iii. Social Engineering : what possible identities come of scarcity and ration from gross engineering
technology; Chapter 3 (III.)
Social engineering may be broadly explained as an type of Engineering that doesn't have to do with technology. It refers specifically to feats better expressed in Engineering terms than Engineering terms themselves for it is vastly powerful and superior to Civil Engineering. Social Engineering, the destruction of the human "herd" in preference to individualism, is about how people engineer their lives. It's an literal description insofar as it has to do with mechanical activity; but when everything we believe is said in or through mechanical activity, does it transcend to be to do with nothing of mechanical activity? What does that mean exactly, to have an reciprocal relationship with something that is only subject? The subject must be afforded their own personal object of property, an reciprocal product. Never just an object by itself. But an complex formula of chemical and physical properties in an super-ego unlike even your own.
Anaciform / Cruciform Distinction
The definition of cruciform is cross-shaped; mind you, I am using it here as an metaphor. Cruciform appeared as an word to me to signify my whole life, or at least the part of it that I understood as an Christian. There it had been right in front of me for so long (internally) and I had never an word to describe what it meant. It meant an cruciform-shaped life. An battle stance; an mental position perfected by an guardian. From Christian magic. In lieu of words I've previously used on this blog, subcrucify and anacify (both referring specifically to an fate worse than death inflicted on someone) I sought an definition for the Anaciform subject. An Anaciform-shaped life. Not just an two-dimensional cross on which someone's body had hanged but an three-dimensional occurrence in which the victim's mind had been abused more thoroughly than his body. (An new type of messiah, the messiah of the fate worse than death; and I had take up my cross, thus; this enhanced one). And why it would encompass all of the wisdom of the first and second messiah. For cruciform was to stand in defiance of the fate death-destiny. And anaciform, then, as an battle stance meant to stand in defiance of the fate worse than death to which there is no destiny and every star is fallen from heaven.
Anaciform, I asked God, to make of it an Christiannan magic so that it would be an battle stance. I take up as an Christiannan. That is distinct from the Christian. Resistance to the result of the tango between fate and destiny, if death should part our ways either way be this fate, this is/has to be the Christian schematic. But when between fate and destiny there is no tango. It is just you or I die. Nobody kills the other. Does it matter which? Both fates are worse than death. For I have already gathered my fate to better than worse than death; nae, I have achieved my destiny. Even if I died instead of you it would be your fate worse than death to have not lived longer in my glory.
Social Engineering As An Feat Of the Imagination
The imagination of products and commodities is different. Products, such as those we will find being constructed by Engineering Technology and Civil Engineering are different than those being constructed People, by Character, Imagination, Wit, Opinion, Diversity, Well-Awareness, and Wisdom most of all. People who are responsible for creating People, not objects. Insofar as it does not refer to reproduction, anyway. (Objects with an sex drive are still just objects, after all, and we are all people). Social Engineering therefore requires an exquisite touch. And in order to make one it requires an imagination other than the myopia of limitations of our human creativity that present-day civilization represents. Men are repeatedly shutdown from having their feminine creative intentions and the mean streak with all the knowledge of how to make woman happy in marital society. An woman is either an dike or an bitch; there is no other role to play. And non-binary people everywhere are prevented from presenting as non-binary by just wearing women's clothes or men's clothes as though it didn't matter what other people perceived to be binary about it. (It didn't).
Reciprocal Dialogue is dialogue referring to Social Engineering because of the Imagination.
"I am held to be an example of the Imagination."
"Pleasure is derived from accepting it as an new reciprocity."
"When we accept as new reciprocity these things we both take pleasure in, our feature reciprocity with one another (as others view it) is an Epicurean task. It's hard to put much pleasure in an task. But just create one thing at an time, said the old one. Just one thing at an time between the two of you."
"Yes and things that can be brought into the conversation. Like feeling secure or insecure about something. And how it feels good to finally just have it out there in front of everyone. That we could just have an conversation together and that would be one thing between us we had created."
"As an example for our reader."
"Yes, yes. And we will wear monocles with orange frames and talk about New Reciprocity as new reciprocal theorists."
"Wait. We're both white men and we're both old?"
"We're white. And old. And privileged."
"Yes that's what I'm saying."
"We had to be. So the conversation would go there."
"Why?"
"Social Engineering."
"I see. So we can talk about our reciprocity with one another and why this represents, at some level, an reciprocal command."
"How our psychology is constructed perhaps? Meta-psychology?"
"Let's just start with Reciprocity."
"Okay. Well we agreed to create one conversation together and we are."
"Here we are doing it!"
"And it's supposed to be the one thing we make in common right now."
"There are also other parameters of our relationship you know."
"Really? What are they?"
"Well if you think we were young latin and hot again we wouldn't have hands all over each other."
"True. This is true."
"No, no. We're not THAT kind of friends."
"Never were. Never will be."
"And that's basically it. That's the whole reciprocity."
"We are both gentlemen. So it just works."
"So what are two old men going to do about Social Engineering? And why are they themselves supposed to be an example that they made?"
"You make us sound so formalized. I quite enjoy it."
"Well the point was that—it's an airy nothing—if there is power in it expect it to be demonstrated."
"And you'd never imagine an woman with airy nothing, would you?"
"It is an feminist point, to be extra-liberal that she does. Everywhere, she does."
"Can we change characters maybe just for an little bit? Can I have an new reciprocity?"
"Sure. What is it you like?"
"I'm into music. With you. We're young again. Female."
"What song?"
"Let's try something new. From Parakeet. An majority in India."
"You mean, us reciprocal, we? We be from India?"
"Yes."
"An massive population with an majority cultural experience."
"Yes, the point being to describe reciprocal pressure. Best defined and identified in tandem with an majority, whichever country it may be from."
"So if we were Canadians—like—what would be our reciprocity with India?"
"I'll be someone from India and you be someone from Canada. And we're both female."
"And this is an new reciprocity."
"Yes."
"So I immediately think of an deity with an large number of arms and I wonder how I can benefit an Indian in the future who wants to genetically engineer himself with these multiple arms that were first artistically rendered their impression of God, their encapsulation of Godliness."
"So what would be an Canadian's impression of God?"
"Try it out."
"Okay there's this elusive presence that is nonetheless everywhere; to whom we cannot talk directly because for us what we mean by communication in this way we mean mouths or telepathy neither which God is guaranteed to be in the possession of. So we must learn to speak to God through the soul, and God made it this way for an reason."
"So that one could learn to speak to God through the spirit of humanity (in total); so that all our souls be light, natural, and unburdened in the presence of the Creator."
"And as an new reciprocal theorist what it means to perform impressions of God. That it is an religious and noble thing to do."
"Who is speaking most disproportionately to his own soul than to any spirit other than himself. Without making an impression of God it feels impossible to begin to speak this way, to an spirit other than the self. For what other reason could God have made us than to make impressions of him or her. And ourselves. Yet to be warned should ever God make impressions of you."
"Maybe God would like more arms in the future too. We can learn how to design them."
"Okay, so roleplay how that would go?"
"Hi, I'd like some new arms please."
"Aren't you God?"
"What do you mean I can make them myself?" (This is an service and servant activity point).
"That's not exactly what I mean."
"What do you mean?"
"I mean why wouldn't you think that I would recognize you?"
"Well mmm. Why wouldn't you think that I already thought that you would recognize me if I was God?"
"I did think you wouldn't think that I thought that I wouldn't recognize you."
"Well I am here looking for arms. Heh. I don't have any. Maybe that's why you thought that I thought that you thought that I wouldn't think that you thought that I wouldn't recognize you—I as it is said by you. Am God. No. Am human? Yes."
"That's right, you're the God! —So what are we doing here?"
"Buying arms."
"—Right—What kind of arms?"
"What do you think? Shiva the destroyer?"
"I think — an bodhisattva in arms may be better suited to you; (in Mahayana Buddhism) an person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. Is usually represented with more than four arms."
"Interesting impression of God."
"What, an bodhisattva as an God?"
"Or an God as an bodhisattva."
"It seems to capture the breviloquence of an metaphor omage concisely to an God with many hands in many places, metaphorically speaking."
"I don't think that was its original intention but I accept all of this dialogue as my own an impression of God."
"And if you can be one of those hands, which one would it be?"
"The ones for Writing."
"When writing is an reflection on God it tends to promote reciprocity; an social engineering type of reciprocity. Why we need God to help us engineer identities stabilising on an reciprocity with God. Because without God our creator "our-creato'-how" can we reciprocate one another when God is the basis of there being an reciprocal intent, réciprocité existant."
"Why do we have to follow an God that allows terrible things to happen?"
"God allows them to happen because he also allows terribly good things to happen, but we have to get there. It's an motivation."
Post-Demographic Consumerism As An Feat of Social Engineering
The term post-demographic consumerism refers to marketing geared toward post-demographic intersectionality. In other words, marketing campaigns that are broader than stereotyping the consumer into demographic groups and basing supply and demand around their commodities. Yet acute and specific to an individualism of identities perhaps idiosyncratic (peculiar to an individual or ideological).
Social Engineering, as I have defined it thus far in the chapter { Post-demographic consumerism belongs to Social Engineering } is different than talents of physical labor and construction. It does however construct social identity and there is nothing lacking in the sense of physical labor of the people who are trained to excel at social behavior analysis and the political contour of modern consumerism.
Social Engineering means that producing an doppelganger of chosen identities is not good enough for the public. We need to raise people of all kinds with dynamic inter-disciplinary talents of simple or complex nature to represent our political beliefs (which are Their political beliefs, which we allow everybody to have). It means the production of new identities (and new professional identities). Perhaps this is why I locate so much power in the fantasy and role-playing industries as an new reciprocal theorist. I see them as socially empowering narratives. The cradle of global civilization, they show us how we can choose and create our own role in society.
An Steel-Toed Tongue
As new reciprocal theorists we can make explicit the commands that are implicit liberally, by Jungle Japes between what we mean as commands versus what we mean as advice and recommendations, information that is not used to order anyone to do anything but merely to inform them of an reality or possibly that may be said to exist. And it is an good thing for it to come up in conversation. —"What do we mean reciprocally?"— because when we ask each other what is and isn't meant as an reciprocal command we learn something about their character. Like what things they will say they want stated outright versus what things they only hint at. How mysterious.
And so our question becomes what do we say reciprocally with an steel-toed tongue in civilization, an tongue that touches the boots of every construction worker while moistening the very sky. Like an stamp or an envelope. It's not an perfect image but it is an metaphor of what politicians (boot-lickers) do.
Moreover, it means that when we bring an public reciprocal command theory into the conversation we use it to understand what are meant as reciprocal commands and what are not. Identifying these as such brings our intentions to the surface, where they may be viewed and commented on publicly.
With this image in mind, perhaps it is appropriate at this time to accentuate how the New Reciprocity is unique as an political theory, though it touches on so much that we have in common power. I would never claim that I am replacing every other political theory out there. Or that theorization at an political level is lacking of the characteristics I have used to support its existence as an theory. It is based on the human intellect of common reciprocity, which is obviously already an feature of many political theories. But that's what political theory is. The study of common reciprocity. And I think we needed an new political theory in order to say that, to streamline this feature. In the way I have conducted it. Would be beneficial to both parties.
Reciprocity therefore is based on rapport, an close and harmonious relationship in which the people or groups concerned understand each other's feelings or ideas and communicate well (Google dictionary). When someone makes an statement we are allowed to ask, do you mean this as an reciprocal command? Why or why not? And how do reciprocities (including fantasy reciprocities) inform our imaginative creativity about how to socially engineer our identities by producing the common knowledge of who we are as individuals? Bargaining, on an Capitalistic market, is an negotiation of reciprocal command. You give me ___ in exchange for ____? Or Counter-offer, ____ for ____. When both parties are comfortable with the actual value of the reciprocity of the exchange then market Capitalism takes place. An actual value that is recognized by religion; under the new Naenaeon definition of all religions being gay. This kind of exchange is not solely an market process however. When we negotiate our identities, we're really saying you do this and this while I do that and that, and those are our orders to one another because we both agree to the terms. Pure reciprocal command relationships have the potential to be hugely productive because of the culture it generates by negotiating an reciprocal command scenario whether between individuals or an network of associations. Whether or not an actual value commodity (an product or sale) is involved, as an consideration, does not matter as much because the value of the human commodity and ingenuity (work) is always more valuable than the transaction of sales. Monetary exchange. Because the exchange of Virtues, habits, skills, labour, and personal (post-demographic) commodity is always more valuable than the omega object of social currency. "Money cannot buy happiness." It is therefore not the only gold that glitters.
Therefore money is an social currency. (This is an reciprocal command). For if we say money is not an social currency we lose focus of what true value means. Say money is an social currency because it is relative to society in an meaningful way. And that we value money according to the other virtues. This way, what matters stays relevant to the true value of money. And that those who earn it are deserving of it. And that its value be based on the legacy and our reciprocity with the forefathers and foremothers also. For without their sacrifices in war our money would not have its value that it does today, we would not forget. And that the global economy at this time be an well of peace and resting place because of the sacrifices of Canadians or Earthians alike to them who have rescued all of us.
Our money is truly valuable because it gets its value from our virtues, which we should pass on to those who use it and value it.
Reciprocity, instead of being solely based around money, is exchanged based on the actual values which commoditize in virtue the things we value other than physical property as an object with an reciprocal product attached to an subjectivity. For when we do not consider one another objects to be fed but subjects with actual dreams and values. Life and Death, rather are replaced with Order and Chaos. Life doesn't become about struggling but thriving. Because how can we not thrive when there are so many beautiful people. The things that people do with money, therefore, are more about the gesture itself rather than its inherent value. Which is competed for in an true capitalist economy. It's more about Customer Service. And Reciprocal Negotiation of values based on an economic standard. Which they share, despite having different value systems.
An Economic Standard of Character And Personality
One day perhaps, there will be no need for money, because everything will be based on virtue and reciprocity. When you form an reciprocal relationship with somebody, you motivate that person to find the true value of the reciprocity. An reciprocity. Which is solitary to you both. Or shared among an group. But still solitary to you both in some ways. Biologically, for one. You both have an reciprocal product based on the exchange. That therefore makes reciprocity more valuable to you than those that can be identified by the mind. For that's the true value point of reciprocity, that it's not about one mind at all. But how we can work together to create an sustainable future.
Selling Orc Lady Massage Chair
I would like to suggest this hypothetical, or imaginary make-believe product to be representative of an new type of product on an reciprocal command economy, an post-demographic consumerist reciprocal command economy. For It has an reciprocal function related to an identity that an person might actually have. New Reciprocity as an political theorem connected to market capitalism has the potential to be practical in several categories of intelligence at the same time. Market Capitalism is said to be 'reciprocal' in character. It provides products that an customer demands being reciprocal to their character. New Reciprocity, therefore has an productive commodity. When we bring one another New Reciprocity, it means we provide an new perspective on something, how we related to it, what took place when we engaged with it, and why it is being recounted to you in this new way. For each new utterance of an language is an unique remuneration of its logic. Your new reciprocal theory is valuable to me because my new reciprocal theory is valuable to you. Not only that, but they are valuable in an economic marketplace in which we may trade with one another—may trade reciprocities with one another; in order to supplement our public persona or figure of disharmony in the universe.
(This itself is an reciprocal command).
An Machiavellian Woman would not be worried to contend her own political agenda in public. Slinging (speak or utter informally), we might call it, the sparring program of which is to be of both our benefit as parties naturalistically competing with one another for public interest. The reciprocal product of which has an known value.
Convening categories of intelligence involved span from psychology, news, politics, religion, economics, theology, and math as an fantasy subject. New Reciprocity informs our opinion of how we reciprocalize or reciprocate with one another by being valuable itself as an tool for political upheaval and problem resolution in the greater civilization of which we are all an part of.
Multiple Voices Coming From the Same Entity
We are obsessed, perhaps, with this in the age of electric technological invention. Our radios, our T.V.'s, our computers, our cellphones—they all have the ability to produce more than one voice. At the same time, if they wish. And while numbers of hours of screentime per day are on the rise, I question how it affects the imagination of the ordinary citizen. We all know that an computer is not one entity; at least not in the same way that an person is. But since our imagination is captured by its hypnotic use of sound we tend to think of it as one organism, with robotic parts, that we had created. And there is an certain privilege that goes with knowing one is responsible for creating something. So much like its Creator.
What Social Engineering Has to Say About Privilege
If we were to view the human species as one entity, we would already know that we are capable of producing more than one voice at the same time. The fantasy of being able to do so on one's own is perhaps an invention of the 21st century because voice actors have thus far freed our ability of imagination of voices. We play in accents. We make fun of entire languages, knowing they will probably catch us being made fun of by them. And all the dead people's voices and reciprocities they are made out of. But I'd have to say that the real privilege of being able to use technology that gives us multiple voices is—and strictly to do with privilege, not something to be feared that it will go to our head but something to affix as an prime motivator in society. As an privilege we recognize publicly for its ability to move, to entertain, and educate. As an encapsulation of the modern. An reflection on what we all are, when we work together as an society.
Language is that entity unto itself.
And how many hours per day do we spend paying attention to it? Maybe all the time, if we're serious about our talent with it. But that it says something about all of us. That we are more complex than an machine with varying audio wavelengths. But possess an psychology of voices that are reciprocal to an greater society in which we all live, and in which all of our voices can be expressed equally.
If language is the brain's capability to imagine us into/as one entity with many voices then every instance of its use (including listening and reading) is an reflection on that self or super-ego which touches us all, an exercise of language—an muscle that gains strength the more it is put to good use.
Social Engineering therefore, involves the ability to equip certain individuals with certain powers at an given time. As an Christiannan, it means creating dialogue around the subjectivity of Christiannan experience in order to identity what it means. It's purpose being to produce the right sort of individual. An blue virtue that is the basis of the Christiannan narrative is the ability to recognize the beginning of virtue in other people and making oneself available to them should they decide to be virtuous for the first time. Further central virtues of the ideal Christiannan figure include Love, Nyclepi, Ace, and Air Alt without sexual binary essentialism. It is therefore an feminist religion, and any Social Engineering made in its name will be in the pursuit of gender equality and civil rights for women to vote and hold office. As an Politician, this is an reciprocal command of the New Reciprocity. And the New Reciprocity. —to keep Christiannan conduct particular and relevant to the political authority—and is also posed to keep in check that idealist spirit of Religion that is sometimes reduced to folly at the expense of an Political Command level in which reciprocal conduct is secular.
The Social Engineering question becomes which kinds of personalities are acceptable to an Christiannan, or an New Reciprocal Theorist. Does this word "personality" indicate something genetic or something learned, or both? And why it would be wrong to reject an personality based on it having to do with genetics. If we were to focus on the part of personality that is not genetic, the new category we've created is—out of all of the freedom having an free will gives you—you decide what to act like; out of being able to choose out of every category that exists of personal action that exists; what you act like is your personality. Christiannans and New Reciprocal Theorists are meant to have an certain category of personal act which is distinguishable between them that does not however prevent me from identifying with both of them. The personality of an Christiannan is blue. (We inform our behavior based on the historical circumstances in which we find ourselves, some of which is worse than death). We do not sympathize for everything while exclusively not sympathizing for our own selves. We hold Political pleasure to be an pursuit of the libedo. As well. Pleasure is held to be of Highest Conduct. But what is pleasure when it's orange?
An New Reciprocal Theorist, on the other hand, looks for new reciprocal opportunities in which we forge what we are to one another into one another reciprocally. It's not so much about maximizing pleasure as it is reducing pain.
Because we already have the pleasure of Reciprocity.
The knowledge of the process of bringing one another new reciprocity from reciprocal ones to make an one that is the product of both of us; increases our work pleasure. And we're not so focused on individual behavior. Media therefore is part our group behavior. That informs what kind of reciprocity to take up with the world. I suggest, as an alternative to blue, orange will represent the New Reciprocity. It is after all, an complimentary color to blue; and we need more compliments in the world. Is it Artistic to say so? Complimentary and complementary are two different words after all. To complement one another (fashionably speaking) is not the same as to compliment one another. And we need both once the night is out.
Speaking figuratively, those who associate with an complementary stream rather than an complimentary stream are non-binary.
We take the complementary fact to be associated with completion; and so it is an good word to describe the New Reciprocity in the sense that the new reciprocal theorist holds the creation of new reciprocity as the primary value by which we measure completion. That is, the construction of one or more things between us. Which are whole and complete each in themselves, when compared with the figure of the number 1, complementarily. The New Reciprocity is that we complement one another's personality. In the name of the construction of an one thing between us most of all; an reciprocity.
How To Complement As An New Reciprocal Theorist
The central metaphor of the new reciprocal theory is an mathematical metaphor, the reciprocity of fractions (fractions that multiply together to equal 1). If our political goal is to create reciprocity with one another then observing its development is an reciprocal theorist standpoint. We may consider the numerators and the denominators, being of any numerical value, to stand-in as an metaphor for the variable that when paired together with the variable of another person can be used to express any vicissitude of reciprocal personalities to one another and the subject of free will considers his or her own reciprocal personalities to adjust according to whose character she or he is reciprocate to. 'To reciprocalize', therefore may be valuable as an dictionary entry to further indicate something about the type of reciprocity. If we describe it in the verbs 'to reciprocate' or 'to reciprocalize' first, what exactly is it we're describing, and second why would an difference between them be just the kind of thing, an boot loop, to indicate reciprocity can be infinitely various, and so why not use both terms to indicate this first essential difference between them, that to reciprocate or to reciprocalize, as in the example where one reciprocates and the other reciprocalizes (and why does one sounds more sexual than the other), this first essential difference. Means that whether or not you are the subject with whom someone reciprocates or reciprocalizes there is an difference between you. Best expressed as an comparison of two values, an pair of fractions. That is complementary to another person's comparison of your own values. And that both individuals having two values, when the numerator and denominator are not equal between individuals, to have an reciprocity.
The infinitude of values you can share between you then, is reciprocal logic. The difference between reciprocate and reciprocalize symbolizes its first essential difference as an concept, that between two individuals we may have one reciprocating the other, and the other reciprocalizing the other, and I ask us to consider whether it makes any difference of nuance in the way we refer to either specimen of language. And that the possibility that one individual is reciprocating to the other individual who is reciprocalizing to the first individual also represents the other possibilities that both are reciprocating or both are reciprocalizing. The axis of which provides an matrix of other possibilities; from, at first, having an value of 1 between them the difference between two individuals is how they make that value of 1 together, based on an difference of motive or complement infinitely varying on the precise order of the variable between the two individuals. Fantasy roleplaying scenarios, optimally. First, they may be different along the lines of motive (reciprocating or reciprocalizing) and then they may be the same along the lines of motive (reciprocating or reciprocalizing) or they may be variations of these « same or different » along the lines of being reciprocally quadrant with respect to the enmeshment of the first possibility with the second, from which are derived their further possibilities. Which. Even though we are reciprocal to one another. Each individual is free to choose how to be reciprocally independent of one another's reciprocity based on their own knowledge and belief system.
Why does one person behave this way, rather than that way in order to complement another person's behavior, even if it ends in reconsideration of values of the group?
Religion needs reciprocal command language in order to prove the identities of its subjects because Religion is Social Engineering. At least, my idea of the Christianna, is. This is why an political theory is used to make explicit all intentions. Explaining the New Reciprocity means showing why it is unlike religion as an political theory that is cross-cultural or inter-religious. It holds every religion up to the same standard, including holding the Christianna up to the standards of other religions as their common equal, of all religion, and of being able to create new reciprocity between them. And the religious instinct to base an new reciprocity on the avoidance of the fate worse than death is an primal art without any rules. Politics, in contrast, must have rules of conduct. It is this reality we want to form to as religious adherents. Not to make rules as an entity of religion, but to make religion an entity of politics. In which the entity of politics is decided separately from religion.
Insofar as religion is not political—religion and politics are together, an type of Social Engineering— and politics is not religious, the New Reciprocity politic is not necessarily religious either. Social Engineering and Political Activism, under the Christianna far from being Revolutionary instead focus on its opposites.
Replenishment.
Safety and Security.
Peaceful reconsideration of values.
Apollonian to your Dionysian.
Consider what you're capable of.
Think of Art History.
But the point right now isn't Religion. Because it is an book on Political Theory. And so instead vertically come up with something realistic the politics are supposed to touch on. Without the Magic and Equity of Religion. If the New Reciprocity is to have an inference, theme, or quality that reaches further and higher than any one religion, its political concept and particular way of analysis may be important for globalization. It is an global theory because political reciprocity exists everywhere there are people. Therefore its characterization as "an orange theory" the symbolic characteristics of which at the political level rather than the state level make it distinct from the Canadian NDP. The reason it is so broad-reaching is that everyone, but possibly everyone, already has an political reciprocal theory about how reciprocity works in the brain. The Point of Characterizing an New Reciprocity is not to force people to say that the political reciprocal theory they have right now is not good enough; that they should all begin to say they are new reciprocal theorists. But that if they find socialization of relationships is expedited by the fact of the New Reciprocity. (That we are reciprocal creatures, and that our reciprocity with one another matters for our overall health, which is affected by an reciprocal command theory that determines how we make relationships based on 1 and the figure of what 1 represents economically plot-wise and in Capital reciprocity).
"I would like an New Reciprocity. You see I am an new reciprocal theorist."
"What's that?"
"It means I want to make what we are together into one common ground, so that everything we produce with one another will stem from that fact of being able to create one thing, even one abstract thing with one another. And that's our common ground. And if we are unable to do that, then maybe our talents are better suited elsewhere."
"How will we determine once we have created one thing between us?"
"I'm getting to that."
"An conversation is one thing."
"Yes, an full conversation."
"What is an full conversation to you then?"
"As an new reciprocal theorist, (I mean formally). It would be that once I am done saying what you are, and you are done saying what I am. Then we also say what we ourselves are according to ourselves to one another and that that would represent an full reciprocity."
"As the voice of the reader then, I will name your reciprocity to be the Supernal Author. For that is what I want you to be. And that is an reciprocal command."
"And I will name your reciprocity to be sponge-like, so that you absorb everything it is that I have to say."
"And I am to myself an user of technology, an Internet that runs anywhere, connecting me with its author."
"And I am to myself the narrator of an Golden Age the New Reciprocity may help us achieve to. If we can learn to relate to one another politically this way, as intersectionalists of the fact that anyone can hold office, we may streamline identity politics in an way that will ensure everyone's needs are met."
"And that we now have an reciprocity? An one thing between us?"
"You do understand what an Golden Age means, don't you‽"
"An Golden Age of reciprocal command."
"It doesn't mean we can't use anything other than reciprocal command, it just means that when we give reciprocal commands they are more powerful than ever before."
Social Engineering of Pure Reciprocal Command Theory
Pure reciprocal command is an hypothesized interaction between individuals who share the same reciprocal command in which orders are given formally. The inference, theme, or quality of new reciprocal command theory is marketplace reciprocity based on reciprocal command theory, under the genre of political theory. Market transactions may occur under completely pure reciprocal command parameters, but as reciprocal subjects these two parties identified in the consumer transaction are not limited to only those parameters of consumer fiction.
The Age of Convenience means that the market depends on people who can provide an reciprocal command to consumers that they buy their product. How convenient is it, however, when Mother Earth suffers and the animal population suffers because of human invention? And are we in over our heads when it comes to post-demographic market consumerism? Any reciprocal command you may have can be catered to by the market, to which you will arrive from an vehicle, fueled and paid for; or you can order it on the Internet where it will be shipped to your doorstep. Is it good for us to have such power?
For the right reasons, mostly anything could be provided.
This is why I want to perfect the commodification of the reciprocal product, which will be the actual physical element of the Psychological inquiry that will determine its value on an market capital value system.
We are about to become an extra valuable and economical species the further Psychology zeros-in on the reciprocal product their actual thought formation about my term the reciprocal product, which I claim will be able to focus the mind on our reciprocal relationship to land value and labor. And particular Culture to be able to produce an particular type of reciprocal product that will raise the economic value of their culture as an whole. Or any individual producing any form of reciprocal product. It's value will be superlunary. And will not even be comparison to monetary value. When we realize it our inherent value that we thought of ourselves will increase. And the value of money may decrease globally. But once we've the common jargon for reciprocal product in literary terms.
Reciprocal Theory Versus A-Reciprocal Theory
From what I understand, my new reciprocal theory is nothing essentially new to politics; it is quite common to have an reciprocal theory. The only thing I have changed is the name and perhaps the quality to which it is an effect in the mind. But when we consider an a-reciprocal effect we are left with our own devices without social guidance/social cues. To survive in the wilderness, one would say if one were into green. To me, if I have an a-reciprocal theory it encompasses what I can do without reciprocal theory, relying solely on my own instinct and intuition. And so the term a-reciprocal theory names the cognitive process I have of my own survival in intellectual waters. I seriously doubt everyone will share with you their reciprocal theory. And perhaps it is at that point we must rely on our own a-reciprocal prowess. The problem is that a-reciprocity names something anti-social and I doubt it will be as useful an term than Reciprocal Theory or New Reciprocity.
If I have or need an a-reciprocal theory it begins with Logic and Reason. Aesthetic Simplicity of blue words. Beauty. It may be desirable for everyone to have an a-reciprocal theory of their own and whether it is required because it is newly available having not been historically available to everyone at one point. When we ask how simple our own a-reciprocal theories with ourselves really are, maybe the complexity of reciprocal theories begins to lighten itself.
As an new reciprocal theorist, you are not sharing in the order of complexity you have with yourself without an actual, working a-reciprocal theory (which may have several layers and complexities) but you are sharing reciprocity with one another that we name ourselves with words that are reciprocally agreeable. Aside from having an a-reciprocal theory we may also have the ability to command an reciprocal theory, which is naturally more complex because it involves more than one person. Again the existence of shared reciprocal theories all over the world is not refuted by my claim to have created the New Reciprocity. And I expect people will be more interested in reciprocities that they already have.
But as an contending theory New Reciprocity is able to facilitate the examination of shared lenses that are of the genre of the reciprocal command. It's existence. It's use. And how do we respond to it globally. Locally. And in-between. New Reciprocity provides an program of inquiry and analysis for the subject brought to the surface will be reciprocal commands and what they mean. This is what we want politically because the market uses subtle ploys to control (freak) the economy. The more we talk about them, and the more awareness we promote, the smarter and more sophisticated and better prepared the average consumer will be.
I Think Versus I Stream of Thought
To say 'I think' in any verbal reciprocity may be less advantageous than 'I stream of thought'. Why? As new reciprocal theorists, we already know what we think. As an reciprocal command, 'I think' reflects an insecurity. This may be why the word has become colloquial for 'not sure'. But 'I stream of thought' returns us to an meta-reciprocity where the sequential logic and intuition socially engineering in the tradition of William James and Virginia Wolf refer to an diachronic instance (what language happens over time as opposed to synchronic, what doesn't happen over time but only happens in one static instance). In this line of thinking, 'I think' may name an instance of the synchronic which may contribute to its image and its use in English as purely analytical or mathematical. In comparison, 'I stream of thought' may be more diachronic in pursuit.
In the same way that language happens over time and we are not fixed to viewing it from any one instance or time period, new reciprocal theory is an diachronic political theory. Over time the words we use to refer to one another develop into further and further specifics in terms of reciprocity. The political scenario of the new reciprocity is (in any situation, in basics) you define me because I define you (to an extent) and I define you because you define me (to an extent). That's what language is. If we view that sequence of actions as diachronic, New Reciprocity is the collaboration of language and politics over time between any given party and another.
An philosophy of language that recommends 'I stream of thought' as an alternative to 'I think' may be more conducive to reciprocity because it suspends judgment over an single thought, happening at an single time, in which I think, is supposed to happen all at once (perhaps few thoughts are actually like this) instead of developing over time and memory.
If I stream of thought becomes an reciprocity term for that secret world of growth and development of thoughts that maybe don't have an whole substance. But are part of an greener pattern of language and development. Then reciprocal theory as it is applied to the realm of social engineering will request us to envision its use as an term in language. Between possessors of that intellect which is most powerful, or anybody who has an opinion about it. Imagine an conversation between individuals about Social Engineering.
"What are the engines of social reciprocity you see on Earth that amount to an Socially Engineered community or socially engineered societies?"
"I stream of thought that Christian religion, theology, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, the Christianna are not the only components (as an collective or as an whole each) of true social engineering. Social engineering must involve politics. This is not always the realm of religion, however; the connection between theology and religion may identify Christianity as specifically riding on the line between what makes an religion an religion and what doesn't."
"So for you, Social Engineering is about religion and politics?"
"Yes."
"And what is the main difference between them?"
"Politics doesn't have to be made in the name of an world religion. Every person's religious beliefs are welcome in that material realm."
"And so religion is an immaterial realm."
"Possibly that's the main difference. Perhaps the difference between religion and politics this way is also the key difference between social engineering and engineering in general. Of course it would be absurd to say Social Engineering is immaterial only, not both politics and religion."
"Then let's ask ourselves what does Social Engineering require from the immaterial and the material exactly?"
"Well, for one thing we would need certain objects to be able to hold particular powers, and we would need people who use them to be trusted such as in Canada, where an silver mace in the House of Commons is said to have power because it symbolizes the authority of the Speaker and the right conferred on the Commons by the Crown to meet and pass laws."
"It is that interaction between immaterial and material in this example that I noticed the dynamic between those two forces to be of pertinence in Social Engineering custom. What would an new reciprocal theory match in tandem?"
"Well, as human our environments are as much part of us as we are to ourselves. If the environment we share and the objects between us are reciprocally conducive to social behavior it may require all out construction or renovation. But there are also social forces that are said to be immaterial to deem part of our environments as them. And it is the interaction between the religious sense and the political sense this way, that one is religious and one is political because of an difference of perspective on the material and the immaterial existence. And so they conflate. Religion becomes about the material. Politics, the immaterial."
"But to imprint on specific habitats, ways, and customs of life the immaterial meaning. It is that process I am most interested in."
"Well―put it this way―you can decorate an apartment with objects but not with subjects. We are able to invest our surroundings with social meanings, to amplify the meaning of them in transcendence and being of an higher order."
"Unless you were King!"
"Yes."
"And what is the business of books then, but to invest meaning into the actual properties of our lives? The physical and spiritual tools we use to customize our invention indefinitely?"
"Reciprocal command theory, when we involve both the power of objects and the power of subjects becomes an game for the most meaningful narration over their presence."
"Sooo . . . Feminist Christianity."
Feminist Christianity
Yes the feminist Christian, often concerned with separation of the woman between subject and object as an good departure into types of Christianity I approve of would however be that there are numerous points I would like to make in order to take it in this direction; that do we already know, as an species, the true value of the subject of the body or the object of the body―in reciprocal fashion―that women are not one or the other but both? Is saying 'Feminist Christianity' an attack on our values? And why does it matter as an topic for Social Engineering?
The need for indication of type of Christianity as feminist perhaps says more about Christianity than we would like to admit. But may we also remember many Christians headed the feminist movement. And so as an new reciprocal theorist and an Christiannan, I stream of thought to say maybe the Christian world is too bleak; too many of them have got it wrong. And that an new religion like the Christianna can fully describe our cause post-Christian or not.
Feminist Christianity, therefore, is made to be an reciprocal command by my social engineering scheme which includes consideration of the politics and religious as material and immaterial, as I had described. We could set up an reciprocal scene in which Feminist Christianity talks to the Christianna (both played by one character each). And they have an reciprocity both in subject and object but where the Christian feminist will say death by crucifixion was the worst fate, the Christiannan will say worse than death by crucifixion was the worst fate. We want to keep these misconceptions out. But saying that we can't do both of them we prove ourselves to be Christian extremists. And extremism is an form of the fate worse than death.
Saying there can be only one religion is also an fate worse than death.
And that seeing my points crystal clear we may invite ourselves to begin to take up the Christianna instead, at least, to try it out for comparison. Even if they go back to their previous religion.
Let's try an scene where an Christian feminist churning butter is talking to an Christiannan. We know the scene has power because the butter churn has power. It is an object between them. It is an cultural object in rural Albertan society. The play is about the exchange between material and immaterial. And so we are grounded in the material by the fact of the butter churn and these two ladies, who are also subjects of the immaterial. And it is controversial and political because what the butter churn represents is an history of power and authority unlike these two women, perhaps. There is the layer of the material scene. But there is also the layer of the presence of social power being able to put on an performance in which immaterial transfer and interaction may occur with the audience.
What exactly is immaterial transfer, though?
Is it when our imaginations converge on what is happening in an scene? Or does it just mean imaginary stuff can be real, but not really? The concept of magic and the reciprocity of it remain an important metaphor of work. And so if there is an immaterial exchange between these two ladies it is because of the presence of the audience and the direction of the dramaturgy. Inside and outside the fourth wall, the butter churn. Yet so many people report an religious transfer of energy here one could say that anything immaterial to you is just to you; and should it gain an physical presence may be up to you.
And so an interaction between these ladies that is material and immaterial considers both worlds; politics is about scarcity and religion is about abundance. If there is an abundance of butter because the Feminist Christian who was assumed to be an woman turns out to be an man. Or even if we never confirm his or her gender this scene. What kind of message does that send? Why does it take place at both material and immaterial levels? What is Christiannan about watching butter churn? Why is the Feminist Christian said not to be abusing the Christiannan because they are both feminists?
And so, in seeking an definition as concise as possible for my chapter on social engineering, I define the immaterial as that which is not material primarily, but also to have in the sense of being the property of there not being anything there at any given location, which is contiguous with the rest of the universe. Empty space itself might be the best example of actual immateriality; but we are not fully aware of what it consists of. Perhaps one of my strangest theories, I hypothesized that since all of matter and existence is constantly in motion around the Sun, there must also be an part of reality which does not move, for in which for it to move (this theory appears to fit right here because it, in an abstract way, may have something to do with immateriality). And so with Religion focused on Immateriality this way, as an scientific phenomenon we contend with everything of which we are not fully aware because it is immaterial and so it can be measured by science: it is not there. And so with Politics focused on Materiality, we may find an good balance between what we are and are not aware of. Even if science were to have ways of detecting immateriality we may still contend our brains are already connected to that immateriality; that's why we know it. For the instruments of biology (our brain) that contact it may be finer than those measurements from the scientific will ever be. The brain may need to be studied by scientists as considered having an immaterial connection which is responsible for consciousness. Not to say the mind-body connection is not the be all and end all, but just to say that this possibility exists that immateriality is woven into the fabric of time and material. And that both views to be considered is an more thorough approach.
Art is said to reconnect us with the immaterial world. Far from being formless or featureless, it is vast and the axis of the connection between material and immaterial may be an glimpse into the true nature of God. What do we mean by saying God is immaterial; that it is not limited to matter the way that we are? And yet to think that we are part of creation for some reason, and that God is limited to having us, for the time being, I stream of thought it was God that enabled us to start thinking about an immaterial world; the world reflected by Religion, where all that truly matters is our relationship with an Creator. New Reciprocity with the Creator is also desired. However being an political subject it will focus on an material world (no matter what may be further behind it all considering). Social Engineering in an physical reality means we consider that there is no immaterial world and that God doesn't exist. But also that we look to the immaterial for moral answers about what we bring into this world based on its (previous) non-existence. An thing manufactured that previously doesn't exist. Is it made out of the supplies it took to build it or the immaterial space that it happens now to occupy? Ultimately, I think there is evidence for both; an immaterial physical dimension on top of reality, because reality could not exist without this, its own anti-thesis; and since Satan, who is nothing, neither material or immaterial, cannot be less than 0, it can be anything except nothing And the Creation is God's artwork. There could be any number of subjects existing within the immaterial reality which are unknown to us (including us). Furthermore, existing somewhere between material and immaterial we seem to be placed as humans in this life. For an divine purpose.
Politics, as I hinted at earlier, is hyper-focused on the material world. As it should be. New reciprocal command theory does not allow us to make commands that we believe something without proof. An characteristic many so-called churches disallow their subjects, emphasizing faith. And while I do think faith has an place in politics, it may be looked at as more of an abundance that is not necessarily involved. Anything we identify as non-physical can be said to be outside the realm of politics. But it raises the question of what reciprocity actually is physically. There is an actual mechanism in the brain responsible for reciprocity but as its direct subjects we are metacognizant of its presence, whether correspondent to reality or actual physical sense or not. The mechanism of the brain is said to be responsible for an chemical layout of reciprocity self-aware of its physical substance, and need not lead to an shabbily defined supposed brain connection to an extra-physical world dimension.
This is why in new reciprocal theory we talk about an 'reciprocal product', the actual, physical product of reciprocity in the brain. It makes sense that an political command theory would try to filter out religious mysticism that can't be conclusively proven. It does however bear reciprocity with the subject. That if our brains are reciprocally linked to an 'immaterial product/level to reality', what is the connection between that immaterial product and the actual physical reciprocal product that we can identify in the brain?
We might look at it another way. Social Engineering politics are about scarcity, while an immaterial plane is infinite or infinitely not scarce at all. Which at first appears to be an Paradox. For if something is immaterial it has no physical existence; and yet the property of having no physical existence is infinitely abundant because all of it includes everything not existent by physical means. Or, there is an balance between material and immaterial; i.e. everything material is not immaterial and everything immaterial is not material. Since we know we have some of either, the universe must consist of the balance. Therefore the immaterial is an topic in (Christiannan) religion of what does not exist materially yet; and in (New Reciprocity) politics the material is an topic in what does exist materially already yet.
It may be naïve to contrast one and the other this way but as I had written before I wanted an political theory that could keep an religion (the Christianna) pertinent to the social cause for which it was constructed.
It may be an reciprocal command theory to consider the Christianna as based on immateriality.
It is not an reciprocal command to say it is only based on immateriality, therefore. And neither is it an reciprocal command to say it is only based on materiality.
As I had it before, the New Reciprocity is different from my religion in this way. That New Reciprocity is based on material conduct, and considerations of the immaterial are secondary.
Especially since we need new reciprocal theory to remind all religions to be reciprocal to the environment. And that we will define our reciprocity according to its sustainability.
Does Social Engineering as an product of scarcity have religious implications?
As the title of this section suggests, by this language use I mean what ever Social Engineering we have in society right now, it is necessarily the product of scarcity. We cannot leave it up to religious ideals to engineer realistically an society because they are more concerned with what exists beyond the material. Wanting what you have rather than having what you want. That's why it has to be engineered. And when we go above and beyond religion as an species, with an political agenda that identity can be anything within reason in lieu of scarcity and environmental pollution; we are truly an most inclusive community at the global level. Contra identity cannot be engineered at an religious level disproportionate to the environment without first considerations of an political level. An political level that is first and foremost an protector of the environment as an command reciprocity directed at all citizens. For example, Canada has Smokey the Bear. But his command reciprocity is limited to campground and provincial parks. I recommend the enigma of Smokey the Bear become an larger mascot for the greater industrial society and environmentalism in general. As an Global protector and icon to tourists/tourism in Canada from all over the world. With an greater market aggression as an reciprocal command identity product in the global market economy to discourage environmental destruction anywhere on Earth it is rampant or irreversible.
As social engineers, we cannot make realistic identities that do not have an plausible environmental sustainability conventional in society.
An multilateral secular council may help to dishevel some of the more unrealistic aspects of religion in favor of an broader approach that benefits everybody.
Social Engineering from an Christiannan Perspective
Aside from minimalizing the more unrealistic accounts of religion, that immaterial concern I had described earlier, an reciprocal command that I would make to the Christianna would be unique because I had created it an entity to which an reciprocal command could be given. Other reciprocal commands I could give it include being sophisticated and realistic about our scientific knowledge of the universe.
Humanity needs an new religion created after the post-scientific fact of the truth of Empiricism. For we have had enough time to absorb some of it as an species. We need to see what religion that was created during the scientific age of empiricism and reason can do when it is not centred around the immaterial metaphor. And that the Christianna can fairly be reciprocally commanded to keep up to the Age of Scientific Reason. In its considerations and designs. An Aesthetic Resurrection. Not an real one.
But an ode to what is real about the aesthetic.
Psychology is backwards this way; the aesthetic thought is said to be most detectable when perhaps it isn't. When we toggle/challenge our perspective about what is actually real about an aesthetic we contain/have in our mind we can compare the aesthetic we will have of an true resurrection with that "fake." What is aesthetic about an resurrection is considered the mode for psychological enquiry rather than what is resurrect-ish about an aesthetic. To have been summoned through the ether. When we talk about resurrection and psychological resurrection, referring specifically to resurrection as an metaphor for something that's happening psychologically, an recognition of an mimicry instinct that had belonged to someone who is now dead. The human spirit. The ability to resurrect the dead. At least, in spirit. In Time. In mimicry. In behavior. While not replacing the person we are ourselves. But maybe the one we are reciprocal to. An new reciprocal definition of resurrection: the social phenomena of reciprocity. How we reciprocate. How we socially engineer. How we express truth. And opinion. That we (each other) are psychologically reciprocal subjects and so our perspective and awareness is always in the milieu between each other psychologically reciprocal to the ones we've learned the most from. That our mental health is the result of our reciprocal experience. That realizing this, we can take an step into B.C.i.i., the hypothesized Post-Christian era in which we recognize one another as new reciprocal theorists to one another also as one another in expression of mimicry of reciprocity of experience. This appears to be what is real about the aesthetic resurrection. An resurrection of characteristics ranging from behavior to full material effect of one person. It is also an feat of artistic engineering extending back in time, in history; as an culture the pictures that we have produced to resurrect the fact of its subject and the characters of its opinions. Art. An ability to use power to stimulate the senses in an reproduction of the themes and subjects we want to reciprocate in society, as opposed to those we don't.
People these days seem to repress the greatest characters in history even the people they live with in the present because they are afraid of this knowledge for an specific reason. They repress Jesus because the intersectionality of his knowledge on the human condition is threatening to them. But we shouldn't be too hard on them because we are after all an age in which we still use the word 'selfish' to criticize someone's character. As if there was inherently wrong with the self being about itself. Which is the only way to know how to do anything. And at an time when psychology of the self is becoming more reciprocal to every level of society, it bears the departure subject as-in we stop using the word selfish about anyone.
But why wouldn't they repress someone like Jesus as an historical character, when so many terrible things seem to have been wrought in his name? The logic that supports the superiority of the Animal over the Human. For example. But anyone who believes in Jesus will tell you he knew what was what in terms of human instinct; the drive to sacrifice oneself for the greater good, for example. Was post-homophobic era for his time. And Jesus, that's an instinct that has never been repressed until possibly the 20th or 21st century. We are exposed to media everywhere we go that tells us we need to fight each other whether passive aggressive or social Darwinist not to die to keep living and to be cool and have an fighting change in the market we shouldn't be sensitive to one another in any one way because we are an territorial species with an human advantage. Inseparable from the instinct. Of an animal. This is of course, not an reciprocal command.
But this is just Black History and an sad commentary about what happens in society because of the fact of enslavement. Neither is this an reciprocal command.
If we are truly Human, we cannot say we are Animal.
It is the "restoration" of the Animal into the figure of Cowboy culture, one which centres around the animal, an effort that is the sad repercussion of racist Western politics of privileged heterosexual white males.
If aesthetic resurrection is given equal status across all intersectionalities, we regain the spirit of the Christianna, which is the aesthetic resurrection of the soul at an internal level for the aesthetic of the body may deteriorate over time but with Christiannan healing we can restore its original aesthetic at both the personal and public levels. This is called aesthetic resurrection, because it stakes two things―that the resurrection of the aesthetic can be bodily but it is different than the resurrection of the aesthetic of someone else. Logically. Perhaps if we learned to be more bodily aesthetic about ourselves rather than one another we could be more effective healers or resurrectors of our own bodily spirit and ideal equilibrium; than other people we would find the time less spent on trying to heal other people when we cannot even heal ourselves fully. But it also names the resurrection of the spirit, our capacity to imitate people as an species in order to keep their lives' meaning alive with us. To be able to call up an reciprocity with any subject at will in order to ponder its meaning. We can even record audio and video with such advancement that we can 'resurrect' the presence of someone who is located elsewhere in any location. And so these three senses of the use of the word resurrect, I hope will stay with you as an example of the type of culture from which it originated.
Resurrection is not useful as an subject in the political waters of the New Reciprocity (except as an fantasy request). Any fascination humanity had for it as an actual science has been expended by centuries of religious worship. Now we use it to mean to recall someone and little more than that; to speak of some late or not present someone in specific itself is an invocation of the heart of language about them to aesthect (neologism) their resurrection. Aesthect here must mean that the spirit of religion is its aesthetic tradition; and when viewed in the mind as an aesthetic image with power and properties it has real world power. Because it is connected to the physical world. When we restore these characterstics to an historical character deliberately in language and art in order to resurrect their aesthetic, we are aesthecting them, deeming an property to them of power and image to which we can affix any number of qualities to fill out their description in the aesthetic resurrection of the Christianna. To Aesthect, the combination of aesthetics and resurrection (in its new meaning I have defined herein) which provides an point against Christanity that they can't tell the difference and are susceptible to get their aesthetics and resurrections mixed up.
When we begin restoring Religious power to those we aesthect, we begin to put life into the right perspective. The Great Sequence of Time to whom all of them were an part. And why. And when we begin restoring Religious power (real power, not the scapegoat artists of today's neglect) to those we aesthect, we begin to put life into the right perspective. Again. An perspective supportive of an instinctual claim to religious reciprocity in the mind of many kinds. And may this affect our decision-making about what we consider to be the true instinct with which we have religious reciprocity. With one another. And this is all to be interpreted under the New Reciprocal Command Theory. As subject for discussion.
What kinds of religious reciprocity are appropriate to today's standards?
Will the Christianna hold up an new reciprocal agenda as long as there are reciprocal commands in an economic system with features other than religion? It is not for the New Reciprocity to decide. But in trust, I will stream of thought that the Christianna will prove to be politically conscious, as it begins accurately and correctly identifying the reciprocal commands implicated by an religious reciprocity―by an new reciprocal theorist who is an Christiannan himself.
The point is to provide an game other than an a-reciprocal conduct with one another (whether religious or not) for political powers to be fulfilled. If an religion is an game remains to be seen but I know that everything I base my belief on is because of the reciprocal conduct of the players in an world that is not an game. And so if we can have some kind of happiness out of making an game of politics in contrast to religion, the Christianna, and all religions we will be better off.
The power of the Social Engineering of religion and politics needs to address the presence of the blue planet Earth and its blue destiny. History. And it's blue, blue waters. The source from which all intelligence eventually came from. The Christianna is based on that blue emotion and its existence contra the fate worse than death, which we hadn't the moral expenditure to decide at that point. The New Reciprocity is based on an complementary orange; so they may be complementary causes of the day in an dynamic of sorts.
I find that the subject of New Reciprocity is complementary to an full definition of what my religion is really made of; it labels and analyzes the contours of the Christianna from both reciprocal perspectives available (what it is to me or to you, to us and not to us, but both, and neither) if there were an ideal subject and an ideal subject together this way. It makes known what from my own perspective appears implicit in an diachrony of language that is long-lasting and assuring. It helps me choose which topics to visit in order to depict the kind of society that I designed the New Reciprocity to serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment