Dark Philosophy, Artificial Command, and Paranoism

Political Letter

    In my past Political Letter The Passage Of Literature, I talked about the world of fiction and what it means to an human intellect.  It was about everything that passes non-fiction in describing an reality in which possibilities are endless.  As an way to describe the truth, without specifically referring to it in an plausible manner.

    First of all, belief in Anna does not mean subscribing to her existence.  Rather, it is the avoidance of her existence which defines the Christianna.  The point is not "yes she is the messiah but no she doesn't exist," the point is that she exists in shared fractions of fate worse than death that affect the whole species.  If Christians can claim 'we are the body of Christ' then Christiannans can claim 'we are the body of Anna'.

    In this letter, I've introduced the terms dark philosophy, artificial command, and paranoism.  As terms relating to the Naenaeon at the axis of its political philosophy.  I previously introduced the idea of paranoism in an fictional writing as an noun for the object of paranoia or the products of paranoia.  I had suggested that paranoism become the new thing in world literature.  As an distinction more acute than the word paranoia itself in some ways, as for example when naming not the subject but the products of that subject separately.  In some ways it names itself because the idea of subject and object together being separate is itself an paranoid thought.  But the goal of introducing this word 'paranoism' is benevolent, because it helps us to think not just about an paranoid subject but what are the actual objects of paranoia and how do we represent them in an fictional narrative that leads the paranoid subject through episodes of paranoism.  Which can become aestheticized in the transition from paranoia to object and used in art to help the paranoid subject transcend his or her intellectual boundaries.  My idea was that paranoism become the name for the genre.

    Now compare the following terms.  And consider whether they are both to be of use.

    Philosophy: how to think about what you are doing in order to influence what you are doing in an positive way.

    Dark Philosophy: how to think about what you are doing in order to influence what you are doing in an negative way.

    If language consists of subtle command phrases that define the parameters of who we are socially, and thus create our identity.  "Identity is constructed socially."  Then maybe these reciprocities are utilising artificial reciprocity/command.  Anything that is not stated explicitly to be an command, but nonetheless is part of an language system built of command reciprocity, may be what we can call "artificial reciprocal command" because it restores us to the true reason for language, not to command one another to do things, but to artificially suggest that if I were to command you to do something you would or would not do it.  It restores us to the true reason for language, not to command one another to do things, but to try to accomplish the same effect without actually forcing it.  We can't directly command one another and so we need an medium, an language in which to express ourselves.  Artificial command reciprocity could be an type of play.

    "You're an biscuit."

    Could mean, you are attractive to me.  Or, You are chemically integrated to be an biscuit.  Which sounds creepier you decide.

    The question that I want to ask for us is whether artificial command disproves my reciprocal theory.  If people are able to give one another command in an artificial command economy.  Does this necessarily prove that the economy itself is artificial?  And if the commands are reciprocal artificial and reciprocal non-artificial then at least some of them are not artificial.  If we were to imagine an economy in which every command was artificial, then I think we would run into some problems.  But since we can tell adequately what is and is not artificial in our current economy it is strong enough to promote an theory of exchange, an new reciprocal theory.  The New Reciprocity, as far as artificial commands are concerned, would point out that what makes an command artificial or not has an specific value in an market economy.  If the value of that artificial commodity rises above the value of its non-artificial competitor, then how will we be able to tell what real value is anymore?  But this still does not identify what artificial and non-artificial could mean exactly, which is at issue because we want to theorize about why saying something is 'artificial' may be seen as fake or unreal.  But also if we value the non-artificial in an way that is different from artifice yet we cannot seem to say why; what is it about the difference between artificial and non-artificial that sounds threatening, if anything at all?  I think artificial command is an important factor in acting careers; it's not going away any time soon.  And I don't see an problem with it, historically, at this present moment.

    But I am more curious about what Dark Philosophy may mean for real value.  In the future.  And I open the line of thinking as an Emo value, associated with an deep origin mystery.  If dark philosophy is that which you do to think about what you are doing in order to influence what you are doing in an negative way, then Emo personality disorders can be expressed as being labeled in an negative way just for being dark philosophies.  Which makes them even more emo.  If emo is an culturalism then how do we stop contributing to artificial command scenarios which make the emo more emo than emo?  Everything must be looked at as potentially an command reciprocity; including media and advertising, and technological achievements, such as traffic robots.

    When you choose to produce dark philosophy, I feel like it shuts off the production of philosophy in the mind, which takes an positive effect away.  When you transition to emo logic, everything is an reason to feel dark.  And you can name it that way.  Without the threat of abuse to character.  Could dark philosophy, paranoism, and artificial command be the ingredients we need in public jargon of the day?  If I produced an artificial command reciprocity out of the paranoism of not enough neural connections to be societally distinct; and dark philosophy connected to having enough neural connections informed me an artificial command scenario to be disadvantageous.  But how?  Maybe I'll just artificially command you to produce dominance over me.  Until you actually try to.  But to think non-artificial aesthetic command reciprocity is the actual societal winner, most of the time.  It clears up all misunderstandings by not having to be artificial in your production of command reciprocity.  What you really want is the object or goal in front of you; however if you can use artificial command in an special way that incites character (for example, calling in sick) or to produce an scene of inestimable value without wreaking havoc on what little aesthetic reciprocity (non-artificial) we have with one another.

    If Kundalini were an plant; it's growth is from the root chakra to the mind's lotus.

    When it dispenses wisdom as an plant after blooming in the mind's tortoise.

    Keep them written carefully protected.