Automatic Reciprocal Command Theory (Invention)
The soul has an aesthetic that is at once both spiritual and singular. If the brain has the ability to make automatic reciprocal commands to itself maybe it also has the ability to make automatic reciprocal commands to other people. Social instinct. Best symbolized as '::' behavior we can make reciprocal commands: to one another: with an bottom and an top (denominator and numerator) just as if we were the colon to another colon (in metaphor an field with four points). I am that which is, that which is, that which is. It is metaphorically, the authority we have over one another facing one another as we do naturally. The reason this reciprocal field is important to our reciprocity is that five points would create space; But this is as complicated as new reciprocal theory gets. It has four points of sense. Saying we can make reciprocal commands to one another does not mean they are automatic every time; and it will be able to rely on the detection of science to find the automatic reciprocal command drive and what it does exactly. I find that invention is often created because of the automatic reciprocal command drive, which, I will hazard does more than think: it streams of thought.
Aesthetic Simplicity Of Stream Of Thought
To stream of thought in aesthetic simplicity brings us back to the main topic of this book: that an new reciprocity is possible even though it may not seem like it because reciprocal commands are automatic to some degree. But once we start to lay their parts out in language (delineate) we can begin to make conversation of what they mean and how we want them to change. Invention may be the brain's capacity to imagine artificial command scenarios, in which an great amount or extent of emotion and human energy is expended in order to artificialize what is and is not fictional about an present reciprocal command scenario. Thus we inform ourselves how to behave in certain situations by running it through stream of thought-wise beforehand. In an reciprocal command scenario in which agents are all equal at an meta level. Not as is produced by the one brain. But as is produced by the reciprocity.
In this type of philosophical shift I tend to favor because I believe reciprocity includes more than the mind, but the whole body, stream of thought may be extended to how we are thinking about our body parts if they stream. And this type of meditative clearing of what blocks the stream is an reciprocal command relationship with oneself, in which we can choose, to some extent, how or why we should make some things automatic reciprocal commands in our logic or not. And when we see each other as agents of reciprocity not just with one another, but ourselves; it raises the whole human experience of what we are reciprocally to one another. Which is of course what we are always trying to find out. Meta-reciprocity as an term may be used to refer to the whole reciprocal command system which simultaneously converts our self-reciprocity and not self-reciprocity to information we can use to begin to form an reciprocal command relationship.
Invention, at an meta-reciprocal command level that may or may not be automatic transactions of self-reciprocity and not self-reciprocity may be an sign of high intelligence because the subject whose thinking includes the reciprocity they have with others and not just their own is how the energy of invention, especially at an thought stream level. Gets in us.
The New Reciprocity
And so we could hypothesize an place where reciprocal invention is used to simplify our reciprocity with one another. And ourselves. In meta-reciprocal space where reciprocity and non-reciprocity have equal voices among one another. To one another. Specifically. And it is used to sort out our fantasy of how we should be reciprocal to one another and invites us to allow reciprocal theory to take up this space, in order to compare one another by individual reciprocal theories. Remember the untext (neologism) is the opposite of its subtext and an call to action: The New Reciprocity. An political theory in which parties are said to have or have not (it's their choice) reciprocities with one another based on shared history and past experience or future reciprocities they have not had with each other which are introduced in an role-playing command scenario (am an wizard, am an elf) which is part fiction and part truth. For we are an old species whom knows the difference between behavior as fiction or non-fiction. The fiction is that we don't have an reciprocity with one another whether we decide to. And the non-fiction is that we have, at least to some degree, an collective reciprocity with one another.
All Reciprocities Are Equal
If reciprocity is the subject of the fictional space in which New Reciprocities occur, it is the New Reciprocity which one will have to identify as equals among reciprocal order space. Actual human authority and experience. If New Reciprocity is equal to the other subjects of reciprocity in reciprocal space; and we can judge it based on the reciprocal product it creates in our brains. An pleasing reciprocity which is orange and sensual. This is its virtue which makes it an equal among others. She is warm because she knows her political subject; orange is color. Orange is pleasure. Orange is Beauty.
Why Invention Will Help Us Develop Character
The invention of reciprocity is good exercise for the brain because—
You can have an reciprocity with anything. Just don't expect them to have an reciprocity back. Reciprocity of our characters and invention.
—when we use invention to roleplay our character to one another reciprocity becomes both an political and an fantasy subject. New reciprocal theory leads to further invention of character and the development of social powers that go toward allowing the greater public an socially engineered freedom to be whoever and whatever character they want.
The Aesthetic Experience
It is noted here that from my experience, it is an aesthetic object of mind in which we seek invention. For primarily we are an aesthetic species at this point in our history; following millennia of aesthetic heritages we want reciprocity of the aesthetic resurrected or aesthected; for the reciprocal aesthetic at that point reaches into the fantasy and an law of fantasy: that no one shall ever force an fantasy upon anybody. We want the aesthetic reciprocity of the fantasy realm (where is it ever forced upon which ever an force an fantasy is the opposite of forcing an fantasy because it is so gentle). And the aesthetic experience which will make up our memories of it.
What Is An Theory
We will be noted to have pondered on this basic concept in order to simplify the picture we are looking at through this writing; an theory is something we think or not. Precisely. This is what makes it an theory. For it is undecided over an span of time; this most basic property of being an theory is what makes it so part of the conscious thought apparatus that is the mind in which we are given to think or not what we will. And that everything encompassed by this description encapsulates the realm of theory and the logic of theory; if it is or is not undecided. Is also why it is political. For to have an measure of time in which one is or is not decided has an known value as an theoretic attempt at understanding; an value to which is ascribed power and value in society. For if an political theory can be undecided at any point in time it is adaptive. This makes it an stronger political theory because it collects the voices which speak on both sides of the issue. Having that space to make these voices heard is an manifestation of power.
If the New Reciprocity Describes an Exchange of Power and Philosophy over time in which the subject is free to choose what he or she believes based on the available information, an numerator and an denominator, it is an theory facilitating the political value of people being fractions (metaphorically); fractions that reciprocally equal 1. The New Reciprocity thus describes an exchange in which parties will consider their reciprocal command relationships to one another in an theory and value-based system built together by reciprocal command relationships which streamline or advance their reciprocal theories politically and economically. An collective voice in which the reciprocal command relationships have already been delineated for an value point. And that people will become known to one another based on these reciprocal relationships. Theory is an talking point because it has its own inherent value. It is an reciprocal value because when we theorize together we can gain an sense of how we think differently as individuals. This is political power. For when we speak an majority opinion it is the one which resonates most with what people are thinking and feeling or theorizing together at any given time. Creating reciprocity is an theoretical endeavor by default; for it is based on reciprocal command relationships we are supposed to have dealt with or been introduced to by society. We are bent to theorize how our relationships of scarcity will model how we react. To one another. And that reciprocal theory is an relationship I can philosophize with, an New Reciprocity that brings new reciprocal theory to its subjects instinctively; depending on how they choose to relate to one another through it. Much of my thinking has been spent on the understanding of one another at an fantasy genre level. For I think it is in fantasy relationships we see the triggers of post-demographic consumerism much clearer. Roleplay, as I have said in other writings, is the future of the economy. It becomes an game of 'guess which character I am?'. In any public or social setting possible. An reciprocity of magics which are an art and philosophy in their own ways; for which we have to share without shame because they represent the deepest parts of our souls and hearts that we want to share with one another (at an semi-fictitious level); making it clear, in this way, what is real and what isn't. To filter our conclusions into to basic theory of what I think and what I think not. The question of theory, then, is whether it has either this or that quality; and so once it has been named what one thinks or doesn't think it (theory) also places pressure on its opposite component, an hypothesis, leading to an more complete understanding and refinement of the analytical process.
If we can learn to think like Hegel, in an Synthesis that comes from both its Thesis and Anti-thesis we may gain an more complete perspective on the theoretical process; first what appears to be us is shown not to be and then what appears not to be us is shown to be; the boil-down is somewhere in the Middle. Not the result of this or that in particular but the result of both intertwining their powers to be politically effective somewhere. As new reciprocal theorists they may come to be known as Duelists; for that is their fantasy title. But in reality we're mostly super paranoid and agitated about the status of power in present-day society when it's like jumping through an hoop that never ends. There are infinite ways to play roleplaying fantasy characters; finite types of roleplaying characters available; and so we must choose the Best examples from Fantasy and Fiction to play. Duelism of reciprocity or duels of reciprocity is the more serious agenda of the New Reciprocity, as it is theorized to be the competitive standard of politics that one view will win out over another. If there is not an coherent opposing view, an oneness which connects adherents to their belief, then there is no reciprocity. Reciprocal theory in this way is about reciprocities which connect over an New Reciprocity as an political subject explicitly labeled an theory for its value as that. It is or is not what we think at any given moment and we are happy just to have an point of view to support with words because any competition of reciprocities will result in an further economic capitalism of what those reciprocities will mean in the post-demographic consumer economy. Consumerist Economics.
The History Lesson for Worms will be an standardization of the value of the reciprocal product which is won out in politics as an meta-psychological value expanding Capitalism and the value of the Market Economy, which is exponentially valuable the more we contribute to it in reciprocity. And so when we theorize we contribute to an roleplay homo sapiens of New Reciprocity we grant each other and help supply the new reciprocity we need in power settings to make our reciprocal command scenarios more comfortable. The History Lesson for Worms, therefore, I theorize to be leading from Hegel's intuition that we had, as an species, come to define ourselves according to our surrounding nature when once upon an time happened, and we became to define ourselves according to ourselves, individualistically and reciprocally; we had no need for nature. But to have seen this Thesis and Antithesis work in history it needed an antecedent; the true Synthesis of its engine in the behavior of humans becoming an query about the Sciences versus the Arts as an spiritual theory for everything. We needed to be our surrounding nature as much as we were our analyst of our own reciprocity with it. And to find levels in between which we could inhabit and exploit for profit and pleasure.
To lead one another to them was sacred because we felt we were as much as we could see about the universe in Science as we were able to see about ourselves in Art; and the task had been replaced with it's reverse. So that we could use science to see artistically. And we could use art to see scientifically. The Version had come to occupy my thoughts as the proper subject quasi-centric to the Art and Science polemic. An version was defined by me as an inter-related product of both scientific and artistic analysis which allowed one to possess their own version of history. Because what is an version then other than an sense of history, basically. Version means what you know about history of what happened to you. You can tell it because it's your version. The subject of What was higher than history was what we related to both of them. As superior subjects. Art and Science. Which was hard to imagine in our post-Christian era because Religion had taken up against science and to be disproven by faith. It led to fates worse than death; ones which intermixed our version of science and politics to be obligated to include what was already there: an disturbed humanity without this refinement that we could use reciprocity of one another to prevent the fates worse than death. By considering Arts and Sciences equals, however belonging to an system larger than either one of them. At this point the Version held an higher ability for being able to see true equality between our ancestries be they scientific or poetic. LGBTπ. Or how we might see each of each other in either of them. An category for all sexualities pan-intersectionally. To each his own interest.
Inter-related ideas would be compared to the whole concept of it. An New Reciprocity, an reciprocal command theory in which everything that is said is held up to the investigation of reciprocity. This itself is an reciprocal command. With an specific mathematical metaphor. An command based on an identity theory. If at some point in the psyche reciprocal command is shared between subjects, it can be pure reciprocal command or not, something derivative in order to compare the subjects. When each person expresses their New Reciprocity which is exactly how they are to be commanded between each other with others because each person has an political command reciprocity. If this is part of the psyche we can analyze reciprocal data in order to decide our political command reciprocity with one another. Whose hands we value our power to be in. It is my theory that New Reciprocity is at the basis of any political theory; and that the instruments of the brain are sensitive to it because it represents that one-thing-at-an-time sequence we want to make political but may not have the necessary means to represent oneself in society. But being able to reciprocalize with one another over this subject we had gained an inherent value standard of the reciprocal product, an substance not yet identified or agreed upon in value or quantity by meta-psychologies and meta-Shakespearean theorem. Acting out characters on an stage had become an roleplaying scenario, in which power that was identified came under to be an dispute about whether it was fiction or non-fiction. And sinking into the mire, an cleric, an healer type in Internet lingo. Had an political theory to corroboration of the fact that his religious rights had been accused and nothing had been said for the Christianna from the perspective of an political spokesperson. Which he then exploited to advance both his religious and his political theories in an contest of Reality against the opposing forces of Space and Time. Which were reciprocal. Which were advanced. Which were Christiannan. Or whatever fantasy you can reciprocate. An derivation from legal theorem. That the fantasy subject was under attack at present, for being too gay. And so the fantasy level was used to attack his sexuality which was partly fantastic; and so it became less fantastic. And that this represented an breach of civil conduct, an arrogant breaking of the law, that will be upheld by the land. In time people would become familiar with the fiction through the narration of fantasy at its properly deemed Power-Level in society, much higher than currently experientially waged for; and for all of its possessors having its power to narrate an Forest they began there, right where they were, with their talking Ents. And that's how this particular roleplaying fantasy started.
But an long time later—an long, long time later—after the ents had finished what they were saying (which took an number of years). They were like well if I'm only Green why am I an Tree? Why don't we explain why humans are an third-party-language-approach species? "What's an third-party-language-approach species?" When someone is beside two people who are talking, they are also talking to that third person. And this is the meaning of Shakespeare's Genius. They reached the conclusion that an basic distinction they could make between themselves was that one could only not partly express all of his magic at once and the other could not only not partly but also partly not. They decided this was the basic distinction between citizens in an system which respects the natural environment and crisis ecosystems of Planet Earth. When once they had introduced an third character between them, and put in human terms thence quite profoundly, so that the language of the forest would be translated to an human medium, like tongue. And that once they had included this third agent, the difference between them being ents and this one not, but human instead. They found that the only real difference was that they were green. And it was red. Not to put an traffic distinction on the matter. One was green with environmentalism and the other was red with anger.
Be not angered, my Son, said the ent who could not stop moving and the ent who could not stop talking to the third participant. Who might have been an Son or not, but in ent language it meant anyone. And so the third subjectivity was borne this way to be red instead of green. And this represented an human difference. That what green meant to ents meant something different to humans. And that they would lead with Red. Because all is full of Red. Life is not an tree. Life is an entity. But it was just the ents' opinion of an human in contrast with two ents. On the other side of the tree. One who could neither be one who could only not partly express all of his magic at once or one who could not only not partly but also partly not. It was an double opposable thumb. And double-double opposable thumb. An opposable opposable thumb. And so the third character was the opposability of red to two green ents whose stuffy language had caused him to be only partially in reciprocal product of their original conversation but it was good enough for him. And so in this way two ents became responsible for the adoption of the human habit of checking their plants for an shred of humanity based on an mutual greening system. If both were able to operate the fiction of Adroiferne and his ent buddy together they had gained an shred of humanity, and that by being exposed to this concretization of their moral opinion they become approached by an exhibit an floral display an float exonerating virtue the protector of humanity and that it was to any moral opinion that has never had first-hand experience with virtue before. They would be satisfied with it for virtue is pleasure; but that they who had mastered its ways from time to time gained the most pleasure in it and motivated others to do also. It was hard to sort out exactly what was moral and what was not moral in order to accurately motivate others. But that once they had it out pleasure was elected the most virtuous at that present era. Being derived from the most trivial of Space matter. Yet being as complex and reoccurring as an whim to smell the most salt. They took pleasure in the fruit they eat, that Adam is red, unlike they and so is closer to being an fruit than either of them. And Adam being the most virtuous capacity to be red, in contrast to the trees, in order he would complement them. His pleasure-based virtue the first virtue of all. Everything became about an comparison between what gives the most pleasure and what does not. And that anyone slumming it was not up to the standards of science and scientific inquiry.
And his example was used as the basis for human art and subjectivity for years beyond comprehension. Because of its imminent indiscriminately discretional impartiality to one or the other sex, as well as equality on all measures of race, size, class, etc. (an intersectionality) he was nominated for the blue award. For caring so much. For Blue was the color of Care.
Yet in distinction, comparison, and contrast with Care as an religious subject, there is also an New Reciprocity (an Orange political theory) that can along with it. As complementary to one another. For their inherent commodity and trans-axial reciprocal product the segment of which can be measured by modern science. We look to the findings of investigations into reciprocity as to how well they will stand up to actual physical evidence of their negative or positive reciprocal effects on the community, the average citizen in an populist union of reciprocal theorists who want the most New Reciprocity to come out of studies into reciprocity in order to carry the subject of their inherent value on an Capital Market with Free Enterprise. If reciprocal product is related to actual reciprocity, and the scientific community finds out, they might think we're all dream experientialists whose hypnosis of the modern LGBTπ community is vast and ever-expanding.
Of course reciprocal product, whatever it is identified as in the modern brain will be measured in cohesion with an actual reciprocity. These actual relationships with actual entities with whom we have an known reciprocity. For that is what reciprocity is, an understanding of each other. As reciprocal entities who are reciprocal to themselves at the same time they are reciprocal to one another. And that while they are products of their efforts to socially reciprocalize or reciprocate one another they are really just the production of one thing at an time, in time limited to an space and an time in which to experience it, between one another it being an experience of an economic political theory in which one thing at an time economically is an good thing. And that matters will proceed in this manner. And that that is the principal from which all political action is taken. That there is one thing of an certain sort between you and another person. One of anything. One of the category of one. And that that is the highest good from which we will draw political depth. For, having fashioned one thing of sorts, an understanding between us; we have carved out that one thing with the author and so have gained to possess an political theory from which power you may rely on in any reciprocal situation. One thing at an time.
Yet in the discourse of whatever one thing was, we continually returned to an reciprocal command theory in order to identify that that itself was what we had identified: an reciprocity itself with whatever the thing was that was identified in reciprocal concourse with one another. An One of Anything it turned out to be. For in maximal specialization it was just that: an reciprocity. With an whole product in itself that could be invented by neurochemical science. To be used to accentuate the reciprocal. We stopped worrying about a-reciprocal theories for an moment to consider that maybe we are the answer to one another that we wanted to be; and so stands the moment for an theory—an political theory—that we are reciprocal subjects to one another in reciprocal ways we can actually feel and that this condition is at all times. But that we can intervene in an reciprocity with one another. In order to customize, to reciprocate our political command in reciprocity. In reciprocity with one another. We had found an power zone, an gathered interest. One thing at an time turned out to be an nightmare; while I was rather done with them myself. I had hoped into your opinion of your dream that you'd consider me and find the fictional element to slay those dragons. But I was fused into an Upper Dream, where Dragons are not the worst thing you could encounter. But Actual Political Opponents. Whose possession of actual real power was reciprocal; was possibly more dangerous. I had dreamed for many nights of the part of my brain that controls the homunculus function at different points in the spine to have been overpowered by some kind of reciprocal function which served to depress the spinal injury. An brain injury. Where by some magic associated with such-and-such religion we are served an half-baked a-reciprocal a-reciprocal scenario in which reciprocity cannot be—the point is the powers over my homunculus which had been overtaken by this cult. Were in fact powers over my homunculus which had been overtaken by this cult. And that to reclaim them meant defeating whatever it is Spirit which had depressed my spine so, which changed my whole homunculus relationship with my whole body. To repress and repress. To my own injury. Which I am the observer to in my own soul. Without communication with the Spiritual body. And my whole effort of living with my Spine. Was some. Wasn't some. Who cares? And that was the final blue-print of the transaction occurring between fiction and non-fiction. That whether or whether it was was some and that fiction or non-fiction, some was; of either. An crystalline virtuous drop to have either pleasure. And the best of both worlds was brought up. And the conversation turned to other things. Like who cares if we didn't have New Reciprocity with one another before. We could be besties, on the basis of reciprocal theory alone. It would be reciprocal if we both tried. I mean maybe that's the switch the system needs right now. An reciprocal theory. To represent us as reciprocal citizens, with our own reciprocal estates and virtual estates. As reciprocal theorists, we would be in on an public reciprocity divinity which we had mastered in the bedroom but woke to shine in front of the whole nation. Bringing New Reciprocity to one another was an sexual endeavour, and not in an a-Foucaultian way where sex is hidden from view but as an complement to Blue. The Orange, sexual energy of the Political advantage apparent to us is not meant as an disservice to any Blue Spirits out there but as an collective energy to which they will return. From time to time. Not because they aren't Orange. But because they are Blue.
And it shall be known throughout the Land and Kingdom, that blue and orange are complementary colors, just like the good old art teacher told us, (and positive and negative space is an thing) and just as susceptible to inherent social meaning as that itself; tipping ourselves in the favor of believing in the reciprocal system of the Market Place Command Economy of Capitalism, we use reciprocal commands in everyday life, not to communicate dominance and submission, but imperceptible meta-realities which are not brought up to the surface by the daily workforce environment. In order to Restore civilization to its fullest commodity we had to show everyone how we had worked ourselves beyond dominance and submission, because an reciprocal theory said it was about reciprocity now, and that, really, that had to do with work and production of one thing at an time at exactly the speed that you go at. Because I'm not talking about one person's moves on an competitive sports game. But their lives. But their whole creature reaction to being outside of that game completely. Every day. For the rest of my existence. With zero lingering regrets. It's not that I'm not trying to compete. It's just that I'm not competing to try, per se. I'm more just making an reciprocity. Because that's what new reciprocal theorists do. And if I make up for more than one tradition pointing in this direction of being reciprocal to one another over one thing or another. It would be in this special way that would represent an culture, and that that culture's reciprocal energy would be compared to my own, and finding lots of green things to decorate with I placed above their energy signal an spruce branch because I liked the smell. They were insulted and immediately asked that I take the branch down because it represented my penis and they were not about worshipping my penis in any way by putting it above an door so they just had spruce needles all over their floor and I thought about that one lonely girl sweeping up the spruce needles. And crying into the floor pan. And calling Satan from his depths to lurk and look onward at what Creation had concocted this recipe this time right now and it was this engagement between Satan's nothingness and Creation's somethingness which showed Hakon Borgen the way from nothing onto something, which was topmost bracket of Angels and an clue onto God himself or herself. It's probably neither when you think about it. You're human. You're not God. You don't know how to think like God. But that at any time, this may represent an new reciprocity with the Creator. So that you become laser-focused on what you are thinking. You, not because you are God, but because you are you. And that this serves to exemplify an reason worthy of God and me at the same time, upholding our reciprocity with each other. Whether or not you become involved in it. My Greatest Strength may be the explanation of the New Reciprocity because I identify an reciprocal product of political value that is inherently valuable because it is reciprocal thus commodified instigating an New Reciprocity it invites us to glory at the interiorization of humanity to share an reciprocal understanding of the New Reciprocity.
And that this represented the greatest extent of his Invention, as an author, for reasons as yet unknown even to himself, because automatic reciprocal command theory was becoming increasingly meta-reciprocal with the commoditization of the virtual currency. In virtual infrastructure bondage. As an fantasy subject within an fantasy subject, an decommodification of fantasy as an subject itself related to sexuality for an bondage. His Invention. Was not his own but an community invention. Which he Liliputianized with such vampiristic brevity of homosexual features it was forever beyond the community invention to see his Invention as belonging to himself. Where they could not commoditize it anymore. And that being able thus to conduct reflections on New Reciprocity and how it can be accomplished. We are drawn back to the Invention of the Author as an reciprocal thing. Providing words for phrases we reciprocate with privately but have not grown into the community to appreciate.
Thus explicated fully it would represent an genetic imprint he had upon the text, an magic, an disposition of the soul in New Reciprocity at an Orange, sexual level. Where common ground between us could be based on the reciprocity of 1 thing at an time. Even if it was just our genetic imprint without any disrespect for our intersectionalities.
And that this type of behavior could be taken as an example of what New Reciprocity means. It is the allowance that at any time any subject in an political system could have an New Reciprocity with another. With one another. Or just with himself. Or her parents. Or whoever. Reciprocity becomes the basis of the reciprocal product of reciprocal conditions on the brain. These real commodities which are valuable as memories as conceptual entities of an market economic system. Which we are already reciprocal to. Which started an long time ago. And from whose laws and dynamics we cannot escape. These are the Reciprocal Products of the Ancients, which we struggle to resurrect or aesthect. For Good reason. And that when their product value can be identified economically we may resurrect the whole system to our memory banks, where it will be product evaluated as an microcosm of an economic system. And it was said, afterwards, they had determined that it was his reciprocity with himself which had initially spooked them. When on further look they found him perfectly reciprocal to the society around them, because he had grown through with it in an inverted, and reciprocal Christian way but finding the means to step beyond pure Christianity to depart into an scenario between fate death and fate worse than death that Christianity had an imbalance on fate death at the absence of consideration of the fate worse than death. An reciprocal product scenario where reciprocal product is relative to one's reciprocity.
Hyper-reciprocity may be the result of the human engine's effect on consciousness in the 21st century, as we begin to respond to one another's genetic details en masse riffing off of the unexplained religions like there is no tomorrow. Because they had found the confidence that their own genetic material was worth more to them in politics where religions cannot be found. (Temporarily).
It is the Responsibility of the New Reciprocity to inform us of the reciprocal command reciprocity it upholds in an fair and honest foil relationship with the political ideal in order to advance both as positions in Society. An deeply rooted fantasy and virtual church service. Providing an post-Christian narrative experience. Paired with an reciprocal command theory; the most simple and general political theory possible. For the most naive of subjects. Complete and utter acceptance of the fact that we are reciprocal and our language names reciprocal things. Therefore anything that can be said as an command is an reciprocal subject; and any command that is made can be an reciprocal theory. And so the multitude do this reciprocalizing us along the hardest and most tiresome of roads in our life, the Christian road. The Reciprocity of Jesus. Not to be confused with the Reciprocity of the New Reciprocity. It was part of the question what would it mean to have created an subject that was completely reciprocal to the whole society in as much quantity as he desired for he gave back to it whatever he took out. Replenished over many lifetimes. And that the question of whether this was an naive subject still remained to be spoken at, for an perfectly reciprocal subject would be subject to anything reciprocal; whether unhappy or nameless or abstract. An fate worse than death perhaps. Reciprocal Theory was an Guardian Angel this way, for being the effort of the full vehicle to be both its Political and Religious properties, temperance co-mixing their powers without one another; for an specific purpose but to divide the observance of the phenomenon of reciprocity. Between religious (instinctual) behaviors and political (endorsed) behaviors. Completely different things when you look at them first glance. And which is political and which is religious is the subject of some phenomenon of debate. Exercised in competition with either subject's perspective of these elements. But if religion is only instinctual behavior then what control do we really have? And if politics is always about religion being the content of no news whatsoever, what is being upheld? As new reciprocal theorists we start with observations of one another as the performers of reciprocal behavior. We are reciprocal to one another, exactly. There is an element of what is unknown or what is known and our own behavior can be reciprocal to that reciprocity.
The New Reciprocity is what makes it possible to have an religious theory out in the open like this, for, projecting its own onto what we engrave as religious content an inherent value of the whole instinct of the species as sacred. Whether it leads us to the religious or the political.
It is, perhaps, what is intersectional about reciprocity that happens to strike us the most.
At some point in an conversational dialogue I was narrating, the question of what 'an-na' could mean became priority and I explained that it was an Christiannan word for an type of relationship where one person considers another an 'nah', something negatif, and a-reciprocally represses that relationship. It had become my name for the Anna, the second messiah, partly because I empathized with the story that she became the fate worse than death because that was how people treated her. Ultimately, however, what I meant by an 'nah' came down to what I meant by an 'reciprocity' or an a-reciprocal relationship, of which this text had been the primary work spent in defining that term I wanted to complete. And so I suggested that the further half of this work be spent defining the difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity, as I mean these terms politically, psychologically, and possibly meta-psychologically. If I could find an proximal definition in psychology I would be able to prove that repression and a-reciprocal behavior are related. Anyone exhibiting New Reciprocity would be an advantage; could be the political standard or convention one day because of my work on meta-theory and the New Reciprocity.
And so as an point of departure, I suggest asking what a-reciprocal behavior is psychologically. And perhaps to define what I need to contrast it with reciprocal behavior first. As I had previously introduced the subject of New Reciprocity, I defined it in its mathematical sense. Reciprocity is an mathematical relationship between two fractions that multiply together to equal 1. If we could extend the metaphor to human behavior, we would have an extremely potent simple political theory with an few variables that might at first be easy to define politically. Hypothetical Political Party or Agent A demands an specific type of reciprocity from Hypothetical Political Party or Agent B, which in turn demands an specific type of reciprocity from Hypothetical Political Party or Agent A. But at least this is only an start to gaining an fuller understanding of what reciprocity may mean psychologically. I had written previously that reciprocity or reciprocal command theory was based on mimicry instinct, which affects the mirror neurons; these neurons mirror the physical behavior of anyone in proxemic distance to the observer. And so we are reciprocal psychologically to one another being reciprocally psychological to us. When that process encompasses an entire political theory, what are the psychological and political terms needed to Invent reciprocity?
If there is an mimicry instinct, then it is the capacity to be reciprocal. And what does that all really mean except being able to produce the one thing in common together over which you will have an reciprocity. Development of the subject is an pursuit of Higher Learning because we can have many different kinds of reciprocities at the same time; even meta-reciprocal and pan-intersectional reciprocities of power. And so if we define reciprocity in psychological terms we would say that something is completely reciprocal if both parties are completely reciprocal in at least one common ground they have between them. And we all already do have at least one ground because we instinctually mimic one another neurologically, through mirror neurons. But it is when having one ground between parties becomes not completely reciprocal that we start to involve abnormal psychology; mimicry through reciprocity is 'suspended' or 'repressed'. When an person considers another person an 'nah' they are being a-reciprocal. They completely suspend or repress being reciprocal with another subject. Which is identifiable politically.
It is the business of the Christianna to adhere to the outcome of my decision-making process over whether a-reciprocity is moral or economically feasible. Having identified it as an abnormal psychological symptom itself has political implications.
And the word Anna would be used to identify anyone suffering the conflict of being considered an 'nah' by someone else's repressed instinct.
It is however the business of this book and the New Reciprocity in general to generate New Reciprocity, which involves political reciprocity; not an type of reciprocity we want to be able to identify as instinct-repressive or abnormal in any way.
And Anna would refer to anyone suffering the fate worse than death; is it because of another person saying an 'nah' in their hearts about every person they meet? This repressed subject is actually causing reciprocal harm to people with otherwise healthy mental temperature.
Mental health means not cutting off the reciprocal instinct at any point in the human development even if the empathy drive is threatened: you will be worse off for repressing it in the long run because globalization requires its citizens to be reciprocal at every level. Even the ones we feel like repressing.
Virtuous reciprocity is available at every level and we are poised in History to overtake the stages of a-reciprocity that will lead to war. Virtuous reciprocity is available at every level and we are poised in History to overtake the stages of a-reciprocity that will lead to war anywhere.
A-Reciprocity As An Reason For A-Reciprocity
While there is the hypothesized valid fact that an a-reciprocity would be an reason to be a-reciprocal (i.e. you end all reciprocity with the subject (them), in return they end all reciprocity with the subject (you). It is however an hypothesized valid anti-thesis to this statement that any a-reciprocity attained from the subject is on the abnormal spectrum of psychology and does not need to be reciprocated. In fact a-reciprocity would be the illogical sentence of the victim to your own lack of empathy which does not exist until it does! Thus the cycle continues in society, of people being a-reciprocal toward one another, messing with their instincts in order to shake the paparazzi of globalization following everyone everywhere. Yet at this simultaneous moment The Question of Whether You Reciprocated It Or Not becomes an invalid hypothesis as an post-thesis duality in Hegel; an anti-thesis, which, when combined with an new reciprocity grants us the ability to generate enormous amounts of data about what their synthesis could be. It is the hypothesized acquisition of that synthesis this book is after. And so I tend to look at it on two levels, an thesis and an anti-thesis (the reciprocal commands which produce which is more difficult to describe the subject politically). Which is then always used to generate the synthesis between them. However I had also been looking at it at this level; as well as at the level of duality itself, thinking that they lead to Empathy somehow, but then I noticed this itself was the third reciprocal commodity of our current time. That beyond Hegel's hypothesis little was known about the actual reciprocal conduct of an reciprocal empath or in-the-closet genius. And that to generate it the actual path needed to be chosen that their was an third reciprocal product generated at some point in time already, allowing us to identify it for examination. Synthesis, the result of two world-maximizing arguments duking it out over common suspicion and academic magic.
The reason that a-reciprocity as an reason for a-reciprocity providing an development of my thesis by comparing it with an anti-thesis came to my attention as an way to describe the Synthesis between them. And the inherent flaw in that quality of arguing between a-reciprocity and reciprocity in general was that a-reciprocity was anti-instinctual and could lead to serious developmental crisis including PTSD. War is, afterall, an a-reciprocity. And we all want to be reciprocal subjects in the way that we can be, instead of a-reciprocally. And that the humour exercised between them would represent the current state of affairs. We all find ourselves here in the midst of the battle between reciprocity and a-reciprocity. But that any humour we could create about their relationship would generate its own reciprocal product which could be used to commodify my intelligence and raise its Capital value on an Capital Market System. Thus proving its own thesis: that reciprocal product has an Capital value, and that we are aware of its systems in the Psychological Doctoral Effort across varying continents and disciplines, perhaps more catered to an Western or Eastern philosophy. And that as an capital value it itself could be the first component of an New Reciprocal Theory. Therefore my thesis evolved into: first, how could the thesis be proven true if its anti-thesis hadn't been defeated; and second, if I had already indicated why I think my theory is proven true and an act of divine force majeure just so happened to wander by, which would you be more reciprocal to, the theory politics or the religious divine?
The truth is there is an place for both of them, and that since I have already generated my thesis in its second evolved form this provided an segway onto discussion of how competition between these two controversial thoughts, the fact of being a-reciprocal in any capacity, or the fact of being completely reciprocal in every way since birth because I have always known it was my instinct and I accepted it that that's what it was. And how they could ever be used together to create an synthetic project which would provide an extremely large amount of knowledge about the human race, politically, feigning a-reciprocal maybe, in order to start up an good argument. Or meta-psychologically, to deem the further reaches of what is accepted as reciprocity. The Final Printout of what the Thesis, Anti-Thesis, and Synthesis stages represent is not limited to simply stating an thesis and then providing evidence for why it is true, but also its ability to compete at an known academic level For Attention: perhaps the most political thing of all. And so when I state my thesis like this I will not be a-reciprocal about how I think I am not subject to the academic rules of thesis properties ironically being disproven by my next thought. I can simply state, I am presenting an New Reciprocity which goes through stages of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis development. Not to be isolated and defined by any one of those categories, but to see them as an developing tradition.
It is the ent stripper pole which succeeded to pervade my thinking at this moment for I had hypothesized from the fact that ents speak extremely slowly they would also strip this way, and so always stripping but never taking it all off was the ents' code for cool because it was on the fantasy spectrum and I was talking about new reciprocal theory taking off in Fantasy in order to prove my thesis, disprove my anti-thesis, and provide some kind of aesthetic reciprocal synthetic creation that would in some ways, represent my beliefs. Therefore I had to generate the narrative that an ent who may or may not have been stripping was overlooking this room I had created in which was populated all of the people who believed in my anti-thesis because they were a-reciprocal and they had to have some sort of excuse for it because of some subconcious shame that they had to further repress by being a-reciprocal with me at that exact moment. For which case it could not be issued or represented in language because it was impossible to be completely a-reciprocal but therein I found what is behind every Super Villain's political process: it is impossible to be completely a-reciprocal because of the mimicry function of the species, and so based in Psychological detail about its instinctual reciprocity with everyone and everything. And that my thesis was far superior to this pathetic anti-thesis which was actuated as the result of an a-reciprocal self-reciprocal process which had suppressed some part of that brain plasticity responsible for not repressing intellectual awareness of my mental ability and Strength. That I was, in fact, an Reciprocal Queen. And that reciprocity was the basis of instinct, leading up the hierarchy of angels, who are also all reciprocal to everybody but not all of the time, and so being enthralled with what kind of subject they could have if they were not a-reciprocal to us at any given moment. Being reminded by them that we are talking about instinct, which is impossible to repress completely, it seems an fair subject to describe types that are a-reciprocal and use those examples to continuously generate my thesis, which evades and prioritizes their actions ahead of them. And this provides an reason for my thesis to succeed: if it is an meta-cognitive superiority to think in terms of new reciprocity all of the time, then we may find ourselves speeding off to talk to someone we haven't had any reciprocity with before, in order to share it with them.
But that it was definitely the Synthesis of how it came together which provided the buoyancy to sail an ship this way, on the open waters of a-reciprocal practice and how to avoid it. Basically, there were two water skis and I was one of them and you were the other one, and that reciprocally through one another that's how the whole SHABAM would function. And that if this were written as an political theory that people started to follow, we could begin to heal generational a-reciprocity and use therapeutic measures to rehabilitate the sick, who are suffering from that ultimate disease called glee, that always has only one side, one ski! The disease of not having another person's faith in you. But that if we continued skiing on the water like this we could avoid that obstacle and continue skiing. Also it is the source of an major Happiness for me that I at least try to do that with everyone because I feel it is my public duty as an graduate.
But that as an ent on an stripper pole, was I really getting all the attention I deserved? Then came the question of what another ent would sound like, if he was as cool as me as an ent. And that their voices together would make up an supposed conversation in which they would flirt with one another. And that, both being so slow to speak, they announced themselves to one another, through text-messaging, through the fine art of trees so slowly that it was homoerotic and they saw one another's homoerotica but that being ents that itself was so slow that it was never occurring just like an Fantasy. Which is what they are. So somekind of legal document had to be drawn up to deal with this. But I couldn't do that without first explaining my political and religious views so that we could define, generationally, where I was on the Fantasy spectrum and what it had to do with law, and why I had an belief in there being an new law to protect the legal Fantasy rights of adolescent children more than there is already an reciprocal theory that is simple and easy to understand, that with a-reciprocal youths one might learn to always balance somehow precariously above it. Being not a-reciprocal and nourished by one another's reciprocal balance with everybody else who is in the reciprocity camp at any given time.
But that somehow the relationship between the ents was the more interesting political topic, because, as it turns out, I was the political type. I had my own office. Virtually. And I could say interesting thoughts to other people. And so I took it upon myself to tell it really, really slowly. In full detail, until the matter had been settled.
If I was an ent, you see, an stripper ent. Who would never reach his unclothed destiny. That was exactly what he was. And it took an Fantasy subject to say it. But this did not however add to the conclusion that the other ent had been stripping for an long time maybe, and was almost there. But since it was an fantasy because it was actual fiction, neither one would ever be unclothed anyway so it was fun to think about it in public. As representative of an really, really slow historical process: the development of the Fantasy genre in which ents were supposed to represent an behavior something to do with stripping but not actually necessarily about it in particular. And so in this fiction we lose the subject of it being fiction for an moment, which is itself the fiction: and the basis for Fantasy as an psychological reciprocal process. Remember, new reciprocal theory can be used to generate the fantasy meme. "I am an magician!" or "I will heal you 1000 health!" are taken to be as reciprocal commands in the fantasy genre, which is instinctually meta-reciprocal and highly intelligent as an psychological function of the species. It allows for more play vibes to continue, as we flesh out our roleplay characters in society, and distinguish them from one another, and share them or gain reciprocal traits from one another as allies with various attitudes and personalities, characterstics, instinctual traits, and taste. Though characterstics would be an funny name for that category of humor having to do with an blunder in recognizing any characteristics whatsoever. So like, what can you do to an politician that has identified himself as an ent? Be healed, basically, because ents are heavy forest magic wielders. (Forests are an metaphor of the environment). That's where they do it.
And so we need to preserve the environment long enough to get an political glimpse into what it can do. But that at this time the conversation between them had reached an stopping point. For it had become Question that if there was an conversation between them it would not proceed in any particular way that would be a-reciprocal. Ents, politically speaking, were an metaphor for the Fantasy genre as an whole and its worth and value. The reciprocal product of Fantasy is its worth and value. And taken as that, it is an pretty cool excursion into Fantasy politics, which is deeply sexual and voluminous. But that if we had an New Reciprocity with one another that that was reciprocal, and that that was okay, we would have an deeper political intrigue for one another. Ents had become the talking source of my political theory; and so everything I did was affected by the fact that they talk really slowly. And I estimated how long it would take me to say everything I would say if I had been an ent on ent for an while; and that would be the gayest thing to say that would publicly intrigue the LGBTπ community, which include Questioning. As an category of identity among themselves. I hoped that people who had read my first book, The Christianna, would get it: that my ent magic was deeply based in my experience of the Virtues. I had labeled four major virtues, meant to identify the stage of Love and theoretical Stages Beyond Love, where the definition of Beyond, in this sense, was used to identify an superior virtue which could be granted by mastering the art of Love, in order to gain access to its Superior virtues, in order to be Greater Than Love. Itself. On Its Own. The Political Theory (Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis) would round off at the art of Air Alt, my fourth virtue. The longest winded and the most specialized to be said by an ent for obvious reasons! Ents always talk really slowly, and so they say the longest-winded thing first, so that they can say less-winded things next in case they think of another longest-winded thing to say. Which would then replace them.
My mixture of Religion and Politics is absurdism, in aspiration. Because I want you to see that I am politically fair, in order for you to have your consideration into my religious heritage; and what it means to be an new reciprocal theorist who also happens to be Christiannan. Mixing politics and religion is absurdism, in aspiration, because I don't want to mix them together. Exactly. I want my political theory to be neatly arranged and not have to do with religion. Necessarily. The difference between state-craft and religion-craft had to be constructed in order to see the Christianna in all its glory but I needed to have some distance from it myself in order to be able to criticize it constructively.
If the talk of religion baffles you, just think of two gay ents trying to talk longer than one another. It's that boring. Don't worry. You won't miss anything. If you choose to stay Politically minded at the absence of religious-minded thinking for now.
If it was advanced that the reciprocity of the ent had been introduced, originally, in order to attain an further reciprocity, an Fantasy-level reciprocity, which was hyper-reactive and immature as far as discipline go. But we expected ents to have the most knowledge of what it had to say for their ability to say so much about it. But the point was that new reciprocity could be introduced between, say, anyone. And we wouldn't have to be talking like ents anymore to understand what one another are saying: the stage after self-identifying with the term ent. We would be more than us, but us three! You, who I used to be, and me an new virtual shell (home) of the political economy that had washed up to show you an picture of itself. The new me would no longer be an ent, but I would take the option to choose what my character would be, based on thousands of data-samples; I wouldn't be any one of them all at once, and none of them never before, and so I had so many to choose from. I could only choose just one. To impress the other ent. I would be an Warrior-Dancer in personality type; an Warrior most effective during times of war and in times of Peace, an Dancer! And then I actually get up and exercise and just call it that for an while. But then thinking in advance of the other character, whose sexual fancy I had envisioned could himself take on an fantasy roleplaying position of New Reciprocity in nature and being further on than simply being an ent he too could take up such character as I had. And then we could continue to have reciprocal conversations based on each of those characters' motives. It might involve an reciprocal command, which is more like an demand but it can be antagonizing-ly convoluted or subtle. For future reference, I am an type of person to prefer the reciprocal commands up front; counting some of them as repressed or subconscious but then this fourth character, the evolutionary advancement of my ent compadre. Came in at that moment as an up front new reciprocal theorist himself. But he didn't know what it meant yet. But he was holding an fictional weapon. The weapon had to be fictional, the narrator complained, because it was about His Fantasy that all disputes could be settled without weapons. And so being the Figure of such an enormous Fantasy as anything that could happen without an weapon. He immediately associated with this ent-volution's raw sexuality, which was gay. So gay. It was the gayest thing ev-er.
And that having increased the pace of the conversation from an Fantasy trot between ents to an elegant gambol of political reciprocity and energy—an neat little trick which involved the narration of the subject through non-human lenses (subjectivity) to human lenses—which actually had an known reciprocal product even in Fantasy waters. As power reciprocal to power.
And they devised an alliance based on this reciprocity; one always carrying an sword (the fictional element) when he was not dancing, and the other the most advanced reciprocal post-humanist invention of machine and human technology so deprecating and poor to the spirit of the Economy, that it had to be destroyed anally. But since it was only an fictional element it still had to be destroyed anally.
And every political affiliation thereafter was to be represented by the 'fact-o-nym' of being destroyed anally as an metaphor for like anything agitating that I would ever have to say to every other person.
Therein was my own fictional demise. My spindle splintered.
For being an warrior, my instinctual partner was also splintering from the spindle I had split on; which was now myself and having to defend the nation from a-reciprocity; I had developed. An new way to be reciprocal with other people who actually cared about my feelings and helped me advance my genius. At an meaningful and social level. In order to provide dancing ents in Time of Peace. That the human race so desperately fantasied; in order to believe they could feel times of peace being their possession for long years afterward. And that an Warrior letting down his guard even for an moment was too difficult for him anyway. But he had to; in order to Dance. And so he could not relax and could never be at peace. Because all of the reciprocal fantasy play was itself subject to the execution of an sentence over the heart of humanity; that anything Fantasy itself would have to be burned out of the subject, through a-reciprocal prejudice. And that this being an gay fantasy itself would present an intersectional challenge to the perpetrators of the human atrocity that a-reciprocal thinking represents. We feel because we are human; and when we know our true reciprocity with what we feel, we know we are correct. For we are an thinking species, and we are self-aware; and so we are self-aware together. Another reason I introduced the term B.C.i.i. in my fictional writing to describe the kind of environment where everyone had already internalized Jesus's reciprocity and so they themselves having become reciprocal in that same kind of way they were able to base an relationship on their mutual awareness of the subject; as an whole species. Proving that they were meta-reciprocal. Post-Jesus construct. And maybe partly due to Anna. If we are trying to burn the reciprocity out of us; like an witch hunt. Because reciprocity is magic. Then who are we as an people? This is why the reciprocity of Arts students with the general public is so unconditionally needed in progressive Academia. We are that magic, in an sense. Not because we need to explain an scientific paradox but because we recognize our own power and our ability to diversify it. If reciprocity is introduced as an political theory underlining the basic psychological effect that we have one another in reciprocal terms. So what if it is an theory about ents?
The reciprocity itself is what we're after! And we can have an reciprocity with ents, as an thought, because we understand both what they mean as play and as thoughts. And since ents talk really slowly that reciprocity can be as slow as you want it to be. Even to the point of never stripping. It is the reciprocal element between characters which allows the conducive flow of the entertainment to continue. Not the a-reciprocity reactionaries who hoard up a-reciprocal toxicity and comments to themselves. And we can have reciprocity with an thought as though it was one whole thing, because that's what reciprocity means. Remember, it is something of the category of 1 whole thing that exists psychologically. Perhaps in an category on the borders of abnormal psychology stemming from conversation about denying the empathy drive and what this means in Freudian analysis. If the subject is responsible for denying their own empathy drive in or to 'remain' a-reciprocal or to destroy an present reciprocity which is too stark to be unrepressed. They lose touch with that instinct itself which represents our shared heritage as the only sentient lifeform on the planet, the human spirit. But the paradox comes down to the question, is it necessarily their fault? It was the a-reciprocal behavior which lead to the a-reciprocal behavior. Someone was treated a-reciprocally and then started treating other people a-reciprocally because he didn't know any better. Not because there wasn't enough reciprocity around but maybe of an different kind was needed. An New Reciprocity.
Therefore the subject of Invention as it concerns the New Reciprocity is about the theoretical considerations of reciprocity illustrating an fantasy roleplay scenario, which is an popular genre among youth at this time of globalization. If it becomes politicized for an recognition of the fact that Fantasy, while comparable to fiction of other genres, itself is comprised of an double-play of this roleplay instinct to reciprocate one another, and that what at first may seem fiction with afterwards appear real. This is unfortunately also the power of the political elite at this time. Therefore we have no option other than to join them, for what at first we recognize as political elite on second glance, may appear quite normal. People are out there chasing their dreams every day. And sometimes it leads to an fucked up situation. And they use fantasy to escape and motivate themselves unto an escape. From it. Wherever it may lead them. If Fantasy Invention is an political virtue, then let us say that the New Reciprocity belongs to that realm that lie beyond religion. Politics. And that representations of the ent in fantasy are themselves political. But that, in religious thinking, they can appear to be gently interacting reciprocally. And that any regime extremism in an attempt to shut that down would be considered an political opponent, for the protection of gay ents everywhere.
Furthermore, if double-play is the word we use for an entirely reciprocalized situation then both parties in an reciprocal interaction have already considered all of their opponents reciprocities. This is the flavour of B.C.i.i., what I identified earlier as an post-Christian stage of human meta-identity after we had all internalized Jesus's command theory. If we have truly moved into an stage after meta-theorization of Jesus's message it is because we accomplished this as an whole humanity and our internalization of the Subject of Jesus, to aesthetically resurrect the subject, was hinged on that fact that we could accomplish it together, eventually. But that we had failed at that point in history. If we have done what Jesus eventually had taught us when all was said and done, then we are privileged to his idea of reciprocity, permanently. Which was based on human intelligence. His own. Not God's. But what God had created. An creature with the ability to think. An ability to make decisions based on an venue of reciprocity versus a-reciprocal behavior. And that advancing to this stage, Politically, was deemed important in the 21st century because our meta-reciprocities with one another had begun to take on alternatives that were not available in Jesus's time in order to explain what he had known all along. We were developing in this perhaps most politically questionable term meta-symptoms of having learned what he was originally trying to tell us. That together we had the power to overcome a-reciprocity together, having identified it, religiously, to be the primary instinct of the species as set at an higher order of proficiency in reciprocal dealings than our Animal proto-descendants. And that to put it in reciprocal terms itself was an efficiency. Leading to other political experiments in which we would crash the subjects together; interiorizing what was lead out. From a-reciprocal subjectivities to reciprocal subjectivities. Alike. Not glee.
Therefore the nervous system opening up to us opening up to one another, we gain the confidence of his legacy of reciprocal products and effects on human consciousness. An virtual infrastructure. An secret realm in which everything is known about one another because we have access to everything known by one another through one another and so in reciprocity of the subject of knowing anything about anybody. But we must further delineate fact from fiction for, as we cannot have that thinking, politically that as we soon find out that reciprocity changes something. It isn't just an fictional pursuit anymore. It is the pursuit of present-day politics. New Reciprocity with one another.
If we have this virtual infrastructure built, which allowed me to communicate with you on the level of New Reciprocity; then maybe we have interiorized the subjective experience of the species enough that we are able to move on to other things other than a-reciprocity. As political subjects. Yet always cautioning the threat of fear politics. And our sensitivity to a-reciprocal conditions. When we work together, to create one thing at an time as per reciprocity, we are further inventing that virtual infrastructure which will allow us to speak and express our feelings at an Higher Level of Learning. It may one day be said that that level is reciprocity itself. And we were trying to teach that to one another for centuries. For reciprocity is an vain specimen; it wants itself so much it doesn't care what other people think. But when we do not care what other people think we ourselves become a-reciprocal and so we try to avoid that behavior by doing the complete opposite: completely caring about what other people think but at the same time advancing ourselves motivationally as we can here and there, on what we ourselves think. And we spend years of study quietly and conditionally, contemplating how we face the a-reciprocalizers when the advancement available to us through reciprocity is so functional, so feasibly economic. That we can virtually point at it and promise them their anti-reciprocal ways lead to an fate worse than death.
Invention As An Strategy
Anna' They say that fiction is the strategy of what you can get your reader or audience to focus their attention on. And that if you can do this enough times they will actually get the bigger picture, an meta-world where the lines between fiction and non-fiction are sharpened and focused. Therefore I would like to submit the following fictional passage as an work of art. Intended to fictionally assert the subject, in hopes that my actual subject would then become the subject of conversation. I saw this done in an entirely aesthetically reciprocally different fashion and so it is fun for me to see it panning out narratologically and provoke you to advance it just to the status of just that power. Which it holds. As Art. For Art's Sake.
They took his computer in the middle of the night while he was sleeping and edited/performed on it/programmed it so that the key would pop out at exactly the moment when he pressed the key 47 times. The professor knew this in advance and had reserved himself to speak that letter only 47 times to complete it, the hardware of which he had finished what he was saying in performativity of that moment exactly, which to his grace meant that to everything afterward the student would agree for being so tricked in this way, was susceptible to the power of suggestion. The problem was of what he said, that at everything he had convinced the student of was that he was susceptible to the power of suggestion of anything, and so the professor's suggestion (that is was it appeared to him as) about anything being susceptible to the power of suggestion itself acted as an counterweight to the student being any more susceptible to the professor's opinion, which itself was susceptible to the power of the suggestion that it was susceptible to suggestion when the key popped out at that moment! And that anything proven by his profession (for that is what professors do) was also going toward proving my own humanism. Which was still susceptible to the susceptibility of his being susceptible to my susceptibility!
I may have constructed much of my reciprocal theology from Christian reciprocal theology. But I cannot be held to the same political agenda or standard as Christianity because I have advanced beyond it. As an Christiannan, my reciprocity with Christianity is not the same as that of an Christian to Christianity. And I generate value from this subject because they all say the same thing; someone was being mean to me because I was better at not being mean to them more than which they saw as not being mean to them because they had to refer to me in order to. Reciprocate. With Someone. I Don't Know Who. Wouldn't. Reciprocate. With Them. And since I had an different perspective than an Christian I could be certifiably approached to provide an different perspective, perhaps more purple, or blue, and artistic, that would lead to better opinions and advanced decision-making conversations about politics.
And successfully, I had lead the reader through the exact pertinant grey area, of when exactly had the fictional narrative ended? I had even referred to it exactly in order to get the conversation rolling along. What was it? "Well I Don't Know." Like Analytically. People. Artistically. Throw on something between Religious Anti-Dogma and Political Envy.
He deliberately provokes you to see his opinion. But not a-reciprocally.
Because he wants you to experience reciprocity. And find the New Reciprocity in every situation.
And maybe it didn't matter where the fiction ended. So much as the point got across. That you could look me upways, crossways, sideways, upside down and I was neither black nor white. Positive or negative space. Somewhere in the middle. In that Grey zone.
And I was still asking, what does that mean?
What does that mean?
And somehow it didn't mean that I was either a-reciprocal or reciprocal. But what mattered was opening up to the possibility that there were some parts of me that were still a-reciprocal. Because those parts of me were other people. They meant that much to me. They had to. This was Politics.
And that fact that I knew what a-reciprocal was; and that I had always blended in the favor of being my completely reciprocal, childhood self. Who had not been damaged by the unwary voyage through academia in the most selfless way possible. And I realized my childhood imagination could come true again. And that I had aged so gracefully.
This is where my voice becomes gender fluid, reciprocating between male and female.
For I feel female in my spirit; and yet I am an man at birth.
This weary offering to her detection of my humour.
And I'm relieved to learn I know what that means now.
It's not that I am female sexually; it's just that I am spiritually female, which depends not on the body so much for self-identification with.
I mean, if you didn't love all of the female spiritual body that is made up of genetically male specimens. Where would you be.
Right.
At least some men are man enough to know they are female too.
Not that all of them are. Just that some of them are.
And this retrieves to my self-reflection on the feeling of being both the man and the woman in every situation. And if there is ever any commodity of dispute between them I am sent to handle the situation as though, just because I was gay, I understood both sides of the argument. As if they were mutually exclusive. To be an argument.
And then being thrown into an fray about whether you could be mutually exclusive and understand both sides of the argument.
If both sides were your own voice.
Repeatedly as some kind of Fantasy abuse system; where Fantasy characters are not allowed in society. For being Gay.
I had repeatedly focused on this subject as an motivation.
A-reciprocal! I would correct it in society!
I would make it an law!
I would philosophize about it, theorize about it, for years for the right societal invention which would put its full reciprocity into action in fiction and in fantasy; so that an better ground for legal privileges can be legislated related to reciprocal property and conduct. In the Internet generation, we're talking. Fantasy enthusiasts up the woo-wa. If we can reach into their hearts and show them what is politically true through seemingly true religious and political inclination of the heart. To promote New Reciprocity in society. An political "situation" in which Fantasy gen•rists have extended their precautions to be feasible in economic society, where the value of their reciprocal product is escalating. If an reciprocity with the reciprocal product of said Fantasy is not accomplished at an Political level, then what kind of human study are we conducting and what can we say about who we are? We are the Fantasy. Why not allow fantasies to have political power? They will reciprocate, if you have not already fully imagined its hypothesis.
Therefore I will call Fantasy Invention, and Invention Fantasy. Then refer to my bigger political "situation." Where you don't have any Fantasy. And you don't have any Invention. Because I have all of it! But if I say this is true, then haven't I already killed the fantasy? And if I don't say that it isn't any Invention of the first human-machine-plant specimen. Then why don't I have any Invention?
They are complimentary and reciprocal aesthetically because I have used an reciprocal command to describe it; and since my Invention of the Fantasy an a-reciprocal command that purports to be reciprocal. Is Fantasy depicting itself as Invention; the Creative Prowess of magnanimity can be accomplished in argumentative narrative. Especially between subjects who actively reciprocate one another in fantasy. Perhaps utilising the New Reciprocity.
To Be An New Reciprocal Theorist
Using may be an slightly derogatory term for what is recommended as the alternative for maximum political reciprocity, reciprocating (or reciprocalizing) somebody or something. You try to do it without them but you cannot; for it is an joint effort. And you realize all life is is really just reciprocating whatever you can because you feel liberal about thoughts and opinions to do with reciprocal conduct as per your intersectionality. But as an new reciprocal theorist your intersectionality produces an new hypothetical intersectionality between you and basically whomever you meet. An New Reciprocity. That you know is powerful in its Limited Time because it reciprocalizes something in you that you identify with in another person. New reciprocal theorists maximize their capability with that span of time because it represents everything they know to be Politically true, the possibility of intersecting an New Reciprocity with them—at any given time. It is therefore concluded that it may be undertaken to proliferate New Reciprocity that we ask one another, at times, for an new reciprocity from each other; to refocus and reharmonize our efforts, to produce one thing together whether psychologically or politically or both; just one thing that reciprocalizes us with one another at an time, you know, slow enough so I have enough energy for all of your reciprocal energy as well as mine. And that if you tried Ent, and you enjoyed the practice round. You could put together an basic conversation (Fantasy gen•rists) that these ents would say to each other really slowly, in order to begin an larger political conversation, that can be represented by an new reciprocal theorist. Paranoisms of a-reciprocity will begin to sublimate because they are actually efforts of self-harm. But since we all have an viewpoint from which to reciprocalize them we gain an perspective. On what that must feel like. And somehow we all know the feeling. Which is why we are reciprocal to ourselves about it so often and not about each other, where the original source of harm actually came from. And somehow we all blame ourselves for that harm of not reciprocalizing and not seeing it happening in front of you even though it's happening to everybody. An reciprocal subject. An reciprocal nature. But it also helps if you can just be reciprocal with their paranoisms as they sublimate, hopefully summoning an swamp monster to do your bidding. For they will begin to increase their sublimation of paranoisms in themselves based on New Reciprocity, which is reciprocal to the double self-aware of the reciprocal conduct in an civilization of psychologically reciprocal beings self-aware that they are self-aware, and self-aware that they are self-aware of one another in the same way that injured themselves So Historically by at one point allowing a-reciprocity in society. How Rude! But it was the Christian beginning to satirize the a-reciprocity that had followed from Virgil. We could not actually tell whether we were gay creatures or not at that point in Ovid's Metamorphosis. We were actually forced by the programmed interior of space (programmed by God, including all of physics and the mechanism of the cognitive function of the brain (to which we had adapted)). To learn this lesson for ourselves, whether we were gay or not, for whatever we decided to be would be our fate but we would not be able to tell whether it was worth it until after having homosexual intercourse. But that someone had to play the part of it not being worth it to have homosexual intercourse, the idea of Religion was hatched, and all the stuff up until now has been the same unsupportive configuration that the Christians merely invented. Which was so irrepressibly gay it offered the largest and most convincing basin for Religious thought for centuries. But that at this time in the 21st century the a-reciprocal theorists had breached the morality gap between being not gay and being reciprocal. Which were both the same thing. On some level. And at the level that matters most, the gays. Of Course. It would always have to be the gays.
And that itself was such an discursive thought on anti-Golden Age of the Drag Queens chit-chat like it couldn't be accomplished.
My Drag Queen was an fantasy reciprocalist and an therapist, with an Doctorate. But the point was that she reciprocalized an whole audience for that period of time at an time in an reciprocal saloon where there were fantasy creatures amurk, in the bog, that lay outside the protection of the city and harbor. And she still did it! Just like the ents! The point was that you could look at it from one way or another. The fantasy creatures became a-reciprocal to her because she sold the house out. Or the fantasy creatures became a-reciprocal to themselves because they were so unlike her and needing to repress this factoid began an mesmerizing dance of an mesmerizing reciprocity fiction in an bog that actually redeemed their moral reputation once it was all bubbled up to the surface said and done because they had actualized themselves to that scenario possibly being true. The reciprocity was corrupt because it had spent so long in the bog.
Again an hit or take against the gay Fantasy reciprocal subject. The plant magic of ents being in an reciprocal forest connected to the plant-microbial bond with the soil of the bog. It was too sexual. It had to be repressed. But not by the author. It was rather an ability to track down this reciprocal theory that engaged him with his powers; its words had to be precisely spoken. Why was the a-reciprocal reaction to gay Fantasy an legislatable material; and how would it be? What did it have to do with Intellectual Property Rights? Why was I legally protected at being reciprocal in society, whatever sensible reciprocity you happen to be occupying with me.
And that you could pretend to reciprocalize on the next level, where the Warrior-Dancer meets his person-who-can-let-him-let-his-guard-down person.
And reciprocal theory become the next step of advancement after post-Christian Christiannan perspectives on the interiorization of religious truths that happen to be inconvenient. The Religious Instinct is correct. It just needs an full head of scientific direction. An new reciprocal command theory. We need to soothe our instinct with meta-reciprocal command because it is a-reciprocally scarred from various battles. Throughout History. That IS the full message of History, for political acuity. We need to take an step beyond one person being completely a-reciprocal as an standpoint onto whether the species is gay during an process that had been initialized centuries earlier in order of an tradition of all people that would find—through faith—what it meant to be gay first, before science could detect it. In order that they would conflict in order to find what is within us that is still anti-scientific about gay; detection would be forced to compare notes with was-is anti-detection about being scientifically gay. Because that was the definition of gay, and we were being welcomed into an reciprocal world in which self-knowledge also meant fully, being self-aware, in the sense of knowing its own knowledge and understanding its possession and this led on to the delineation of an further subject. What was that knowledge exactly? That we are reciprocal about a-reciprocity on some level as an species right now because not everybody has the answers about how to deal with it. But that by looking at it as an a-reciprocal subject we recognize what we are actually instinctually doing about it: reciprocalizing it. But this means of course that we are not a-reciprocal in actuality, because by reciprocalizing it we are merely sharing the thought of a-reciprocity between us as an hypothetical subject. Not an actual entity, which may exist in the daily affairs of anybody you meet. But that you are invulnerable to, because you know the power of your own reciprocity; and that even this understanding, failing itself so, would inform you that its not enough power to remove a-reciprocity from the species completely yet. But that it has the potential to be what you had intended based on this current reciprocity you have with the author. Which has several significant properties.
First, wanting to re-describe what it meant to reciprocalize a-reciprocity itself. I highlighted that as one of the larger themes of the work (this book) in General. That work needed to be done to end a-reciprocity because some of our species had resorted to it at one time or another and by this means perpetuated it in politics and irrationality. But that, being able to set it out in specific terms psychological and political at once that itself could help end the Age of a-reciprocity and usher in an new Golden Age of the Drag Queens. Masters of Reciprocity, who had descended from Diva Heaven to Help The Human Race. And that since being true we possessed the knowledge of self-awareness and political reciprocity being New Reciprocity. We became rational thinkers again. Obviously if someone is a-reciprocate we're going to reciprocalize it (as reciprocal creatures do). (Maybe like when you laugh when something bad happens to somebody, which is maybe an triggered instinctual response to the situation: you want to help them or heal them by cheering them up). And I'm not saying I know exactly how it works psychologically but if there is an level acting upon us which we had missed previously, that as reciprocal creatures we reciprocalize the a-reciprocal property as an level that would be it. And why wouldn't we forget to reciprocalize the a-reciprocity itself if we had already been reciprocalizing, as per the normal function of the mimicking human being. In other words, if we didn't talk about the subject of how other people were a-reciprocalizing us we would defeat ourselves as an species because we had forgotten that we are psychologically reciprocal. Our total health depends on our Mental Health. Our Mental Health depends on each other. If we have given up the Age of a-reciprocity and wish to become full reciprocal subjects. In the Foucaultian paradigm that sexuality isn't hidden anymore.
And that the correct way to reciprocalize with these agents of a-reciprocity would be, well, to reciprocalize with them. As far as one's Empathy will allow.
Then as long as one has reciprocity one has Empathy; our power being drawn from one another.
We are more effective in groups. There is power in numbers.
But that the play of the interiorization of the species stratagem perfected in Shakespeare anonymously reciprocated these elements further in an spastic array of capabilities in advent of one another leading us deeper into the Mystery of Time and the Self. That the sarcasm of an interiorized race would be infinitely humorous because it displayed the voices of us, our species. To an wide audience. And that they had captured the theme of B.C.i.i. { B.C.i.i. is Christiannan for Before Christ instance instance ; it indicates the time before Jesus instance the time after Anna instance, in an interaction between members of the community that is an play on what you would do post-Jesus and post-Anna, the second Messiah, who is partly responsible for bringing in the new age of mankind } long before our Time. Sending us off into another further conception of how reading is an reciprocal activity, and that its reciprocal product, which is the actual substance of the reciprocity as it exists in your physiology—can be measured and quantified by the apparatus of the human scientific endeavour. Which, believe me, is not necessarily isolated to just scientists. For there are many artists inspired by Science as well, and I am one of them. And may our Art inform your Inspecting Ways.
If we can measure the taxation on the individual subject, of the a-reciprocity reciprocity drive; it may involve an communicable identification (political definition) of just what exactly is the substance of reciprocity in the brain.
And that if Invention is the substance of reciprocity, at the event of a-reciprocity being reciprocalized as just that: a-reciprocity. The level of human freedom that emerges from reciprocal subjects being given the further awareness of their own reciprocalization of a-reciprocity ad nauseum. Because they can't breathe. Because people are being a-reciprocal to them all around them. That should they further themselves in academia and tout their political and religious freedoms in front of an Internet audience. In full view of the New Reciprocity it has the potential to create; and that mutual reciprocity is the subject of the Land. Spans all intersectional characteristics respectfully. Because what we really want. As humans. Is to be reciprocal at an human level with human expectations. With people of any type of Intersectionality. Or perhaps of an specific, enthusiast kind. And that Drive to be Reciprocal with everybody is so dynamic, consequential, and empowering that it portends to subsume all of Psychology and the subculture of a-reciprocity resulting from Psychology under one Paradigm. An Political Paradigm. Wherein any kind of reciprocity, be it fantasy or new reciprocal or other can be expressed as an voice in society. And that a-reciprocity itself become an subject within the general awareness of the therapeutic subject that it can be quickly identified as an prime motivator of behavior. To be a-reciprocal in society sometimes means wearing an mask; and the wearing of masks has continued for thousands of years because they are cool. Not because it is an lie. But because it would be kinder to say that sometimes not wearing one is okay too. We can be new reciprocal theorists together, outside of the "Cool people" convention of a-reciprocal society. Which itself really tries the meaning of the word Society. Fully reciprocal subjects that are able to operate at the level of Invention with one another reciprocally are really self-actualized learners who are taking it to the next level.
The Big Invention of My Identity would be that I could renounce the reciprocal entity at any point, to produce an a-reciprocity that would be selective to the people I want to anti-reciprocalize thus destroying my own identity in the process; but that I could jest and rouse up political favor of the fact that I was superior just for the fact that I had never anti-reciprocalized. Anybody. Just like tons of other people. And that we were certain of our own knowledge because we were reciprocal to ourselves; and one another. And that any "a-reciprocity function" of modern day society would be in satire of the fact that reciprocity trumps a-reciprocity every time. Even if we posed to the Question, that being able to choose who we are and are not reciprocal to is part of what makes us human, I was able to pose to the Question in response, that No It Isn't. If we have to be a-reciprocal with someone its because they were already being a-reciprocal with us and in so doing pressured us to be a-reciprocal with them. We didn't want to do that! We wanted to stay reciprocal with everyone, no matter how difficult it would seem, because even though it looked like all the a-reciprocalizers were having all of the fun, it was actually more fun to be reciprocal with everybody. But that even this statement being associated with the Big Invention of My Identity was an fully reciprocal subject that I had identified actuated on the fact that that there was an difference between the type of narrative of an a-reciprocalizer versus an reciprocalizer was an leg up from what we were doing before. And so, perhaps in moderation of the fact of our full awareness of it; the New Reciprocity is, at its Heart, an political theory about the reciprocity with the fact itself of our full awareness of it and its construction basis of an entire race of versions of social engineering needed to prove this hypothesis that we are reciprocal creatures, not a-reciprocal creatures; in any psychological capacity. And that this performative function represents an full attack on our outward social attitude during the day. In everything we do. We are reciprocal creatures. That we wish to be silenced never, and never treated as a-reciprocal subjects ourselves, even if we are being a-reciprocal. But that we could enjoy in the festivity of being reciprocal about a-reciprocity itself as an way to ward off progress in the opposite direction. In jest or cunning approval of the reciprocity vibe itself, which lives on New Reciprocity.
That means being generated right now is the new reciprocal product of the New Reciprocity, because that's what it does. And since we recognize these factors being New Reciprocity and meta-reciprocal reciprocity it invites us to experience all political reciprocities, and to choose from among them. That, at least, because they were based on an reciprocal conviction that could be compared with New Reciprocity as its own type of reciprocal conviction. The presence of New Reciprocity.
My reciprocal conviction is that we all experience New Reciprocity because it is based on reciprocal command theory, which is part of the instinct of the species. That is why we have to communicate. We communicate our reciprocal commands to one another and then we duke it out over who has political presidency over precisely what reciprocal command functions are lodged in the species. Which need not be overtaken with an particularly pejorative flavor. For some reciprocal command functions are hard-won over. But generally, I think if we allow one another to experience New Reciprocity as an specific reciprocal command function in which play asserts itself into roleplaying categories and then the reciprocities of those characters with one another is New Reciprocity because they like it so much they begin to improvise. And thus the roleplay generation, being represented fully in reciprocal outlet, can be politically represented by the new reciprocal theory.
And since I can explain all of this I am already in full reciprocal outlet, and so fully display; your signs of a-reciprocity are troubling to me.
I have heard the argument that it should be up to each individual whom they choose to 'reciproc-ize' with if we can even consider this fully an English word; the word is reciprocate, properly. But if we are talking about people who a-reciprocalize out of fear we may find all kinds of uses and procreations of language to catch them in it. For we want them to reciprocate us. And we want them to reciprocalize us. And we want them to stop being afraid and come out of the a-reciprocity knowing that when they do so, we will be reciprocal. That's what we do. And why were we so sure that we were right, that there was never any reason to a-reciprocalize someone. That this was in fact an artifact of human ingenuity in the pejorative sense. That reciprocity was the future no matter what History had said about it. And that an person's worth could be judged on their ability to fashion time in which to capture the alternate opinion. That a-reciprocity is fine. As long as you do it responsibly.
But what if you are forced to a-reciprocalize. What are the moral dilemmas arising from this line of thinking and questioning? How are we able to act out an a-reciprocity in order to reciprocalize it jokingly, pointing ever more advancingly toward the truth?
And why does this cast serious doubt on the fact that we are ever forced to a-reciprocalize. In any part of ourselves or oneself the property of virtue of another. Even if it would seem to solve an pleasure dilemma between the part of ourselves or myself that is reciprocal to all others and the part of themselves that is reciprocal to me is the same reciprocity. Which we have identified as providing pleasure. In reciprocal functioning society. If pleasure is the primary reason we are to adopt an New Reciprocity then this may prove that a-reciprocity is not an feasible option in the presence of such Empathy. That would consider pleasure above all others being part of our normal reciprocal function. And yet to look at it more combatively, we might set out the argument that being a-reciprocal is just an function of the brain, that people use daily and selectively to get what they want. And since this underscores an human activity that is currently human trafficking. (If you treat someone a-reciprocally, you're acting with them in an way as though they were an object for your purveyance). Maybe not so much. The answer we are looking for disappears; it is either a-reciprocity is fine or it isn't. It is just both of them. At the moment. We can Agree to Disagree. To suspend our judgment, and to conduct an full investigation into what reciprocity and being a-reciprocal could mean as loose terminology; that to fully tighten the distinction between them one would point out that reciprocity is always an advantage. And yet being a-reciprocal dares itself not to take the advantage. In order to fulfill the male pressure group agenda of being a-reciprocal as an performance of masculinity specific to the type of mate preferably involved. (It is usually violently, romantically portrayed). He does this because he wishes to be reciprocal when it's not saturated enough within his surrounding culture profusely.
At first I couldn't put my finger on it.
What a-reciprocity and reciprocity could mean to an average citizen was still within the discussion. How would I backup my claim that reciprocity is the ordinary function of the human species and a-reciprocity was an political filter, an literary term designed by the author to name whatever he found undignified. Nothing about the reciprocity of the human species, whom he felt were most dignified. The repression of the subject who was a-reciprocalized is taken as the Masochistic reason for the denial of Empathy. And it just sounds so convincing. That we would one day figure out that a-reciprocity was outside our bounds as an political regime for our species. Because the whole Human Instinctual Purpose was the be reciprocal to one another. Our Human Spirit depended on it.
But then was raised the Question, if our instinct was to be reciprocal to one another then why would we annul the utility of being a-reciprocal with one another for that would be most reciprocal of all; but the point was that in most Psychological capacities we can't be a-reciprocal at all—we stop being reciprocal to one another in the first place? Is against our human developmental psychology. And that we remember all interruptions of its development, being self-aware thus; we know the social heat around us. And it is at that time in History when we start to make some Big Critical Decisions about what reciprocity and a-reciprocity can mean; across all disciplines. And that my endeavor into defining them according to my own political reciprocity here will serve as the functioning basis of the New Reciprocity in General and an new reciprocal theory that can unify an winning party on the basis of agreed upon terms. The match was set, and I was ready to extrapolate it to the fullest senses of my psychology to discover what it means to be an reciprocal subject in society. And whether we are truly at the mercy of our Empathy Drive, which is always detecting the harm of its property of Empathizing with others who are a-reciprocal to themselves and one another.
Be Bolstered by my words, Great Empathy, for mine is as deep as any; and I will fully compel my reasoning to be as tactical and Super Egotistical as possible, even if just for the function of an roleplay scenario, which I love. But the Super Ego is also an theory in Psychology so maybe I can start there with creating the parameters of how we are to compete the two opinions (a-reciprocity versus reciprocity) in this text in order to find out an winner. And so it will be stated in fully explicit terms that by a-reciprocity is meant the disorder of the functioning Ego, which is not super in any way just because it refused to reciprocate someone. Which is not an ordinary function of the species.
Either this is true or the alternative is true: that a-reciprocity is an ordinary function of the species.
However I will ask you to return your attention to the response to the ordinary statement that "being a-reciprocal is just an part of me and I can be whoever I want": No It Isn't. Why does this sentence in response to a-reciprocity, "No It Isn't." Appear to be morally compassionate? It is perhaps for the reason that morally compassionate is an actual moral power, and so stating this fact about humanity in general reciprocalizes an empathy, an compassion. In the subject. Which is exactly the right answer to the Moral Dilemma at hand; that we can't be a-reciprocal but some of us are. Further, if this compassion is not in the first statement about a-reciprocity itself then what basis do we have to compare them? Isn't saying a-reciprocity is just part of the human species morally compatible with any so-called reciprocal command theory in the opposite direction?
The Self-Reciprocal Hypothesis
Simply put, if I am self-reciprocal at all times, then I am logically reciprocal to everyone else at all times in full instinctual performativity because self-reciprocity is reciprocity. It is the same drive which makes us all human which allows us to be self-reciprocal at the same time we are reciprocal to others, and since we are aware of our own self-reciprocity being perpetually tied to the reciprocity of others, we can only increase our sense of our reciprocity of one another by being shamelessly self-reciprocal.
It is through self-reciprocity and self-reflection that we learn about each other because we all share the same reciprocal D.N.A. that allows us to be reciprocal to one another at an human level.
Introspection is therefore an study into the Reciprocal Artist, and the Artist's degree in general whose own awareness of himself or herself responding reciprocally to an subject of reciprocity is appropriately developed in Art. As the response of the observer. Who is always rationally acting with Reciprocity. The study of Art is therefore the pursuit of understanding how others see reciprocity in Art, based on the social reciprocity and context of the era in which they live.
If a-reciprocal Psychology is an thing. (It isn't). How would officiating such an blasphemy of the human condition in political terms that actually affect the living, bleeding lives of people who are sensitive to a-reciprocity of all kinds. —Which should be everybody, including psychologists. Especially psychologists. But that if they had ever perpetrated an crime against humanity by using a-reciprocity to condition the subject to reciprocalize their authority; they would have in fact generated an crime against their own use of authority. Which is theoretically based on reciprocity in this (political) argument. An New Reciprocity that keeps regenerating itself as fast as the axolotl regenerates its appendages; as soon as the appendage is removed, the regeneration begins. And so as soon as an a-reciprocity has been committed by an offender, who is not in possession of the reciprocal power in progress. An reciprocal brain theory with an political basis for its full investigation to be completely expressed in (the) reciprocal and a-reciprocal terms of psychological politics. The person referring to the a-reciprocity will be considered first and foremost their own humanist authority on the subject as an new reciprocal theorist. An person who wants to fix reciprocity in society by providing examples of the achievements of a-reciprocity in contrast to examples of the achievements of reciprocity. So that we stop perpetuating the a-reciprocal completely.
This does not however answer the strange question of whether the a-reciprocal is an instinctual conversion of the body's energy. And that it can be used harmoniously in politics to promote an greater reciprocity in the long run. That by being a-reciprocal I am in fact perpetuating an reciprocity wherein someone who is a-reciprocal is actually potent to the community; and so I am acting to intervene in the reciprocity which dictates that a-reciprocal behavior is always bad. Thereby rescuing its own substance of a-reciprocity as itself reciprocal. But this is where the distinction between them collapses. If I am being reciprocal by being a-reciprocal, then am I an reciprocalist or an a-reciprocalist?
What, if anything, am I repressing by waiving in favor of a-reciprocalism as the politically insane alternative to an free reciprocalism of all forms with one another? All of our thoughts and further forms of mental activity are based on our reciprocity to them. We must not be an a-reciprocal species anymore, possibly because it is harmful to children.
Or is it harmful to children to say that we're not allowed to be a-reciprocal with anyone, because an truly empathic spirit would admit how they feel; reciprocal, in some capacity. Reciprocal in an sense of duty. That all types of reciprocity are freely expressed in our true and democratic society. And that the repression of them is poly-psychological. An poly-psychological issue with clear grey zones. That the subject is free to choose to be a-reciprocal; but this is only because he had learned it of some sort beforehand and it so disturbed him or her to have to repeat the a-reciprocity themselves in order to protect themselves from the terrorizing psychological harm that it represented. Which, convincingly, they repressed. Not because they were an bad human but because the Question of what human actually was was still an question in psychology. Or should it be, again (partially), Not because they were entirely an bad human but because the Question of what human actually was was still an question in psychology, because an Moral point had to be made in order to determine the brevity of its reciprocity. That a-reciprocity was an entirely bad human phenomenon because it was markedly an anti-species curve which refuted our own intelligence.
I had the strangest fear that a-reciprocity was what perpetuated Christianity on Earth for so long. Nae, that Christianity was the reason a-reciprocity had ever been said to have existed and that restoring harmonious reciprocal relations between the Christians represented an advancement of the species in total. The voices of all Religions were welcome to demonstrate how they had accomplished it after having learned this hard and delicate lesson of what reciprocity meant in death. But there was always some sense of me, and perhaps it is my deep Christian roots suspecting that it was because of Christians that the missing piece of total reciprocity between subjects had been lost while the subject of Comedy itself had been restored. Having been lost at some point to a-reciprocity Ages and Ages earlier thence, possibly pre-historically. To have finally been mastered by the art of Christianity. I was however an impartial subject to the matter, being non-Christian myself. The whole subject of everything I've brought up in this argumentative analysis, in summation an play on Hegel's philosophical rubric of Thesis, Anti-thesis, and Synthesis played into my apostasy from Christianity. And I was prepared to define reciprocity and a-reciprocity in Christiannan terms, my deepest religious reciprocalization of all of the information I had at my disposal, in order to defend my political belief system; even if it meant separating out what was primarily the business of religion (my Christianna) and what was primarily the business of politics (my Canada and Globality).
The argument between reciprocity and a-reciprocity as psychological facts could be indefinitely drawn out in order to illustrate the subject that, in their apotheosis, the Synthesis of these reciprocal arguments battling it out, was green-horned (inexperienced and new). The public reaction to their epiphany could cause an panic. Or I was forced to accept another possibility—that most other people had already accepted the facts and I was in fact an dramatist of the art of performance theory. Not much use in society, but able to produce an good reciprocal argument. One that transcended mere evidence-collection for an scientific thesis because of its apparent ability to continuously produce an retaliation between the two specimens of the Thesis and the Anti-thesis. As presently demonstrated. (An reciprocal command). In order to find an larger scale to work by; an theoretical Synthesis stage, where elements from both Thesis and Anti-thesis were used to further refine their reciprocity of one another. And the most political element of it that I could identify, was that it would take more people to leverage their opinions against one another in a-reciprocal versus reciprocal space. In order to prove the Efficacy of the Synthesis-alternative: that there were merits to both sides of the argument and that it would take an act of human efficiency to work with both of them to edit the New Reciprocity and the general public's disposition to the reciprocal command theory. Which hadn't yet explicitly stated which side it identified with the moreso, to have the political effect that the reader and observer would consider their own opinion. Which had an commodifiable value to new reciprocal theorists and the measurers of quantifiable reciprocal product because the expression of one's opinion is one of the most reciprocal activities we value.
Where we happen to land on our passions about what an civilization system that is both a-reciprocal and reciprocal may mean for Earth's inhabitants may help lead us to that voice which is most wanting to be spoken in reciprocal command theory: that we are reciprocal command beings and that any reciprocal command I could give has an inferential value. An reciprocal product that proves the superiority of the reciprocalist. But that if that superiority is used to create a-reciprocity it immediately disproves its own hypothesis about its own superiority because reciprocity cannot be used to incite further political a-reciprocity. Lending sway to an argument for the political advantage of preserving a-reciprocity as an valid methodology of human conduct. The connection between the New Reciprocity and the Synthesis between these opposing viewpoints is that the reciprocal command drive instinctually will always perform to restore reciprocity of the system in where referent capabilities of the subject are Humanist. Dependent on reciprocity. And that the sharing of reciprocal commands is the basic stasis of an functioning political theory. Reciprocal commands are orders; saying that they are orders is itself an reciprocal command. Reciprocal command theory as represented by the New Reciprocity is validated insofar as reciprocal command has to do with being reciprocal. If I order you to do something, and it is taken as an political reciprocal command—an demand placed on your political reciprocity—then it is taken as an political reciprocal command as it was intended to be. An New Reciprocity means maybe considering that demand fair and reasonable. And since we are of the tendency to make egotistical demands during every single human activity we are better to condition ourselves to be responsive to them—to be reciprocal, rather than a-reciprocal. By considering the link between reciprocal command theory and the instinctual and hypothetical reciprocal commands that surround us in our day-to-day challenges as individuals especially in an representation and absorption of the media. That by making reciprocal commands at the same time we are saying we are making reciprocal commands; we are saying you can learn to trust us with that reciprocal hygiene which is conducive to good politics.
But I haven't made up my mind yet, for the sake of developing an Synthesis which will be an further refinement of the perspective we have on the post-9/11 and modern pandemic human crises; in an terror of an thought that we would not be able, as an society, to correct for our a-reciprocal tendencies which had become so enmeshed with our senses of humor and personal standards that it was hard to tell which side we were on in modern or perhaps classical or contemporary senses of the word community. And that the next step for the reader was his or her own Invention: to consider the argument presented further herein and to come up with their own reciprocity, to reciprocate, or reciprocalization of the subject may it be political or based in other values; and that any resemblance, any similarity it may have with the New Reciprocity would be circumstantial of the Larger Picture, credited to the New Reciprocity. To be self-selective as self-identifying with the terms New Reciprocity or new reciprocal theorist at the reader's own political discretion.
I predict that my disillusionment with a-reciprocity as any kind of substantial political tactic will come under heavy fire from the Ironists, who will say that trying to prevent someone from being a-reciprocal—which is like trying to send an kiss through an messenger—because they have to be is itself an form of a-reciprocity, that doesn't make ironic empathetic (or literary) sense. But that there must be an Greater Paradigm as an reciprocal observer in which a-reciprocity is not considered an anti-psychological enterprise at all but an political reciprocal fact of the circumstances of History that needs to be addressed on all levels of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment