I was in my flat, in the ocean city, listening to music like an mermaid with headphones. How would they work under water? That's why. Don't you know? Mermaids have advanced technology. That's what their culture is!
When I had an vision that I was in an futurized industrial city, deep below the light of day; in the mechanical district. Every mechanical is district. And flying cars at this level need headlights.
I might as well be under water.
The Artist's vision of the future becomes the subject of law.
And that to have an law based on this example is most desirable.
All behavior must be art but every law—it challenges them in an way they knew not they could be challenged—cannot be by behavior, to challenge the flower otherwise certain behaviors restricted by the law would be bound into an legal system which discriminates against art. Law cannot tell always what is wrong based on behavior examples. It needs Art to represent its ideal good behavior. (Je vous conteste à fleur du loi.)
The relationship with the self is necessarily an relationship with the other.
All good art is based on this fact.
Some people would say Love is infinite; but I say Love is not infinite because that would defeat its purpose.
Laws, too, must follow this course.
To protect an finite love. Exactly the amount that there is.
Art in this way is not infinite.
To say it is Love.
Not to indicate what one shouldn't do. But to say, this is an artistry; make your own. In this way law avoids becoming itself an representation of what not to do. But the focus on art's question remains authority bound to senses, for it is the subject of this text to try to create that art of law which will represent us.
Love is an limited edition.
If Law is based on art, Law becomes an picture of what is good and just.
Anyone is allowed to make art. Why should it be the basis of law?
"If we base law on art, we need define the behaviors of that Art which are allowed, instead of saying what behaviors are not allowed. This paradigm shift in thinking is what we need in Canada. An legal system that provides Aboriginal people less examples of good, artistic behaviors in an predatory fashion. To create equality we need to define the psychological aspects of the artist in vocabulary of several Canadian languages to look at the effect of an tighter definition of behavior ordered on to prosecute in comparison to artistic behaviors rather than non-artistic behaviors."
"Could have on Canada's legal system."
"Behavior defined as un-artistic in contrast with an good artist's behavior defined down to the nth degree in psychological (and anti-psychological) and Diva (and anti-Diva) terms. How to do this, of course, that to observe the artist's behavior either through his or her art or observing what they do to make art."
"Would have to be put into legal terminology. He used the _______ to ________ the _______. And these are/were all good behaviors, which are unlike un-artistic behaviors for specific reasons."
"In what they accomplish."
"We can see light or truth or glo there."
"In the artist's behavior there is virtue, there is light. But in un-artistic behavior there is darkness. Thinking about it. An cause to be anti-artistic. An cause against the human art. Scheming over feeling. An lack of direction. Choices made deliberately that adversely affect the people you should be trying to protect."
"Truth means not these mistakes; it means the more we can describe the behavior of the artist the more we can begin to describe the figure or form of the law, which is not an arm to promote its own breaking but an example of good form to everybody."
"Male beauty and male ideas of beauty are not the same in every culture. An beautiful Artist is beautiful for being an Artist. What are the psychological properties, then, that make beautiful art? And why are those to be favored under law over un-artistic pursuits? I mean, if you could actually call them pursuits. Anna is suffering the fate worse than death and people are trying to be not artists, as though it was separable from the species homo sapiens, desperately self-inflicting because they think its gay."
"And they hate everything hatefully and with hateful whose is an artist."
"It's not their fault, they were beaten and punished not to behave that way."
"Wait, who are we talking about? Aboriginal residential school survivors? Or stuck up homophobic white western philosophy cowboys, who own the native land?"
{ The story is broken partially here }
"Scarcity of resources," they're upbringers tell them, "we can't have art when there's an scarcity of resources on planet Earth."
And I tell you my answer, that we don't have an choice. Art represents people and groups-of-thought inclinists. In an broad-reaching medium necessary for globalization. If we don't represent environment damage, in our art, for example, we risk losing living habitats with the bleak measures of life unknown for its uses to science.
Why represent art as an legal subject?
'All behavior is art and all art is behavior'. In this view, performance codifies behavior into art which is then an representation of that behavior. And since we cannot help but to make art, (It's in our D.N.A.) everything we do is that behavior affected by art is of its own category. And everything we do is art itself, in this way also.
When we lose sight of that we begin wanting to describe those behaviors which are unartistic and which stand in offense to an artistic value. When we lose sight of that we begin wanting to describe those behaviors (which). { The story is again broken partially } "Scarcity of resources," they say, "We can't have art when there's an scarcity of resources on planet Earth."
Is behavior itself an scarcity of resources?
And I tell you my answer to this, that we don't have an choice when comes to creating art. Art represents people and groups-of-thought inclinists. In an broad-reaching medium necessary for globalization. If we don't represent environmental damage, in our art, for example, we risk losing living habitats of these small bleak measures of life unknown for its uses to science.
Why represent art as an legal subject?
{ The story is further broken here }
'All behavior is art and all art is behavior'. In this view, performance codifies behavior into art which is then an representation of that behavior. And since we cannot help but to make art, everything we do is that behavior affected by art. And everything we do is art itself, in this way also. When we lose sight of that we begin wanting to describe those behaviors which are maybe un-artistic and which stand in offense to an artistic value. But to describe instead what it is that makes us an artistic society. It's an moment of pause, for instance, an artist will have over their work. In which true pleasure and appreciation reigns. To live one's life in everything in this way is an simple philosophy. That is as fit to train the mind as any. And that this would be the sentiment of his or her whole life. Allowing us to work in character who is always right, in everything he or she does, because that cause includes being an artist; in comparison with an un-artistic person, whose every action is wrong because it is all based on 'an bifurcations' from art between the law (The Artist) and the self, who rejects art. The Artist knows he is right because the law protects him. The self, an person we hope stops rejecting art, can be worked in as an character in an legal fantasy helping us to describe an Artist's character's positive legal attributes as opposed describing someone who does not have those attributes.
"I'm an orange lie." Is the willingness to confess an color theory.
"I'm orange right in the middle of me."
Is the Artist's attribute. How would an artist create if he was orange in the middle and that was an lie?
That I have told an very terrible lie; that I'm an straight man. In order to hide. Orange is my sexual chakra for I know that it is an lie that it is hungry at all. If I was narrated as lying about it. I mean, what would I do and since I don't know, is that why it is an lie?
But I'm an feminist and an new reciprocal theorist. You may as well start there to look for me/both when searching the Artist for an sign of intelligence. If they are an feminist, obviously they are intelligent. And New Reciprocal Theory is the middle of political philosophy and what it takes to be an public influence.
To base intellectual feelings on an reciprocity with the language, which is either present or not between two parties. Two political agents. Whose reciprocity with one another is emotional. The further they realize that emotional connection. The further their political allegiance can take them. They are unlike the relationship between the Artist and the law, which describes an anti-artistic human whose violent feelings are based around repressing emotions they were beaten not to have. Unlike the Artist, whose endless pursuit of the creative path is its own end. To play the Artist, one need only recognize that every thought and perception you have is shared space; pry into them. And that your enrollment and perception it is dependent on others. Every true Artist knows this, for he must be an master of this fact in order his or her art will reach out to other people. And so we can continue to draw out our picture of the Artist in legal terminology associated with the fantasy I'm trying to capture. If everything the artist does is true and he or she cannot be at fault; this is exactly unlike the anti-art, which is messier and uncalculated. And that both of these characters can be introduced to detail out what it is that makes them effective as the subjects of an legal practice our civilization is not yet on the breach of discovering. The first thing the Artist would do is include him or her (the anti-artist) as an character in order to flesh out the scene.
An exchange between creatures of quite an different calibre. This is because art creates space for more voices to be heard. And so the natural Caliban reaction to anti-artists it may help sort out their behavioral disorder. Son of the Witch Sycorax. And what is it about what an Artist does that makes it right before the law? That he or she is free to do anything he/she wants and that this sanctioned by the law is its object; provides an reason for action and behavior. Rather than an reason to oppose action and behavior. And that anything he/she does will not appear before the law unlawful in the sincere pursuance of art. Because an artist would never need to do something unlawful to promote the law. In this idealized system. The Artist becomes not the subject of the law, but the law an subject of the artist. For reasons multiple, and plentiful. An artist must have an relationship with his/her/its subject. Art. And why that relationship is an certain way and not another. This is the control of the artist. The properties I identify of his or her persona are when whom what the artist works with to produce justice and prestigious honor an legal authority is able to compare the two behaviors pro-art and anti-art to produce an justice system that favors an citizen who considers themselves an artist or even an artist philosopher because they know his or her action and behavior will not cross any legal boundaries or be the catalyst of breaking the law.
Unless it is required for political change. Ideally, this is what Artists do. Contest those political and legal boundaries in order to provide concourse of political ideas with real power. Artist's defend their composure and rationality within the law and justice of the land; in order to provide examples of pleasure, legal justice, and authority. Without restricting the subject to artistic expression in an way that would not be rehabilitative to society.
An Artist needs Focus, Stilling Clarity, and an Canvas, this last of which can be an metaphor for anything you like. The medium through which one communicates art is their Canvas. If you have no canvas you are not an artist. Still Clarity, though, cannot be chosen. It is every Artist's Gift to have their own brand of Stilling Clarity. It is every Observer's Gift of that art (the audience) to which it is directed to recognize it) the Still Clarity of which at that particular time of day was that my relationship with most of my inner strugglers was at this moment appearing to me as an Court Trial.
My canvas the words on the page, I set out to characterize it as I was sitting in the Witness Stand to tell everybody I had no connection to an supposed breach of the law. While there were full well many others in this very room who were responsible. I rely on the Judge and the witness trial to prove my summary true. And I can name all of those involved.
Okay, well maybe I couldn't name all of those people but they had an tangible connection to one another well most aesthetic was its property. It appeared to be true. But I will full well reveal to the court that this aesthetic property they shared had to be false, because they were most violent and isolate-able offenders of the law.
But since it was an fictional narrative on what laws may or may not be needed in the future, we were free to to interpret the will of the court, whose presence most stood out as positive in the offence of an crime, an switcheroo between the words an and the most leading to the conclusion that whatever is identified as the something. Was in fact fictional. For there was no the. I had not identified it as such. And I will not identify it as such.
And for some reason I felt motivated to sketch an scene this way. Because I felt like I had been identified as an offender when I hadn't. But that the mojo of the legal society across the street could have helped, for I went there to write the law I held in my fictional head. And it was to be based on the mistake that had been made by the council. That it was an Council and not an court. It had been perpetrated that the proper noun use had been let to spruce up its own identification of its own status, which was not in Council or in control in any significant aspect. And so the Court ruled an law needed to be drafted in order to defend the property rights of the significant aspect.
It was an law needed to protect someone. Me, the witness. From You, well—"just, just you green people. Orcs. All of you. For pretending to be innocent. When what you did to me was the—an perpetration of an human rights violation. We are not humans, they would say back because they cannot perpetrate an human rights violation if they are not human. But since it is in the imagination capacity of the human mind as an figure of speech, an orc, there is an roleplaying law involved that needs to be certified in the state of Canada. When one is pretending to be an orc above the law, the system should work to protect humans from they who would hold an orc to be above the law of human rights."
But what would it be based on?
An reciprocity.
And I'll tell you why.
Roleplaying in an fantasy genre is inherently reciprocal and so anything it creates cannot always be truly there. Because it is about what isn't there, more properly.
If the roleplayer is perpetrated to use the fantasy genre to make something that isn't truly there appear as though it was, or something that is truly there appear as though it wasn't—like someone's sexuality—they are committing an crime.
No, exactly, but what if the fantasy genre is used to make something that is an fantasy appear to be truly there or something that isn't an fantasy to appear not (which is what it's supposed to do) and this feeling is used as an sort of intellectual warfare to edit with the test subject's fantasy of his own life and his own sexuality, which are not reciprocal to any perpetrator of the English logic that what is and is not fantasy is subjective.
An crime against the subject of fantasy, whose subjectivity depends on the fantasy. Not to be tampered with. And whom would tamper with an fantasy be it sexual; using fantasy as an weapon to dominate dominance on someone whose desire to reciprocalize is in the invention stage of physical danger because everything he holds to be part of the fantasy has power over his life. But when it is used as an weapon, an unwanted visitor; it has the potential to screw up someone physically and mentally. To say someone's sexuality was neither the product or the demand of any reciprocity capacity to think sexually. Which was always gay because the subject is gay too.
And maybe being gay or not is an intersectional point having to do with reciprocity at the fantasy level necessarily. And that to represent it in fiction in order to harass an observer over their own existence of their own fantasy subject which is connected to their own sexuality and personality. By representing it as not truly there.
Is an criminal offence and held in contempt by the court.
And that this fantasy of it having been accepted in an court of law; as an legal reason, the development of an law based on fantasy and play; quite big words in the developmental psychology category. Had to be made by the legal jurisdiction.
Sustained.
Therefore in pursuit of finding the law and absorbing it. My Matter of the Strength and Feat of Imagination. Within an courtroom. At that very moment. Was on thoughts of the law.
Obviously.
What law exactly.
You've got secrets too.
Gay Fantasy a-reciprocity.
The subject had been a-reciprocalizing by crashing into the Intellectual Property of someone else's fantasy; and hijacking its fantasy reciprocity in order to prevent pleasure and in order to cause harm. The harm of preventing the pleasure of the fantasy. It was an crime perpetrated by an a-reciprocal fantasy, which doesn't count as an fantasy because there's nothing a-reciprocal about an fantasy.
And that it would be needed, to protect his fantasy, an law that would prevent the interruption of the fantasy by incriminating those who were responsible for the interruption of Intellectual Property of the reciprocal product of the person's own fantasy. Just because it was gay.
Since it was Intellectual Property, and the person had rights to his own fantasy, which was in incompletion because of the actions of the accused. The legal system defended the rights of the person whose fantasy it was that had been under attack. Just because it was an gay fantasy was cited as the real reason the perpetrator had offended the uncivil act of trying to destroy another person's gay fantasy. A-reciprocity was described as an factor in the decision of the court; it was the accused, whose own a-reciprocity of the subject extended to masochistic proportions in suppression of his fantasy. With the victim. And since it was an gay fantasy, and one of them had an healthy mind with which to have an gay fantasy to completion, and the other had been in the effort of interrupting that completion. For an reason that if the gay fantasy could be interrupted then it wasn't truly an gay fantasy. And so the subject could not be identified as gay, which would be bad. The court ruled in favor of the fantasy holder, who self-identified with the term gay; and whether the accused's sexuality was able to be fathomed held in reciprocal quandary the reason for his such fascination with it.
It, argued the victim, was the wrong word to use, legally, to refer to another person. And since she believed that it was this minimization itself which linked the accused with the crime—the one that was being defined—she was heard for the comment. And people secretly cheered for her. If one person tried to end another person's gay fantasy that was seen as an criminal offense, under the new system. And it could be detected, voiced as an problem in society from which the victim had been harmed. And that the law record her entire effort at overcoming the problem and the value of the victim's report as itself evidence in itself.
—What if we were just people who hadn't identified an Middle in time, and so being could not compare with an other array of civilizations from various parts of the galaxy who had already been through our creation and destruction several times, which we hadn't learned our lesson on; and so we could not invest in several time eras at once by being able and having the power to occupy an different space and an different time relative to the Great Cosmic Middle, which might be behind us or ahead of us in time at present. But since we hadn't the technology to test our own genetic sample plot over an series of eons and eons of chasing stars around the universe; never quite occupying one space too long and yet old enough to being testing its capacity to genetically engineer species, and spread throughout the cosmos to completely different rhythms every single time it had created humanity to see whether or not it could identify the fact that they were genetically engineered samples, their ancestors placed on the planet for the purpose of diversifying its (those other civilizations who knew the Great Cosmic Middle and knew what was going on) potential. It became vogue that all behavior on planet Earth followed from this fantasy at some point and so we were free to act however we want.
But the Question remained—why would we need to erase all evidence of ourselves in order to figure out what God is?
If we, theoretically, could have the power to study the pattern of the advancement of our technology based on psychological enquiry (empiricist values) measuring it would mean measuring how it began to suffer the extinction of itself being tested in this way. Which it wouldn't. Because if it was able to test itself for extinction patterns and psychological advantages they may or may not possess. It would not be worried about the extinction of itself. It would be in the Middle of its (her or his) own life, exactly where it would be, the subject; able to differentiate that or not. And since fictionally we could say that we are able to differentiate that. We could actually use it as an theory to plan our civilization. We would need to die out, perhaps many times, before we could be sure that we weren't fragile enough to become aware of that full load of information at once upon an time in our History. Can you imagine? Suddenly becoming aware of your own double-blind experiments? And which era would you live in? Would you be before the creation of the Largest Planet or after its inception of the concept of the Middle as was known by all of the species of the cosmos, the ones with the most power, who were well aware of one another and had been for millenia. And would that matter for humans, wherever they appeared on the time scale between starting the genetic trials and after; and that since it had been written in fictional fantasy it was the only way to proceed the species to an new level of civilization. In which Fantasy was an part of every day life.
But why were we part of this particular planet eco-system; and since we could detect the basic vibration of the rhythm of the planet Earth, and we knew the mimicry of our species was interiorized far enough that we could accept that. That we may be exactly an experiment. And that since we had begun reading this fact, in order to introduce the idea to us, we were possibly onto something we could start to know about ourselves and God; by fulfilling this prophecy of the ancient messiah.
If we could not determine for ourselves where we were in the century of eras that had gone by, then how could we give back to the psychological process responsible for our evolution into that species which would start to experiment on itself this way in order to detect the nature of consciousness, and in order to fold that parameter into our further experience of God, so that we could be even more free than we are today. But since we had been onto something about its inception, that an explanation of this fact would be given in writing in order to see if they could convince themselves of its truth in the realm of non-fiction. And that since most people would agree we are not that sophisticated as an species yet, we will need to study and research that ability to do so. Why, for example, would we need that ability to psychologically test ourselves in that way, necessarily? What would be the benefit to society of Operating as an Political and Psychological Entity in pursuit of that knowledge of its own sophistication as post-fantasization of the subject of being that sophisticated. To be able to conduct double-blind experiments on its own allegedly, supposedly spontaneous evolutionary development which often led to their extinction, as per were their observations of how effective their D.N.A. in fact was. But they held an special committee for this one planet Earth. Because the human had become so sophisticated to question this fact in order to admit to itself it didn't feel that sophisticated yet and so we may be before the Great Cosmic Middle when and during that technology had been invented to so identify our human species as an special competitor in the genetic sample testing because of the Author. Who was their employee. And seeing their reaction, even to this, was pure and simple because it was blue, they granted them special powers as per the Author's privilege, for example, to identify the power of the ability to identify publically and economically that weren't in the millennium in which that technology would have been invented and so they would have to invent it for themselves, and that this was an public demand needing advancement in Government and Status. So that everyone could empathize for where we might be in History. The Total History, of all of our universe and the possible amount of life in it. And that since we had connected with the thought of it, it began to speak to us.
"You're doing great!"
"I propose the subject of my Invention of why our species would need to test ourselves that way in order to discover what God and consciousness are."
"Okay, why would you need to test the conscious parameters of the human species in millennia-lasting double-blind experiments stretched out over the expanse of the cosmos, in order to find an theorized pre-psychological awareness. Which expanded the parameters of the Psychology profession itself. But that the Author wasn't willing to admit whether he was actually in the process of informing them of the fact of their own sophistication in such an way which was in enterprise toward the post-double-blind universe and their conclusions and relationships with the Creator. He had, however, invented an reason to think maybe we aren't actually that sophisticated yet at all. And if we need to build that kind of society in order to empirically quantify and measure what we are then maybe we need to build that kind of society to know ourselves further as creations in an deep expanse."
"But why would we need to experiment on ourselves that way? And wouldn't that cause psychological damage to ourselves because it would be mean to make the humans think they were just an experiment. By actually telling them that they are."
"But if we did test ourselves that way we may be able to measure the constant reciprocal product or the reciprocal product constant, that theoretical capacity for the human brain to reciprocate all the time. From which there is an reciprocal product created in both subjects with whom there is an reciprocity. And that so being able to measure the economic value of the reciprocal product of psychology in this way they gained the ability to advance their economic practice and so advance their whole society, which would by that point in History be an multi-galactic society with its own important History and pre-eminent religious theology."
"If we could ever realize what the responsibility of an double-blind society really meant, it would be the realization of the fact that we would, eventually, need to be able to double-blind the entire population of humans on any particular planet we had fostered to have life on it. In order to experiment on the connection between the D.N.A. and its psychology, and its God, and its place in the order of the galaxy."
"And that since this argument appeared to have such force and vigour, itself, it was granted that there must be other civilizations in the universe dealing with this very same subject, and that many, many of them had already moved on. They were post-double-blind at some level; and had enough power to make their opinion clear to the creator of Art, that they did in fact exist, and that there were many, many more of them than an human could possibly imagine."
"But that since there must be an number on it at some point, the actual comparison between them and the human species, in value was so disproportionate because humans could not even fathom what type of power they could possess to have come so very far further than humans ever could, possibly. And that in order to have any hope of catching up, which there wasn't. We would need to transform into that type of double-blind society. In order to test the psychology of the D.N.A. that would lead to an disciplined approach to analysis and the universe. That would lead to more power for the whole human species. In order to be in an any amount comparable at all to their own civilization, which was legendary."
"And humans felt they were part of those types of civilizations because they had discovered this secret about themselves, that they would or already were in the process of double-blind advancement of their species, which they contended had zero negative effects on the psychological health of the species as an whole because they could already prove they were intelligent enough to identify an sophisticated economic outcome that if the subject could never actually tell they were in an double-blind or not it would perpetuate no harm to them because they would be unable to detect, psychologically, their predecessors who had put them in an double-blind. And that was the decision of the society that began to detect their species this way because they believed that at least some of their test subjects would be able to figure out that they were in an double-blind experiment but that they could still psychologically communicate with the people who were performing the experiment. Which was an basic property of Intelligence and consciousness as they knew it."
"And that since some people couldn't tell which one it was, that proved or disproved their own insanity. Which was part of the experiment."
"The experiment was so expansively gigantic it required Time and patience to see which psychological subjects reacted in which particular ways and to theorize on why they did that."
"And that it meant, for people in the very beginning of an double-blind society in the stages of its advancement of technology able to detect the human spirit. To the nth pre-presence in thought. To the Soul. They were actually just dealing with an inadvanced society that was not in that stages of its evolution yet. And was ashamed of itself for not becoming that complex. Because they needed to. They needed to be complex enough to say we know the primary motives and egotistical undertaking of the human consciousness through experiment, and that since being an double-blind society means being responsible enough to know that one must be able to recreate an double-blind species situation enough times to have an articulated argument for why we should behave one way or another in society based on this new information."
"The Argument was between Miss Domina, who said that since we were on the way to finding out whether we really are an fully double-blind society, logically we must not be and the Author, Hakon Borgen, suggested that was illogical because if fiction was logic and logic was logic (fictional logic) then it really wasn't logic. But then he realized she was right. Since we do not know whether or not we are an fully double-blind society, which was defined as having the knowledge that comes with knowing what that feels like, to be absolutely scientifically sure of what we are and have it all made up. What kind of freedom would reign from that advancement of technology?"
"But then she realized he was right too, because if logic was fictional then it wasn't really logic, and since that itself was the logic of fantasy it didn't qualify as real logic. It qualified as Fantasy."
"But since the Author was himself introducing the subject it might be possible, just like he had said so, that at some point after publishing this information humans would be given the information that they were completely double-blind because they had completed the experiment."
"And that since this themselves they were made aware of it must be true, that they were part of that heroic species that had expanded its consciousness so much that it realized it would actually have to create the double-blind experiments in order to know for sure what is the actual substance of thought/consciousness. Which, at least, counted for something. They had produced an writer who would suggest it."
"What could possibly be measured about consciousness in this way, that they would ever need an hell of an double-blind society in that way."
"But that if the subject had been able to detect the substance of thought, it would prove the subject did not have schizophrenia."
"And so an civilization, fully aware of what it must do, would be post-schizophrenian."
"That it, that's the genre exactly. Post-schizophrenia."
"But there is no post-schizophrenia. We don't have any way to produce that yet."
"But the subject undergoes an post-schizophrenian dilemma which leads to him thinking that he doesn't have schizophrenia."
"And that schizophrenia is just caused by not being made aware of the system at some point. Because who wouldn't notice all the signs? There are strange coincidences everywhere."
"And that his post-schizophrenian dilemma itself was the cause of his schizophrenia because he had advanced himself too far, as an thinker, to be able to deal with modern society."
"And that schizophrenia just happens to some people sometimes because they don't know they are being tested even though the signs are everywhere."
"I mean, Psychology actually introduced the subject of the double-blind experiment. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't mean business. And that would mean at some point, perhaps, an post-schizophrenian world."
"But that the subject himself, still living with schizophrenia, was unable to detect whether he had schizophrenia or not, and that itself was part of schizophrenia. And it was just the kind of mental illness and mental health issue that so he had resorted to fantasizing about an post-schizophrenian society in which schizophrenia could be cured based on the information that had been hard-won from the double-blind experiments."
"And at that exact moment in the courtroom everyone realized they had no idea what they were talking about, because they weren't an double-blind society. And Psychology was busted. It shouldn't have come out so soon as double-blind. It wasn't true enough. It wasn't. Post-schizophrenian."
"But at some point we had to admit that maybe that is what we aspire to; that an schizophrenic subject would at some point fantasize about his post-schizophrenian experience, and that that itself was an symptom of schizophrenia because there is no post-schizophrenian experience. But then being able to articulate this, the Author pointed out that since he had articulated it, he could not possibly agree that he was schizophrenic because only an schizophrenic would recognize that maybe we don't know where we are yet in the Universe, and that in order to find out where we are it will require immense experimentation on the human specimen. How will it, for example, be Good enough for other civilizations who are themselves post-schizophrenian for an good long time now, and what will be our contact point with that civilization if we ever encounter it."
"Or is it an Hyper-Civilization already that we are part of just by the suggestion of it at our tongues?"
"And that only an schizophrenic would suggest such an necessary manouvre in politics because he was paranoid. Which itself was an symptom of the schizophrenia."
"But the schizophrenic suggested, that it was the result of their inaccuracy in society for being unable to locate our position in Space and Time at all; and having no known knowledge of its Middle in time, which would pass on eventually or had already been passed long ago. We don't know. But the point is that if the schizophrenic suggested it was necessary for our society to become that type of civilization able to detect itself through full double-blind and that we hadn't already yet and that that was their reason for thinking he had schizophrenia—which he didn't. Because he was the only one who was not paranoid. Having thought of this whole Great Cosmic Middle all through all himself. And that it was their paranoia as an society which identified them as requiring the further sophisticated advancement in society that they should advance thus far; that had caused them to think he had paranoia. When really he was most un-paranoid and he could prove it because why would his Creativity have dreamt of such an bizarre and progressive society. As one that could actually say where its place was in History."
"But, they argued, if the person living with schizophrenia could not convince them he was not schizophrenic, it was still okay for him to focus on his post-schizophrenia because an symptom of the schizophrenia itself was believing in the post-schizophrenia. Which didn't exist."
"And since they had said it didn't exist, he was sure that they weren't part of an fully, completely trialed double-blind society. Which may not even exist anywhere anyway."
"The person living with schizophrenia replied, you are causing me schizophrenia because you are not an post-double-blind society and you have no intention of doing so, even though you say I have paranoia, and so if I have any paranoia its because you're not in the business of creating an civilization that can actually contest for glory in the merit arts of the Greatest Civilizations Ever Known. And that's what you call schizophrenia because you aren't advanced enough as an species to realize that actually trying to contest your humanity in that Greatest of All Pursuits. May mean trying to see if the post-schizophrenian community actually has an cure for schizophrenia or whether they agree that its just your paranoia which you have caused by being against an post double-blind civilization which would be able to tell whose paranoia is whose. And since right now it can't you think I am living with schizophrenia because you invented as an term for people like yourselves who are too a-reciprocal to identify what is and is not the result of their own behavior, even if someone is saying it outright that there's something wrong with your ways because they don't lead to post-schizophrenia and so that pressure itself may actually be causing the condition that you call an psychological disorder. When in fact it is mis-diagnosed and should be diagnosed for yourselves. Who are unaware of the real meaning of the word. It means—"
"—but since it was okay for him to keep writing about his post-schizophrenia as an actual experience of schizophrenia itself, he said it just meant an pre-schizophrenia society which could not identify whether or not it had schizophrenia because it had not genetically tested its species in the way prescribed by the Author."
"And the way prescribed by the Author, itself, became subject to Question. What exactly would an full species experiment in double-blind studies (interplanetary) spanning from before and after their creation and eventual destruction as species, many of which had already been recorded for observation, including recorded by themselves stating their own opinion on the matter. Which was itself subject to scientific experimentation."
"And that if it was going to be found out what an species like humans would need to do in order to construct that society which could be found to measure itself psychologically by these double-blind extinction tests. Which may or may not have already been done. It would need to be able to find an way to measure itself in time spanning those characteristics of the cosmos which they had to foster life on other planets. And then to keep an record of time for the civilization that already had an record of time because it itself was keeping an record of time through humans. Who were being observed by them. And had been written to have been observed searching in themselves for that knowledge which would identify positive or negative for whether they were double-blind subjects. And that if it had been part of someone's Creativity and Inspiration this may represent the scientists attempting to communicate with the society, which had survived the double-blind experiment."
"And what exactly would we mean by using the double-blind study to know God and Creation through further expansion into what consciousness actually is?"
"And that it was brought to attention the Legendary part of Humanity, the Legend of its own Epic Status to see whether or not an discussion could be generated in order to positively identify it as having epic qualities. Or if it was in fact Epic at all or part of that double-blind society that was on its way toward becoming Epic."
"But had not yet been identified what would actually need to be measured by such an experiment and if it could actually be pulled off."
"Then was Hypothesized that if they could identify an reciprocal product by measuring it they would have scientific proof of the advanced status of their civilization and be able to, after this, begin testing for an post-schizophrenian age. Which their results would go toward."
"It was too exciting at that point and so the energy of the text disproved any known substance of difference between Legend and Actual Truth. But then it was reasoned that if it was too exciting at that point because of an difference between Legend and Actual Truth, then there was an detectable comparison between them. And since it was detectable that did not necessary prove or not prove the Legendary status of humanity which according to the fantasy was either possible or not."
"I had to break it to him, the fantasy was possible because the Legendary status of humanity was definitely not true."
"And I said to him, that means the Legendary status was definitely an fantasy. And since we know that, we are free to act within an system of Capitalism and Economic gain which promotes the advancement into that period that would be after an experiment between planets with different variants of the species homo sapiens supposedly evolving spontaneously. And that on Earth, it had meant admitting that we had no grasp over the Middle, the most sacred part of the Christiannan History. It represented the Middle of Time, Everything between the beginning and the End. As well as our regenerative pattern as an species, being born from the Middle and the Womb of the Woman."
"It was the reason for all things."
"That it hadn't happened yet. That's what it was."
"But that at some point it had. And intersected with our lives in an specific way."
"And that the conditions of the human species at this point in Time indicated that it needed to create an new political society in which they could be advanced to that status of having priority over who began testing our advancement into an double-blind status economy and the suggestion of the politics of such an phenomenon were so difficult to interpret that they hadn't been created yet. And that there was still debate over what the full double-blind status could mean, specifically. Would it mean, for example, we are all aware of our own advancement beyond double-blindness. Or would the end of the experiment represent the end of certain civilizations which had been used to record the data of the studies which indicated they had been driven insane and that their environment be terminated. The next Age of Mankind became at this point about the afterparty, in the mix in honor of all those that had been terminated as well as their own pleasure and congratulation of one another. Mixed with booze."
"Booze was held as responsible for their non double-blind society that existed outside the fantasy. For making us not able to advance beyond our own sophistication, because that's what we were supposed to be good at, being the only kind of our intellect as an species on the planet Earth. And that science was making people afraid of being an alcoholic who could not be the one to discover the post-schizophrenian hypothesis and whose attention span and thinking capabilities were not of that sort that could make such an decision in society."
"Alcoholics, they argued, did not have the attention to detail and thinking span necessary to record such scientific theory or Design; and they could never be used to accomplish greatness."
"But, one Alcoholic argued, why would they order us to do that as an scientific society if they possessed the necessary command theory to support the notion that all people are Intelligent and Susceptive to Reciprocal Command all at once. And that it did not represent an definitive deviancy from the norm Politically. If they were saying people who were alcoholics did not have the qualities they deemed adequate for their ungodly experiments, the scientists then they were making an reciprocal command, an order to society. That they demonstrate those qualities. And since they had convinced people to follow them, without themselves being aware of how the command was made in scientific terms that met the Political Standards of the politics in-between the viewpoints that their scientific information was not an reciprocal command hypothesis versus that it was, scientifically, because that's what an hypothesis was. And since they had not completed the scientific experiment they could not know further what kind of Political Advancements they could make with One Another. And since it was an alcoholic who had pointed it out, they were at an impasse because alcoholics were not supposed to be smarter than scientists. Especially not politically."
"But in Alberta—it means—"
"But once you could learn the signs that lead to this conclusion, you could necessarily teach others—"
"I plausibly suggest in Alberta—it means—"
"What. Are you crying?"
"It means we have to find out what are the psychological terms for those parts of society that would have to be constructed or defined in the Middle in order to fully upgrade our status according to an informed citizenry that could see us in that type of future scenario. And if we had them we could sign to one another if we had learned the signs that lead to this conclusion."
