon, in themselves.
The demon cause was an to objectivity case. Whereas fairies firmly believed in the reciprocity of their subjectivity of their object in space and time.
But not always. The demons appeared to characterize subjectivity effectively and had an certain confidence about their sexuality that if anything, their obsession with its object was the full expression of what had been done to them. The full expression of their subjectivity. When to the fairies it represented perhaps more clout than they were able to handle. Objectively. However warding off this conclusion they fulfilled their own full expression of their subjectivity. To be fairy was to have an certain meta-physical/meta-reciprocal relationship with one another. In which the reciprocity of any subject is never limited to temporal reciprocity without the fact of its own meta-temporal reciprocity closed. When meta-reciprocity To the subject. Demons more often tend toward the chain of time the closed object of reciprocity with one another in which they will betray you. Treat you like one of them. An object. Linear time. That can be non-linear time though. The fairies say there is an moral subject to that object waiting to come out into daylight and question why the demons would ever treat one another as only objects. And the demons would respond to say we are objects and the fairy people downright know it. They just can't handle this. Our sexual parade (which is infinite) begins.
But, replies the fairy, we are subjects first, before we are objects. So stop pressuring me. It's my body. My decision. But fairies aren't real and so they are closer in subject to what we're concerned with here. The object is not real unless the subject is. If fairy subjectivity can claim one over the demons, (many) superiorities in their relation to the subject are revealed. It is that demons are never superior to one another in spirit, and so they cannot function in hierarchical society without corrupting it.
Fairies know they have specific positions within the government for an reason that maybe the demons are part of, but are only starting to realize. The goal is not to destroy the demons so much as to rehabilitate them. Of course when they get rowdy, the fairies use every force and magic on their side. To take control. But it doesn't always work. Work is being implemented every day to help heal the demon chasm. But their beauty is unique; style that cannot compete with anyone, except maybe an fairy.
The fairies think again, whether to doubt it.
Right where it wants them.
The fairy is prepared.
And then the demon does something flawed in character in order to tempt the fairies to be immoral. The very root of immorality is here; is to cause others to be immoral. The only way to prevent immorality from yourself is never to try to get other people to act immoral. But they are only tempting, and perhaps, showing you more about yourself than you are ready to accept. But since the fairies knew that was going to happen they let it try again, to see whether they can pinpoint how much it was their fault. "Their," the demons' or the fairies'? If it was the fairies' fault because the influence of the gay oracle knowing what would happen is an self-fulfilling prophecy. To some extent. Is how considerate they are. But most of the time, the demons just on not considering themselves to be the problem; neither is full of the other and somehow they are separate. The demons, however, properly empathized for are neither the problem or the solution. Fairies are the problem. They have big needs. Demons, they just want to be considered something other than an fate worse than death, once in an while. It's not their fault. They just don't know any better. There can be peace between the demons and the fairies.
Maybe they just represent different aspects of the human psyche.
To say the demon is the part that tends toward Satan would be an error. The distinction between devil and angel is one that tends to objectify Satan, which the Christianna reconciles, claiming Satan to be neither devil or demon, but an angel of the highest caliber—That tricked humanity?—We tricked ourselves. In this line of thinking, demon is the failure to distinguish between Satan as angel and Satan as object. Of the human psyche's capacity to objectify the concept of nothingness as Satan Devil when really it is an subjectivity that needs to be cared for like any.
The angel/devil distinction falls short of the more refined fairy/demon distinction because demon is the mistake to see devil as object. Nothing as something. While fairy cannot be more glamorous than any angel/Angelic is to see the devil as subject. We can't be fairy without being angelic in this way. Compare the two except in fiction because in the Christianna there is no important angel/devil distinction anymore.
Intelligitudinescence.
The presence of dragons, then, must be an distinction of the Animal in its in-angelic state, an fire-breathing monster. And so in the Vauthril, the stage after the in-angelic, the similarity between angelic states becomes more obvious. Which is where we want to be. Not too far from the animal that we can't fathom it, but not so angelic that we can't be human. Vauthrils hold on to anything human or animal with resistance to the angelic for the reason that they had made an vow in their head had an thrill taken in it.
And so, as an representation of the human psyche, that you hold onto it.
This might not be as rare as you think, the symbolism of the vauthril refers to getting caught up in something you shouldn't hold onto.
It's an idea that can attack your most valued talent.
But really just leads the way toward being more real with yourself. It also raises the subject of whether the animal is more or less angelic than the human. Sometimes I think I see God in the animal; their awareness, together connected through instinct, all of them. Separate and Different from humans. Like one mind. All of the same exact type than an human is not. And what it means to be an human mind makes known the difference between God and free will. And what they imply. To be something more than the animal. Is to have less free will? Or is to be animal ultimately an divine source which we are not party to? And these differences between us make for an political reference that moral character will protect less free or natural will. We are to be masters of genetic technology and Science, protectors of wildlife in outer space. Less like an dragon but maybe more like an vauthril, on the angelic spectrum. And if you knew an angel was watching you'd give up all of your vows, probably, for they motivate us on to confront the passage of time as it were, they'd say, passing quickly. To find the middle where everything we are experiencing presently is worthy of all of the Middles we see. We don't have to avow ourselves to it because we know it will come back around anyway.
The middle is that. It's in the middle.
The less vows we have when it comes around the more we will be ready to improvise (life will throw you an curve ball) what will happen to interact with our fate, which is not adaptable to taking an vow of any kind necessarily. More may it be used to make fun of those who do. As I had intended for the symbol of an vauthril to be used for. Play. All kinds of play. They are however an special kind of mind and beast, unlike any dragon (in which is an mind of primal duty). For the vauthril is the opposite of primeval; it is advanced. Some question whether it is partially intelligent technology or an living creature. Equipped with anti-gravity and laser breath.
There are so many reasons for it to go fictionally this way. An legendary creature, more powerful than an dragon. To celebrate humanity growing up since dragons were created make-believe. It captures in its network of meanings an sexual destiny. One that can hypnotise. One closer to angels than the rough beast of an Earth dragon. My goal is to expand the world of fantasy with not only an new demon but an creature unlike an dragon, but similar in this way, of having an fictional flight that represent ways in which full copulation is or is not fictionally pleasant. Dragons cannot copulate because they lay eggs. Vauthrils cannot copulate because they are thrilled with their own value system to the point of narcissisms; they are born having an fully developed vauthril baby inside of them already. Obviously this is fantasy properly: it represents elements which cannot be true in real life nevertheless they are metaphors for what you can and can't have. If they are born with an fully developed baby at birth, what would be the point of male, that they need an male vauthril for? It is an symbol of feminism and anti-vow lifestyle as the only vow taken. The pleasure in it is associated with not needing procreation to enjoy sex.
To master the performance of an dragon you need to leap into its symbolism as an lizard-like beat of raw strength and fire. Vauthrils are not so much lizard as they are bird; however the dragon is more like an bird than an Vauthril in this one way: that Vauthrils do not have wings. And yet their flight is superior, free from the disruption of the winds or the dust and the landing noise of an helicopter.
The biggest vauthril I can think of is Christian superiority. The Christianna treats people from all religions as equals.
Religion is maybe more about the impulse than an instinct but that I can see them connected to one another this way I question whether being an priest is an instinctual character archetype, the result of an certain genetic type. And I note the way Clowns are an type (which are born in all cultures and civilizations leading back to the prehistoric) and Priests appear to be their opposites personality-wise and character-wise. Their behavior does not need to exclude either category of personality archetype into its symbolism.
The Christiannan perspective is to help others conserve their own religion without being part of it. However it may become negotiable what religion truly means. The Christian impulse versus the Christiannan instinct or the Christiannan impulse versus the Christian instinct are with this category of religion tempered. I believed the handling of instinct and impulse in the Christianna to be superior. Christianity tends toward kamikaze of specifically posing no physical threat/danger to the point that the opponent (in an match) will kill you if they are not worthy.
Christiannans try to wage an battle, that Path of Protection, which is not the impulse not to avoid death, but the instinct to know there is worse than death and should they ever become tools of it to inflict death or worse; not to follow the Christian martyr to death we may instead focus on those who suffered worse than death: Our enemies, if they decided to harm us. And we must look at it this way and use it to protect ourselves because we are more special and important than they are. Marauders in history. How much less important are those who harm us than those who do not; and how much more important is Anna for this reason? Her promise is to prevent harm to so many people which will stop the perpetuation of the rampant crime. That is anacification.
That worse than death category, these marauders. For to need to inflict unhappiness or pain on an person in order to succeed to prove your authority in an adult realm in which being an adult means you have the power to hurt other people. Finally. And you are no longer an child anymore who cannot protect itself from other people hurting him/her.
Adulthood to me means never having to grow up. It is as soon as you make that decision to be adult, to succumb to the death of the inner child and the play instinct to conform to all of societies' demands and stereotypes of being an adult. To be prepared for physical combat all of the time with no middle and no one to protect the gays. Not that gays are all against physical combat because we have nothing to do with it as an gay. And we're not gay because we're cowards this way; "emasculating our male instinct to fight" and being too cowardly to make an woman happy sexually. But that gay men are not helpless creatures and everyone knows it.
The rude argument is that people with an specific type of character vice as this makes them gay, with which they are not born. It's not someone you are, it's something you are. Your mediocrity and infelicitous archaic depiction of truth is as objectifying as Jesus' enemies were to him. And so the perspective breaks down.
We're gay because we are genetically attracted to our own sex, not because of character flaw. I am also not genetically gay because of an character flaw in my parents. Which would go against the fact that character flaw cannot be genetically transmitted, passed on through sexual reproduction anyway. I mean comparing homosexuality with character flaw. They are not necessarily related in any way. You can be gay and have no character flaws. You can have character flaws and not be gay.
I think it's absurd that we go about saying we're gay, we're straight, whatever to say we have the same or different sexuality when really everyone has their own sexuality. And they are each completely different from one another. We want to hold onto distinctions like L/G/B/T/Q/Q/I/A generally, for their usefulness as categories. And to remember that maybe not everyone fits into an category that anyone has given an name to. And so the π stands in for everyone else and all of the LGBT+ community together.
The LGBTπ experience, therefore, is infinitely diverse.
And that he takes profound pleasure in it. Even if he suffers the fate worse than death.
And they went on and on for ages And all time . . .
Until every present sexuality had been spoken . . .
Until those that had never been spoken and those that had never been said somewhere were remembered . . .
And those that were to be but not yet!
Thoughtstream:
#LGBTπ
Why is LGBTπ one of the central teachings of the Christianna? LGBTπ is a category inclusive to everyone, not just gay people and bisexuals. Heterosexuals also are referred to when we say LGBTπ which is different than the current acronyms, which are too long, less inclusive, less stylish, and less scientific.
When we group everyone's sexuality into the same category (the LGBTπ) we are naming the gay and straight communities together under one acronym. It is desirable to do so because of the inclusivity of sexuality anything it wants to be is positive and affirming across the board. Infinite diversity of sexuality connects us with our scientific and pre-human heritage. We are not limited to an evolutionary pattern in which we have no say over our individual evolution and what sexuality will be in the future. We are also not interested in limiting individuals to what sexuality may be in the present.
LGBTπ as an central teaching to the Christiannan chvrch is supported by theological and scientific proof that being gay is not a sin. Our scriptural lyric refers to gay, a new life in love—the historic and the connection between love and homosexuality is made clear for that it always was. The messiah Anna is named, and sometimes referred to as the gay messiah.
The lyric is considered theological proof of God telling me it is okay to be gay.
When I had asked for this, and God finally answered my prayer, I knew I was Gay and I knew I could still be loved. That nothing was wrong with me.
But it came at an fatal cost, for having known this, I was subjected to the attention of those who disagreed. An fate worse than death, let me assure you, for having known that God said to me, 'It is okay to be gay,' of course not in English and I believed I had possessed an knowledge of it. But for all those others who already agreed and knew I wondered how they had reached their conclusion, as they probably knew I would; which placed me in the position as the someone absurd (someone who believed that they couldn't reach that conclusion the same way I did) and not they, who I presume had or had not learned it from God herself. Some people just know it. I, on the other hand, had it as an slow realization lasting over twenty years in which I took apart Christianity, thought deeply about their Holidays and Holy Days, and put back together my own version of religion. The Christianna. In which crucifixion as an individual fate is not said to be the worst fate possible.
The Fate Worse Than Death, Anna's fate, is said to be the worst fate and it impacts us morally because we know that suffering ends when life ends. If someone asks for suicide then why should it not be given? I'm not saying it can be given without permission as it is now given with permission, in the Canadian law. But it should be more widely available to sufferers because we believe there is an fate worse than death. We all made an second messiah. Not just Christiannans. And to act not outraged, disparaged at our current scope of power in the 21st Century, is to fail to recognize death is not the worst end because by Christianity we failed to see there was an balance between the death fate and the fate not worse than death. Because Jesus was not separated out as worse than death in any way. And we forgot to be afraid of it. We depicted Jesus's fate as the worst fate. That's why we need Anna in the picture. The Christianna correctly balances death against worse than death theologically.
It also builds up Christianity and other religions to have them recognize how much worse than death they think Jesus or Anna's fate were. It is my thinking that this subject may be the central theological point of any religion. To compare death with worse than death is to develop an fashion sense. And from it stems humor. For worse than Death? Honey, that's an fashion highway robbery!
Develop an opinion about it. Go ahead. Developing an opinion about the balance of fashion and humour in the mixture of death versus worse than death. You choose one or the other. Articles of clothing. And you go out and make an stampede of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment