The New Reciprocity: v. Primary Sector; Chapter 5 (V.)

Go to Previous Chapter

v. Primary Sector; Chapter 5 (V.)

    The Primary Sector is that which is defined as extracting the raw resources from the Earth.  It not being able to reciprocate—

    But the real question I want to broach is whether a-reciprocity is a-reciprocal.  Because we are not creatures of a-reciprocity but in fact creatures of reciprocity.  Which, if we had been good at, we all knew that we had done since birth and couldn't control it.  Because we had such an necessary zest for life being raised properly and having been fed enough we had always been reciprocal humans.  But knowing that some humans were not reciprocal and in fact were a-reciprocate they had in fact mental health issues which were causing them to act that way.  A-reciprocity wasn't the natural order of the universe.  Why did they treat and "act people" that way?

    And was a-reciprocity an anti-natural identity to occupy?

    As an human, I had theorized that it was; because the human instinct was always to reciprocate one another.  But I had to tighten down the definition of reciprocity in order to have an discussion of it.  And so it was my task to wait until I had finished the entire argument before I decided (or started deciding) whether a-reciprocity was natural or not.  And whether reciprocity was in fact the natural tendency of the species.  And it depended on my Political Theory, the New Reciprocity because it was designed to find whatever "it" was exactly that had brought about an a-reciprocity or an opportunity for one (which couldn't be an opportunity because a-reciprocity with any other living creature is always a-reciprocal, which is not reciprocal, which is a-reciprocity).

    And that my final conclusion after thinking through everything I had set out for the New Reciprocity to do would be about this difference between a-reciprocity and reciprocity.  From one perspective, I could see that it was the right of every living creature to be a-reciprocal with whatever it wanted.  In another perspective, I could see that whatever it really wanted was to be reciprocal, which was what it was; and that since it was being a-reciprocal that was responsible for it being the bane who was a-reciprocal.  It made no sense.  To ever be a-reciprocal.

    And that from this point on I had set out to find out and describe what exactly a-reciprocity was, considering whether it was an real thing or not, and also to find out and describe exactly what reciprocity is; because I had felt since birth that I was reciprocal and I could remember it all the way back to my first memories that I was.  And that even after doing this it would not be my final vocal opinion on the matter because I wanted to hear what other people had to say about it.  If we are reciprocal, then why was the beginning of this chapter (an subtle hint) about our relationship to the land?  That we had in fact defined this extraction of raw resources we call the Primary Sector according to an a-reciprocal theory; which wasn't environmentally sustainable because we needed the environment to reciprocate with us.  We were reciprocal living creatures and so were they; and that's how reciprocal living creatures continue living on and on through the ages.

    And why did this seem to prove that maybe we hadn't considered that a-reciprocity (an human behavior) was in fact responsible for our irresponsibility with the land (an a-reciprocal relationship) because that was how we treated each other.

    A-reciprocity, it seemed to me, was responsible for every human failure.  And that people had started doing it because they had broken their own instinct, somehow, to reciprocalize each other.  Which wasn't natural or earnest in any amount.  And that in fact all of those people who had reciprocalized all life-long; their whole lives.  And they knew it.  Were right about anybody who acted a-reciprocate because a-reciprocate wasn't natural.  Wasn't in the species.  Wasn't human.  And they could tell.  Because they could prove it.  Because they were that.

    But I hesitated because, if it were true that a-reciprocity was anti-instinctual in any amount, and that it were unnatural.  What had caused it?  And didn't the subject of a-reciprocity between me and another person seem to lead to the natural conclusion that anyone could be a-reciprocal with whomever they wanted, which was the price of freedom?

    I theorized that the definition of a-reciprocity was also related to our definition of the land; which was an a-reciprocal definition and was the resultant conclusion from people having ever been a-reciprocal with one another in all of History.  And that if our environment was threatened (it was) that was because of a-reciprocity.  Which was an human definition.  Which had gone down into the definition of humans.  Who were a-reciprocal to the land and sustaining it because they treated nature how they treated one another.  As a-reciprocate objects.  Which they weren't.  Because they were human.

    Reciprocity, I further defined, was any behavior that lead to an reciprocal conclusion.  I had my mathematical definition of the word, the name for the relationship between two fractions whose value would multiply to equal one.  And so the relationship that involved the use of one another's fraction-time to create 1 whole entity of 1 some thing between us and our economy which was an reciprocal conclusion.  Because math had proven it.  And New Reciprocity was in fact referring to that type of relationship.  People were reciprocal with one another in infinitely various ways, however; and the product of one thing between them from negotiation, the interaction between them was often merely psychological or abstract.  If we all worked as an economy to create one thing at an time between all of us; wouldn't that be an neat thing.  I fantasized.  Intelligence was like that sometimes.  I had interiorized everybody else through the economy.  Now it was paying it back to them.

    And that a-reciprocity must be defined as that which is not economical in this way.  A-reciprocity was the will to stop making one thing at an time.  Which was impossible because time creates one thing at an time all the time because that's what time is.  That's how there's always more of it.  A-reciprocity was the control of the self-aware instinct in order to damage it; to prevent it from reciprocalizing another human or being.  But what could preventing it from reciprocalizing another human or being mean?  People prevent themselves from reciprocalizing one another sometimes, said the Author, because if they didn't they would experience an pleasure that they wouldn't be able to hide or cover up in society.  And so they would be in physical danger because people who experience those kinds of pleasures are killed often.  And that it was so common to a-reciprocalize one another for this reason.  Because they had to.  Because they had to.  But since a-reciprocalization wasn't natural, because it wasn't the natural status of the human species to be in an violent society that repressed or killed homosexuals this way.  Reciprocity had to be the truth.  A-reciprocity was the consequence of this bad behavior of murder which they hadn't been fully able to antiquate.  And anyone who was a-reciprocal was that way because of violence.  And Evil.  And they weren't themselves in their full mind controlling what was reciprocal about them.

    Which everybody else knew, because everyone else had been reciprocal their whole lives.

    Which wasn't exactly true.  Not everybody.  But enough that it was an cause for panic to people who hadn't.  And they realized they needed that much help as a-reciprocal subjects who were offending an measured act of self-harm on themselves by being a-reciprocal.  Which wasn't the natural status of the human species.  And that all of the reciprocal people who had been reciprocal their whole lives were better at, you guessed it, being reciprocal.  Which had value on the reciprocal product economy of Market Capitalism.

    But since he hadn't decided yet—the Author—it was still in this status of judgment being suspended that the definitions of a-reciprocal and reciprocal would continue to be defined in order to plot one's way through the political fray of the type of genre this book is.  An political manual.  An regimen that is forever trying to grasp your attention and turn you an New Reciprocity.  By being convincing.  If the political theorist could reach an conclusion to the further definition of the two subjects, then anyone who read the manual would be able to begin to start deciding for themselves the political differences between a-reciprocal and reciprocal.  (If they hadn't already started).  Which had political consequences.  If, it was argued, people are completely reciprocal all of the time, and it was the unnatural tendency of the species to be a-reciprocal sometimes, but not most of them, then people might conclude that a-reciprocity was not fully human.  And if it could be argued that a-reciprocity was an political advantage that people do to one another all of the time strategically because they have to.  And that, of why maybe it was anti-instinctual or instinctual maybe they hadn't decided yet whether it was fully human.

    What would be wrong with just being a-reciprocal to something?  I asked.

    A-reciprocity is anti-instinctual, which is anti-human because humans have instincts.  And so we never have to be a-reciprocal with anyone.  Because it is our instinct to be reciprocal.  And if we aren't, that's because we're damaging ourselves psychologically.  Which is our right to do so.

    But reciprocity with everything is impossible, I counter-argued, we actually are required to be a-reciprocal to some things sometimes because that's what the reality is.

    An reality, you mean.

    Reciprocity with everything is possible because that's how everything exists.

    Or maybe it's both.

    But I doubt it.  I have been reciprocal since birth.  I have always known that everything is possible because of reciprocity.

    And that that is in fact what we are, as humans.  Reciprocity.

    Which is self-aware.  And so it is aware of its own reciprocity.

    And since at that point the counter-argument seemed to break down, which was that a-reciprocity is natural and healthy, I accepted that at some point I had to decide.  If I was reciprocal since birth, and that that in fact was healthy, the healthy status of society in general, that they (these social creatures) would be completely reciprocal with one another.  Society was that they could be completely reciprocal to one another.

    But I figured why don't I try being a-reciprocal to someone psychologically and see if I can actually do it.  And if there is anything wrong with it.  But, I argued, that if I offended the crime of actually being a-reciprocal at any point I would lose the status of having been reciprocal to everybody all my whole life.  Which I wanted to keep.  And which I couldn't naturally lose.  I couldn't start to be a-reciprocal with anyone.  Not even with myself.

    But what was reciprocity, then, if it couldn't be a-reciprocal?

    And I knew it instantly.  Not because I had known it my whole life.  But because I had known that I would find out that I knew it my whole life.  Reciprocity was when someone makes one of anything between you and them.

    Why would anyone do anything that was against that?

    A-reciprocity had to be an effect of Evil and the post-war psychosis of the whole human race.  People only did it because they were scared.  Anyone who was a-reciprocal was an anti-human, the worst type of hater.

    But we couldn't blame them for it.  They were the victims.

    But some people were completely reciprocal.  And we knew they were better people.

    A-reciprocity could be defined as an nerve "dis-reciprocism" (an dis-reciprocity).  An willful act on the nerves that would bring about the repression of its instinct to reciprocate with the cute and charming gay gentleman.  Or whoever.  When people actuated their nerves in order to produce the end of an particular reciprocity, it was brought up as the subject of question that they had done it because it was giving them pleasure.

    But which one was giving them more pleasure?  —The reciprocity?  Or the a-reciprocity?

    And why did it sound familiar to know that the avoidance of pleasure was why a-reciprocity was psychotic and masochistic?

    —But that it came up as an subject of discussion because of the own Author's need to dis-reciprocize sometimes.  Which meant being a-reciprocal.  And he knew exactly who he wanted to be a-reciprocal with.  But, he reminded everybody, he couldn't be a-reciprocal in order to test whether he wanted to be a-reciprocal because if he did, that would be a-reciprocal.

    And so he thought there must be some other way to distinguish between reciprocal and a-reciprocal behavior.  So that he could decide first.  Before doing it.  Which he so wanted to do so badly.

    But since he didn't, which is true.

    And since he had said that he wouldn't.  Which is true.

    They realized he was reciprocating them at that moment.

    He was offensively homosexual and poncey about it too.

    Not an Feminist, who would wait to distinguish between a-reciprocity and reciprocity first before deciding which one was the natural health of the species.

    They realized even this itself was used to reciprocalize them.  To reciprocate them.  Psychologically.  Which is what psychology does, to the reciprocalist.  Who has never a-reciprocalized anybody anywhere at any time.  And is respectful to anybody who has because they didn't know any better and it was because other people hurt them, that they had to do it.  Or had prevented themselves from doing and had risen above it.  Everybody was reciprocate.  It was the Fun New Thing.  And everybody had been doing it since the beginning of the time of their creation.  Because it was fun.  Because it was reciprocal.  Which was natural.  Which was pleasant.  Which gave them more pleasure.  Which was more than fine.  Which was sustainable maybe, or good enough for the political sphere.  Which descended an factoid, that politics needed to be about the relationship with the environment, which was in danger because of humans, who were a-reciprocal to it and a-reciprocal to one another.  But since the people who are never a-reciprocal had already solved all of this and nobody cared about the politics of lies and real conclusions.  Which are never in tango.

    He had already started creating the arguments; both their separate squad.  Were we a-reciprocal sometimes because we have to be?  Or are we fully reciprocal subjects aware of our own reciprocity with one another, which is natural.  And that which is natural is economical.

    A-reciprocity was an advance against the logic of the human soul; people were never a-reciprocal and people who were reciprocal all of the time were right.

    Reciprocity, was the fact of being reciprocal with one another, which we already knew.  Which we hadn't been a-reciprocal about even though so many other people were a-reciprocal.  And suffered because of it.  There had to be an way to help a-reciprocal people learn not to be a-reciprocal anymore because that would restore their natural and cherished awareness of their own reciprocate nature, which was reciprocal to the environment.  Which is about Politics.

    But since it wasn't in the agenda, to create an perfect map between being reciprocal or a-reciprocal.

    It was suggested that they do create an perfect map, so that they could decide whether they were fully reciprocal or not.

    I stream of thought maybe some people do have to a-reciprocalize sometimes.  He reciprocalized with himself.

    It had to be all the way from brown to purple.  Because that's what law is.

    An perfect map (From Brown (current whereabouts) to the treasure, Purple).  That will help us decide whether we can be a-reciprocal sometimes or not.

    It started with the pleasure of reciprocity.  Nobody could deny that it was pleasurable to be reciprocal to one another.  But some people disagreed, and interrupted everyone's pleasure.  And—someone argued—a-reciprocity wasn't pleasurable because that's what a-reciprocity is.  And that to restore the natural status of reciprocity between all human combatants, they needed to admit it in the court and provoke society to become powerful enough to use law to promote reciprocity, in an reciprocal society.  There had to be an Middle, between us, in space.

    And that the perfect map would be about mapping out a-reciprocity for that denial of pleasure that a-reciprocity is.  Because reciprocity had pointed out that reciprocity is pleasure, and not pleasure is not pleasure, which is a-reciprocal.

    The Sadistic subject is a-reciprocal.  Why will you not stop stop giving me pleasure?

    Because I don't want to, it replies.

    But why?

    Because I'm Sadistic.

    But I need you to stop being sadistic and start reciprocalizing with me, because all a-reciprocity is sadistic.  And if I am not sadistic, then I am reciprocal.  Which isn't sadistic.  Did I say it isn't sadistic?

    It isn't.  Because that's what it does.  Because that's what reciprocal people do.  Because they are reciprocal.  Because "you" are not.  Because they want you to join them in being reciprocal.

    And then it's up for the sadistic subject to decide whether to stop being sadistic, because that's actually how you have to reciprocalize or reciprocate them.  In order to stop them being sadistic.  Because a-reciprocity is sadism.  And reciprocity is the answer.

    And we noticed we could actually measure a-reciprocity because we have observed its presence in the subject in Science.  A-reciprocity is always an exact amount of anti-instinctual behavior.  That takes an stab against its own Ego.  When people a-reciprocate or a-reciprocalize, they are harming themselves to be able to feel not the pleasure of the reciprocity.  In order to hide it.  Because they are afraid that they will be harmed in society if people knew of it.

    The way to stop people from hiding it, because they don't have to, because they shouldn't be scared of their own pleasure.  Is to reciprocalize with them.  Begin to create one of something (anything) with them, and then follow that creation out to it's end: the actual creation of one thing between you, whatever it may be, common ground, whether you choose to include other people; whether it can be an physical object or an agreement.  Or maybe something more advanced than that.  This is New Reciprocity economic theory.  When we create one thing at an time, even as an whole civilization (in our intelligence); that, at least, is fast enough to catch us, creating things with one another all over the place EVERYWHERE.  Economically, it's Sound.  It's Feasible.  It's Attractive.

    To Create one thing between us, this is the responsibility of the Author; and a-reciprocal behavior distinguished from reciprocal behavior is it.  Because we can recognize it.  And we can measure it.  And we know it is damaging to the Ego and the Self.  Even though people who a-reciprocate sometimes have an better relationship to the Ego and the Self because they had a-reciprocalized someone.  It wasn't found to be disagreeable that the difference between reciprocity or a-reciprocity really mattered in society.  A-reciprocity, therefore.  Will be "measured"—and to do that we will decide on the definition of this term.  And that the continuation of creating one thing at an time, between one person and another person (yourself) at an time, was the feasibly economic status of the community.  We all have to do it sometimes.  It means being reciprocal, with one another, until you both have an reciprocal product.  And there's never any reason to be a-reciprocal because only people who are scared do that and since I'm not scared I don't do that.

    What would he have to be scared about being a-reciprocal?, they asked.

    That it was damaging to the psychology, because it "took the needle off the disc."  An metaphor.  The vinyl record.

    Any kind of behavior that was a-reciprocal was that.  An nerve dis-reciprocism: when the individual uses his or her own nerve biology (or whatever tools happen to be handy at the time) to injure themselves, (repress) in order to prevent the dissemination of their behavior.  And that it was the founding point of the entire Chapter that their relationship with the environment was also milieu to the result of the disagreement between a-reciprocalists and reciprocalists which hadn't been resolved.

    A-reciprocity, someone shouted, why that's not true at all.  And it was clear that they were mad because they were screaming.  In Public.  But it was also clear that they were mad because they were a-reciprocalist and that's what they do sometimes.  Because they are the fact of a-reciprocity.  And all of the reciprocalists agreed that they had also identified that.  And were not in fact in any breach of reciprocity because they were just thinking about the subject.

    It was up the Psychologists to decide the difference between these most human characteristics of psychology.  Which wasn't true because there are many other disciplines that would factor into the decision.  A-reciprocity was fine, Girl, people do that all the time.  Because they have to.  But I argued, what if they don't?  And they aren't?  And they couldn't?  And they haven't?

    It seemed feasible that I could continue arguing both sides.  If we were reciprocal, and we knew that because that's our little molecule of life, and other people did not know that because they had injured their own little molecule of life, which was why they were a-reciprocal.  Because a-reciprocity is anti-instinctual and anti-instinctual is sometimes necessary.  But in good form it is never necessary.  So it was true that all of the people who were a-reciprocal were still living in an society that was written to have reciprocity under its thumb already, so that all of the lowly a-reciprocal alcoholics and the reciprocal fanatics could work together in harmony and in peace.

    Which was reciprocal, because it was pleasurable.  Because it felt Good.  Which was what the reciprocalists' main argument was.  A-reciprocity just did not feel good.  And everybody knew it.  And that was actually the parameters of their society.  In literary criticism too.

    A-reciprocity, from an literary stand-point, was preventing the subject from experiencing his or her full range of sexual (un-repressed) reciprocities with other people.

    Reciprocity, from an Psychology stand-point was an a-reciprocity.  And that since it had the possibility to be a-reciprocal it was itself reciprocal between or because of the fact of its own a-reciprocity, which was reciprocal.  Because it can't be a-reciprocal with itself.

    And that since reciprocity and a-reciprocity had been defined this way by two different disciplines.  And meta-psychology or poly-psychologies was still an Political Subject, they decided to involve Politics.  And whether they could locate their own definition of reciprocity and a-reciprocity without the help of Psychology or Literary theory.  Because they couldn't already define those terms themselves.

    Reciprocity, and a-reciprocity, in politics, is about being in an economic relationship in which the mathematical reciprocity of the subjects between one another is just that they both together create one thing at an time with each other, because that is economically feasible.  And that if our whole society could advance philosophically proceed in this animation this way we would be able to sustain our economic effort to stabilize the environment.  And the a-reciprocal human relationship with it.  We all know what the metaphor means because it is an simple mathematical relationship that has already been interiorized in our species for quite an long time now.  And introducing it as an political theory, to create one thing at an time, we could also start to create one fantasy character at an time, who would be an political adversary in an fantasy character versus fantasy character Political Science unit.  This is the future of Politics.  The roleplaying fantasy and the fantasy generation.  As political opponents.  That are reciprocated in classrooms in order to prepare students for the reciprocal command economy, which is roleplaying and post-demographic consumerist.

    If roleplaying fantasy characters can duke it out in Politics over the media and advertising, (as humans), they would be able to start producing more fantasy characters with more political opinions with whom the media would be interested.  And the Public would digest.  We need fantasy roleplaying characters in Politics because they are political just for being fantasy subjects.  Which is totally okay in our community.  The New Reciprocity is about the inclusion of an roleplaying fantasy engine in political discussions that will help us to talk about Political Ideas with more clarity.

    The reason for this is that the roleplaying generation actually are those identities.  There is an scientific basis for character personas being genetic personality traits.  And that real power is real power because it is Fantasy.  Which has an reciprocal product value on an reciprocal command Market economy.  And that it is the fault of a-reciprocity to have never been able to come up with it before.  Because a-reciprocity is the end of all fantasy.

    Hold on!  Why would we want to end reciprocity?

    Exactly.

    Why would we want to end fantasy in an consumerist economy by being a-reciprocal?  Instead of being reciprocal, which is where the magic of fantasy lie herein.  And that people with fully reciprocal lives do want to end a-reciprocity for good.  Because they know that.  They are sure Fantasy is reciprocal.  And since it is an reciprocal fantasy.  (Which is why it is fantasy).  (Which is fine).  (It must be an step toward greater political reciprocity, where the fantasy actually does come true for some people).

    And that it was a-reciprocity which had prevented politics from doing so in the first place.  But that since we had been able to step beyond the realm of a-reciprocity.  Which was fine, for the time being, because they hadn't decided what it was and whether they should do that.  And we knew we were an reciprocal society at every level, and the summation of those levels could measure a-reciprocity in the brain and prove its existence.  Which didn't prove it was bad or not.  Because it was only an instinct.  All of the product in the brain that was the result of the instinct was fine.  And it was just how some people are.  But every full reciprocalist knew they were better.  Because they had never a-reciprocalized someone.  Or a-reciprocated them.  It didn't matter if those words meant the same thing because they felt different.  And that because of the Superiority of the full reciprocalist agenda, which was Superior; because it had to be in order to deal with the a-reciprocalists, who were stronger than ever.  And it was true we have to a-reciprocalize one another sometimes and I'll show you.  Which was itself an act of a-reciprocalizing one another.  Because some people really are that disturbed.  And they were hurt and tortured, probably beaten, until they couldn't reciprocalize anymore.  Because that's what Parents told them Adults and Mommies and Daddies were.  But everyone who knows that they can still reciprocalize, which is going out of style, knows that some people can't.  And they have measurable behavior.  And that we need to clean up after them.

    Reciprocalists—none of them were disturbed—because none of them had ever been disturbed.  And it stood in point of Clarity against the Council that they were right, because the a-reciprocal fantasy was an fantasy, and fantasies were reciprocal.  But then it became the duty of Science to measure the a-reciprocity, so that they could prescribe medications for it.  And they had to use the reciprocal identity itself to be be able to have the focus to measure it.  Because it was pleasure to them.  Reciprocity is pleasurable.  And everybody wants more of it.  Especially New Reciprocity.  Because it is New.  And it's an Reciprocity.  We bring more New Reciprocity to you, as an philosophical product that is related to the economy and ecosystem.  The ability to make reciprocal commands in society, that are recognized as New Reciprocal demands, (orders that are reciprocal), because we expect orders from one another and not just ourselves.  (This sounds bogus because we haven't invented all of the fantasies about ordering one another).  Yet.

    And how could anybody deny themselves that pleasure? was beyond them to think about.  But since Science had proven it was true that people could injure themselves that way and they did it all the time, they knew how to proceed.  People who were a-reciprocal needed reciprocity.  That was being Care.  That's what the fact of people being a-reciprocal in their community meant.

    But who could give it to them?

    Every time we tried to reciprocalize with them they dodged out of it.  They became passive-aggressive abusers who hurt themselves to prevent me from giving them the pleasure of being reciprocal to me.

    Which was an repressive trait.

    They might not even be aware of it anymore; because they had repressed it.

    But that that itself hurt them more.  And I wanted everybody to stop being a-reciprocal with one another because it felt better to be reciprocal.  All the time.  Which was fine.

    And that Great Power streams of thought from New Reciprocity.  When we work together, who knows what we'll accomplish?  But if we start with reciprocity with those we meet throughout the day, and continue this task of producing one thing at an time together, as an society, I think we'll get it.

    And that since Great Power had been involved in the appreciation of New Reciprocity (beauty), which was against being a-reciprocal, this itself had proven it was the better argument.  And it was something that everybody could believe in.

    We are fully reciprocalizing or reciprocate nature, God said or we said to God; and that we can reciprocate our Creator.

    And that we have such an Good connection so because we are better at it than people who are a-reciprocal.

    But wasn't God a-reciprocal to us?

    Are a-reciprocal?  Was suggested as an Question about whether or not it be an order that anyone be a-reciprocal.

    What would be an order that anyone be a-reciprocal?, said the Defender.

    Since nothing came up they realized they were both being reciprocal in order to prevent further a-reciprocity.  Which was what they wanted.  What they needed.  They needed everybody to stop being a-reciprocal.  Because that's not natural and healthy.  And since they were fully reciprocalizing they themselves could help its overcoming by writing to them, all the lonely and depraved, who were or weren't or are either a-reciprocal abusers themselves or people who had glorified the process of ending a-reciprocity altogether.

    If you order someone to be a-reciprocal, suggested the Defender, is that a-reciprocal itself?

    Yes, they agreed.

    A-reciprocity was inherently a-reciprocal because it was an act of ordering and dominance over another person.  An sexual effort, which was not to be involved for prurience sake because we would think of everything and that was an thing.  And that if its masochistic or sado-masochistic effort be executed against another person the subject would be abnormal.  And that the real act of ordering and dominance over another person was an act of law.  A-reciprocity had to go.  Legal efforts said so.  We weren't a-reciprocal.  That's how we had gotten here.  By instinctual vibration.  Reciprocal instinctual vibration.  They provided an animated example of their power, which was so purple it had to be about law.  Because that's what law is actually about.  The color Purple.  (Just take this as an abstract fact).  And since it was fair to fiction for an bit about it—where Glen's theoretical discretion between brown and the color purple, which was an story (Remember, the treasure map?) in its naive simplicity, which represented everything, an perfect map, between everything that was a-reciprocal and reciprocal about Politics.  Because Purple was the middle of Brown.  And Brown was the Middle of Purple.

    And everything proceeded from this fact that it actually was an legal investigation.  An legal investigation of the leisure force, who had some powers but none that would be able to decide the outcome of this new investigation into the law.  Which was about Brown and Purple.  And Everything between them.

    Brown is the Earth; and everything that comes from the Earth is Brown.  And since it is the start of everything, it is the beginning of plants, the first forms of life on the Planet.  Which was inherent in the investigation into our political relationship with the environment.  Brown is a-reciprocal because humans have an a-reciprocity with the realm of plants.  Which needs to be addressed, Politically.

    Purple, on the other hand, was reciprocal.  It was.

    It had to be.  It was the end of the story.

    The story between Brown and Purple, who were the Middle of each other.  For one very fascinating reason.  The story hadn't been completed yet.  It was about deciding whether we are a-reciprocal or reciprocal or both.  Everything of which the story between the start of Brown and the end of Purple, would identify.  As evidence.  Maybe.  About what was a-reciprocal or reciprocal.  (Brown was a-reciprocal).  (Purple was reciprocal).  They were related somehow.  And thus you had the oldest fiction broth, the oldest trick in the book.  An fantasy legal subject because it resolved the difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity somehow.  Something that could be used to demonstrate inconceivable power.  Brown was a-reciprocal because someone had "a-reciprocized" him, which was traumatic to him; because Purple was talking about Brown and Brown wasn't reciprocalizing them back.  Brown was a-reciprocal because Purple was talking to Brown and brown wasn't reciprocalizing them back.  But Brown maybe couldn't reciprocalize them back because Brown was Brown.  The a-reciprocity subject.  Thus the true plot of the story was the power of the major characters who pressed the story onwards because of the actions of Brown and Purple, who were different but had something to do with the order in society that proceeded from having power of any type.  Being able to hold an opinion on the concept of Brown oppressing Purple.  Because Purple wasn't psychological enough to accept that Brown a-reciprocity was brown a-reciprocity and that it would inevitably continue repeating itself that way, which is what it does, which they had prepared for, which is what Judges do; because they are of the same opinion as Purple, who is the Law, who has to defend himself from Brown's shit.  Because Brown is A-Reciprocal and Purple Is Not.

    A-reciprocity in the legal sphere, meant approximately, we have no idea what that means and we're not at that point in history yet even to be able to philosophize directly about the subject.

    Which it didn't.  Because everyone knows that about the law.  Because that's what the law is.

    It has to be.  It has to.

    People who were a-reciprocal were criminals and they went to jail.  Because a-reciprocity was the actual act of masochism on the individual's nervous system (their own) or other people.  Which was another story.  But that masochistic people were criminals and they went to jail.

    And that I had never been masochistic with myself because.  I was not an criminal.

    Whatever Court trial of the forces of Fantasy and Nature this was, the narrator had found the aggressor to be criminally insane because he was a-reciprocal.  Which he wasn't.  Because he was human.  And humans cannot be a-reciprocal creatures because that's what we're not.

    Reciprocity is the only true way to proceed in Politics.  Because that's what Politics Are.

    Everyone who is a-reciprocal is an criminal and can go to jail.  Cry cry.  About it all day long that's actually true and I had to say it, because it was politics.  And Politics counts.

    So the point of this kind of advancement of the plot was to suggest the fact that there was an Legal difference between a-reciprocalists and reciprocalists and that it had something to do with Fantasy.  Which was about the environment, down right at the bottom of it.  Because the environment are trees and that's how trees get their power.  (At least in Glen's Version, which was about politics being roleplaying-enabled to actuate their fantasy character in the political realm, in order to bring up an public discussion in an safe and peaceful manner).  Are ents the most powerful subject in the human experience?  They are ents after all.  Who would argue with an ent?  And they were trees, too, so they were sensitive to the trees, too.  Which were dying because of a-reciprocity.  And humans knew it.  And they had to do something.

    Humanity was either a-reciprocal or reciprocal always.

    And the bare logic of this claim itself was not anything they had to deviate from.

    They could be a-reciprocal maybe.  Or they could be reciprocal all the time because they were.  Because they are that.  Because that's what they were.

    And that claiming they were was just part of their way of being reciprocal with you so that you could resume your reciprocity experience, which is subject to everyone.  But that ents had been cited in an discussion about Humanity's relationship with the environment, which was subtle but not subtle enough for an ent.  The fact was that a-reciprocity had caused it and humanity was still recovering from its propagation in society.  Which was stronger than ever.  It was estimated that the ents had power over this discussion because that's what ents do because ents have power.

    Actual power.

    The fantasy kind.  Which is actually fantasizing.

    That people everywhere could be sure they were reciprocal, as an species, and to move on to other subjects with one another, reciprocally, because that's what new reciprocal theorists do.  But some people, in this fantasy realm, I don't know who.  Were prepared to defend their rights to be a-reciprocal with the subject at any given time as was their right as an human being.  Because all that it was was that it was an aesthetic on their mind that was reciprocal, an reciprocal aesthetic, that was reciprocal and it was aesthetic.  Which was reciprocal.

    Which the reciprocalists pointed out, was part of their plan.  To prove a-reciprocity reciprocal at some level.  They had to.  What else were you going to do about someone who was being a-reciprocal?  But since the a-reciprocalists had planned this in the works in order to point out their Superiority, which was better and more advanced because they were a-reciprocalists, exploded their brains out with one swift telepathic gesture which acted on their minds and everybody saw it.

    Which the reciprocalists pointed out, was reciprocal.

    And since the a-reciprocalists had been being reciprocal.  That's what they were doing.

    Because we're an reciprocal species.

    That was okay too.

    And it blew them away, that it was okay that they be a-reciprocal sometimes because "they were really messed up" and "everybody's fairy radio flies were hurting."  But that being reciprocal people being okay too.  They all decided to start being reciprocal.  Which they couldn't.  Because they already were.  Because that's what humans are.

    And that the basic human fantasy de facto (actually especially) observation was that humans, in this fantasy world, could be radio fly and not be hurting.  Because they had restored awareness to the reciprocity, which was reciprocal.

    A-reciprocalists could start feeling reciprocity again.  Because they had stopped harming themselves.

    Reciprocity was not harming oneself.  Because living creatures don't want to do that.

    And that we had all been reciprocal to each other for many years.  Which wasn't anything new.  And that being reciprocal we all already knew that, because that's what reciprocal people do, know things and have answers.  In order to help the people who are a-reciprocal, who they feel really badly for.  But they had it this time.  Most Certain.  The cure to a-reciprocity was reciprocity.  Which is fine.  Everyone does it.  I mean.  If we are reciprocal or not the fantasy will determine its reciprocity.

    Radio flies (my own political invention as an fantasy subject) and ents were free to express their opinions in Politics.

    Radio flies are creatures of infinite reciprocity because they know the future and how to be comfortable in it, because they have that magic, and that's what magic reciprocity "do."

    Ents are also creatures of infinite reciprocity because they talk the slowest.  Because they do.

    And that since both a-reciprocity and reciprocity were available as behaviors, it was sorted out that some of them would, remain, a-reciprocal.  And that some of them would, remain, reciprocal.

    A-reciprocal behavior, argued the little English student, an Mouse from the Fantasy realm was that behavior of which no new reciprocity with one another had occurred.  And it happened all the time.  And we should get over it emotionally.  Because it was the hardest subject to accept.

    That reciprocity, which was the normal standard, was an type of behavior that, happened all of the time.  And people were free to do it whenever they wanted.  It was stipulated by the Court as evidence that their species was vastly superior to that type of behavior.  Which was a-reciprocal.

    And that they had invented tremendous amounts of puzzles and ways of solving things in order to look at it reciprocally in every way.

    And that their legal profession would advance from that opinion.

    If a-reciprocity was an story about Purple and Brown deciding about whether reciprocity and a-reciprocity were an thing, in legal society.  Then it could be questioned that the result of the story would detail that difference, specifically, in an legal society.  So that everyone who read it could consider whether or not they were a-reciprocalists, who bang banged with the feminist big dawgs, because that's how they a-reciprocalize other people in order to prove a-reciprocal society to be superior in status and contribution to the daily economy.  Because it had already thought through this and was the bigger status.  Because they were right.  And right people are right.  And right is power.  Because power is being right.  Reciprocity was suggested as the subject of the day because, everyone was tired with the a-reciprocity, and nobody wanted to continue talking about it.

    So they figured they could let out their reciprocal energy in Fantasy as an outlet to their "desire" to be reciprocal in the fantasy genre.  By being new reciprocal theorists as fantasy characters, in order to test them, for strength.  In order to be them, for power.  And in order to start an new political discussion that would always necessarily involve the roleplay card.  That due to the mass media and the power of television, which was reciprocally fantastic.  Roleplaying among the Napster generation and the Older people, who didn't get that.  Was stronger than ever.

    They began letting out an line of synthetic beings that were to be part of the Fantasy universe, which they would use to argue their position on Global Warming, which needed synthetic beings in order to go on missions to heal the environment.  As well as an entire line of new reciprocal theorists who were Fantasy characters in the political realm, where they had decided Fantasy power.  Some were politicians.  Some were hypocrites.  And some were so beautiful and ugly at the same time.  They had to be real.  But they were calling to them.  What would an ent know about global warming?

    But if it's damaging the trees and the trees are being damaged, said an ent, then we are global warming and how can we know things if we are global warming, which is responsible for our destruction?

    Your destruction? said someone.

    Yes, said the ent, if our bodies are being destroyed by being damaged, and knowing things depends on not being damaged then how can we know anything because we're just trees and global warming is damaging us.  Damage which causes the ent to think differently.  Because it can't think any other way anymore.  Because it is damaged.  Because ents are being destroyed.  Because they don't have minds if they haven't got one that isn't damaged.  Which they are damaged.  Because that's what ent minds do when they are faced with the environmental destruction.

    And they cited that as what an ent would know about Global Warming.

    But the advancement of my book had meant this departure into politics just as it had said it proposed to do.  It wanted fantasy characters.  Who were so powerful and memorable for being the fantasy characters that they were.  That they held real power.  Because that's what political responsibility is, outside the realm of the fantasy.

    People who were Fantasy.

    Because Fantasy was an legal subject.  And because having fantasies was part of that psychological legal doctrine.  Which gave it an power.  Because that is what Fantasies do.

    And that the power of the gay fantasy mind had been expressed in Court this way.  Which gave it power.  Was an legal thing to do.

    If all Fantasy was an mediation of the subject of whether one was reciprocal or a-reciprocal about gay fantasy, because that was what they needed an legal doctrine on, then the ruling of the court would matter in the investigation into what was a-reciprocal and not.  Especially in Fantasy, arguably the most reciprocal subject.  If one aggressor was perpetrating an crime on another "aggressor" which the first aggressor himself or herself had named the second aggressor, by not reciprocating his fantasy.  Then it was deemed an a-reciprocal behavior and held in marvel for its negativity.

    That natural human status is to reciprocate the gay fantasy, they had reached as an decision.

    Which is not about an aggressor naming his further aggressor the aggressor in order to a-reciprocalize him, in an anti-gay and anti-fantasy way, in order to harm the subject.  Him.  The gay perpetrator who had perpetrated the gay by being a-reciprocal, because that's what gay people are.

    And since it had been figured out what they were talking about.

    They all returned to that natural human status of being reciprocal to one another, which sometimes means being reciprocal about pain.  Which is to have been responsible for the entire departure anyway.

    From Pain.

    And why would anyone dramatize Pain?

    They were still talking about the law upholding the rights of the reciprocalizing subject.  And analyzing the data that had been collected from their a-reciprocal conduit.  Which had measured them and judged them.  And had observed the law.

    Based on this difference of opinion about what reciprocity is and isn't.

    Some people were still saying, a-reciprocity isn't an crime, and reciprocal people were saying in witty conversations to one another about how they have been reciprocal all me life, even though I was an imp.

    And it came up as the point of the subject that the a-reciprocal had been identified as grumpy.  And that the pleasant conversation the reciprocalizers were inventing was itself evidence and proof enough of their "conduitivity."  Which they didn't define further.

    A-reciprocity was what lead to grumpy feelings and anger.  Because reciprocity didn't.

    It—what an hard question to wrangle with—but it was within the Virtue of the human experience that they needed to be reciprocalists in everything they did because that's what reciprocalism is.  And since they had been.  And since they were.  They knew that they had to do every a-reciprocalist the favor of at least being reciprocal with them at some point or another.  Because that's what true reciprocalists, would do.

    Which became the subject of his Argument because argument was grumpy and mean and nasty and never actuated.  Except that it had.

    There was an legal difference between a-reciprocity and reciprocity.  As well as maybe an psychological, literary, or Fantasy difference.

    The difference was.  Reciprocalizers all know that not everybody is fully an reciprocalizer.  That's why they are reciprocalizers.  To reciprocate.  To stave away from toxic social harm.  Because what is a-reciprocity but harm?  Who could ever conceive of an living being having to be, itself, a-reciprocal.  When that's not what consciousness is.  The ball was in the air.  The wind was flying.  They were at an volleyball game in the sand and sun.  A-reciprocity took the lead (it always takes the lead).  And the first strike had been part of the strategy of the reciprocalizers, who were advanced, and further.  They had to be.  That's how they would win the game.  And since every person who has every played sports knows this.  The basic utility of Sports was actuated.  To discern between the a-reciprocal and the reciprocal.  Who may not have an social means to be investigated yet, because it hasn't been decided in law what exactly the difference between a-reciprocity and reciprocity is.

    And so he set out exactly to define the New Reciprocity that lead to the conclusion that reciprocity was safe, and that, hey, a-reciprocity might be safe too.

    People a-reciprocate one another when they hate each other.  Hate is not an natural emotion.  And so I don't have it.  Because I'm not a-reciprocalist.

    Was one argument.

    People reciprocalize when they can't get their hands on each other.

    Said another argument.

    But what I wanted to know most was if there was this essential function of the brain that controlled reciprocity and produced an reciprocal product, how would anyone ever harm themselves in it, by being a-reciprocal to their instinct?  And so not letting it express itself in any physical sense so that nobody would ever find out about the pleasure it had colluded?

    Which was being repressed (by the a-reciprocal).  That's what it does.

    But since it involved an human decision about what to do about a-reciprocity.  It was considered that that was the abstract of its reciprocity.  A-reciprocalists a-reciprocalize because that's what a-reciprocalists do.  It didn't matter to her, that much.  She wasn't one of them.  It wasn't fine that they felt that way.  Because of their own actions.  And she knew it.  And she did because she was an reciprocalist.  But since it hadn't been decided yet exactly what the difference was.  They were free to define it.  Reciprocity is that which is reciprocal with Nature, because nature is reciprocal to us, and we need to protect it.  A-reciprocity was that which was going out of politics.  For good reasons.  It was a-reciprocity!  Who would ever Invent such an thing, as humans, in the beginning.  To have actually to have become so ugly that they would ever a-reciprocalize each other.  Which was ugly.  Because it was.  Living creatures were not a-reciprocal (to anything) and it was logical and reasonable to them all that this was so.  But since some people did do they figured it was some kind of grammar error or spelling mistake and repressed the subject.  And since people who were reciprocal to one another were superior in every way, compared to the a-reciprocalists, who were crapping their pants, because that's what being reciprocal means.  They had already prepared for that.

    It was an fantasy showdown.  An political argument presented between reciprocal fantasy roleplay subjects.  The fantasy characters they had chosen to be to represent an counter-argument would be what they would use to roleplay the material.

    A-reciprocal versus reciprocal in Political Terms.

    The a-reciprocal is an havoc upon the human soul and decision-making capacities, said one handsome gentleman.

    The reciprocal is the true capacity of the spirit of the Mother of the Soil and every worm that crawls in it, said another.

    That itself was taken up as the beginning of their argument with one another.

    If I am being a-reciprocal, then why do I have the Power of the Mother of the Soil and every worm that crawls in it, said the ent.

    If I am not reciprocal said the human, who was an race ethics investigator, then how am I damaging myself?

    You aren't, said the ent.  Because I have attracted your attention at least for the time being.

    Oh that's good, said the a-reciprocalist.  Who was human.

    She listened to the ent present the rest of his speech about why reciprocalizers were gentle enough to woo the average competitor (in their sleep).  If they were being a-reciprocal at all.  Because they could see it in their faces.  And their faces told them they all understood that ents are reciprocalizers and some humans aren't.  So what's the big deal?

    A-reciprocity was fine.  We could a-reciprocalize with anything, whatever, in any combination.

    But since the ent was of the opinion that we couldn't a-reciprocalize anything, because that's what reciprocalizers do, the human activated her response, that since the ent had to be an reciprocalizer in order to stop the human from a-reciprocalizing herself and other people.  That was actually an consequence of being a-reciprocal in the brain, the type of which that they all shared, and that since the human psychic ability to be a-reciprocal versus reciprocal was the eventuality of the instinct to be reciprocal, it kicked into ignition the reader's own awareness of this type of reciprocity, in which the a-reciprocal subject is conformed to reciprocal society.

    The a-reciprocal and the reciprocal are in different parts of the brain, and so, since both parties have both properties, reciprocally, they are reciprocal.  And so the fully reciprocal people (the reciprocalist) and the people being conformed to their society, (a-reciprocalist), are ipso facto.  By that act itself.  Being themselves, which is reciprocalist.  And since they had lead the a-reciprocalist to that.  They had performed their duty to society.

    Reciprocalists always reciprocalize, even if they are being faced with a-reciprocity.

    Because that's what is mentally healthy, and not a-reciprocity.

    But, a-reciprocity argued, if reciprocalists are needed because that is part of the brain after an a-reciprocity instinct, which is an instinct.  Then they are both parts of the brain; they needed a-reciprocalists in order to have reciprocalists, and that they acting out the relationship between an a-reciprocalist and an reciprocalist would do.  They still needed both types of people in order to perpetuate further that behavior, which they had just figured out.  Which they had just figured to have been reciprocal, even though part of it was a-reciprocal.  But since the function of the brain providing the reciprocal attention was after the function of the brain providing the a-reciprocal attention.  Therefore fourth or fifth types of behavior.  Which were linked by that fact that one was first and the other was second.

    Reciprocalists were second, and therefore a-reciprocalists were first.  Because they were.  Not because they had chosen to be.  But because they were.

    And since being first meant being able to prove an reciprocalist wrong.  Which they were because a-reciprocalists were first for an reason.  That they were in fact the reason for a-reciprocity.  Which was an thing.  Because those were the two types of the parts of the brain.  And one was after.  And one was second.  And one was the fact that they had just acted out those parts of the brain in order to get an glimpse into how they perform.  The reciprocalizer always tries to reciprocalize, even if the reciprocal person is a-reciprocal.  Because that's what that part of the brain does.  And the a-reciprocalizer always tries to a-reciprocalize from another subject, because that's what that part of the brain does.

    And since they are both parts of the brain, and one is after, and one is before, and they both have different functions for motive.  Neither one can be proven to be either a-reciprocal or reciprocal; the Fantasy.  Keep Dreaming.  It was like an investigative logic.  One is after but one is before.  They are both parts of the brain.  Therefore a-reciprocity and reciprocity are not distinct legal matters.  And that it is in fact okay to do both of them as an citizen of everyday ordinary Earth.  And that if it was ever an matter in an trial in an Court they could look back and summarize the case, so that a-reciprocity and reciprocity are distinct legal matters.  Because it had never been proven that they aren't.

    But since they are both parts of the brain.  Which lead to either a-reciprocal or reciprocal behavior, and their relationship to them is necessary.  Because they are both parts of the brain.  Then an relationship between them must be necessary.  Whether they are a-reciprocal or not.  Because that's what the reciprocal function of the brain does.  It always stops to correct the a-reciprocal.  From being a-reciprocal themselves.  Which wasn't fine.  Which had to be reciprocated.  By everybody.  Until it stopped being a-reciprocal.  Because that's always what the subject of the Conversation is.  And the subject of being either reciprocal or a-reciprocal was off the table at an point at which it stopped being a-reciprocal.  Because that's what the function of that part of the brain is.

    And that any further a-reciprocal feelings would have to be reciprocalized.  Because that was the most sought after knowledge of any investigations.

    And since these both parts of the brain had been identified and the riddle between them solved, it was okay to investigate all the other parts of the brain.  Which were responsible for doing things other than a-reciprocalizing or reciprocate reciprocalizing.  Like having an mood or an personality for example.  Which was hard for them to do.  They were reciprocal and a-reciprocal parts of the brain.  That's what they do.  They shared those most deepest and scary feelings about being a-reciprocal.  Which are a-reciprocal.  Which is taken up by the Committee of the reciprocal part of the brain every single time.  And all the other personalities and quisms (qwerks/disorders/eccentricities) giggled.

    If there were a-reciprocal feelings then that part of the brain responsible for reciprocity would kick in.  Because that's what it would always do.  It would have to be designed for it.  Because that is what it would have to do.  Every time.  Which it would.  Because it was.  Reciprocal fantasy theorist.  And able to keep up an conversation in Political Fantasy waters.  About not being an a-reciprocate.

    Even though there were a-reciprocal people in the room.

    The part of the brain was identified as the Ego, theoretically.

    The a-reciprocal part was the anti-Ego.

    They worked together to figure things out.

    What are all of our Personalities?  And Moods?

    They wondered.

    What are they about the environmental crisis, their Political Forefathers actuated on an theoretical supply of resurrected aesthetic?

    Mine is, I've had enough!

    And mine is I've had.

    What does it mean?

    Why is everything so confusing?

    Moods and Personalities are intuitive because we always act them out according to an logic.  Personalities are super-moods.

    Moods are super-personalities.

    So if anything gets stuck in your anti-ego let me know because, I'm the guy to contact about that!  I'm your Ego.

    I will reciprocate all of the anti-ego because that's what I do.  I'm reciprocalist.  I'm part of the brain.  I'm second, maybe after the Ego.  But it's not because there's anything inferior about me.  I'm just the part of the brain that has to do with all the crap the anti-ego comes up with.  Because that's how I meow meow kitty baby!

    Wow, that was really reciprocalist.  (Someone would show up on the property and announce).

    There has to be part of the brain that controls the Emo and the Anti-Emo also, said Everyone.

    Because that is an logical conclusion that the brain would need that mechanism if it had an a-reciprocity unit and its reciprocal equivalent.

    Yea, because those types of relationships lead to Emo and Anti-Emo feelings, which are resultant, from the reciprocity between the a-reciprocal and the reciprocal.  Which are both parts of the brain, and so both parts are part of every individual subject who has that type of brain.  And so they are all a-reciprocal and reciprocal by nature.

    The Emo part needs to feel out how the progress went between the a-reciprocal and the reciprocal, which is judged and estimated.  In the order of the billions.  How much a-reciprocity was the reciprocal unit actually able to recover into the Ego?  Not all of it.  As always.  That was why we were so Emo.  It was true because we even had Anti-Emos.  That's what Anti-Emos do.  They try to stop Emos from being Emos.  Because Emos kill themselves.  And it is the Ego of the specimen that he has to try to stop them.  By being that part of his brain which was logically consequential from the fact of its own relationship with the a-reciprocal and the reciprocal parts of the brain.  In relief that they had broached the subject of their obnoxious logical existence in an really real reality.  Which confirmed for them that they needed to be Anti-Emo sometimes, because sometimes, they were a-reciprocal.

    And that since they had not been able to recover all of the a-reciprocity into full reciprocity of the system, they expedited it as the subject.  The subject.  Whether to recover all of the a-reciprocity into the full reciprocity of the system of the different parts of the brain, which were equal.

    And so they tried to.

    That's an huge dumpy crap, was all they heard the brain apparatus say.

    It was clear their reciprocity unit had been engaged.

    And that it needed to be, to take care of all the a-reciprocity they had absorbed.

    From the community.  Which was a-reciprocal.

    And since it was up to their definition of a-reciprocity and reciprocity whether it was in the actions and behavior of a-reciprocity what was exactly a-reciprocal about it and reciprocity what was exactly reciprocal about it.  They decided to make observations.

    First, the huge dumpy crap was in fact an huge dumpy crap.  The a-reciprocity command drive said so.  But the reciprocity kicked in and replied, hey.  It was that because it was a-reciprocity.  That's actually what we had to go through as an species and if the brain had to take an huge dumpy crap about it then it should because the reciprocity function of the other part of the brain was responsible for cleaning up after it and it would.

    It would because it was the Reciprocal nature of the human to reciprocate its environment and its own reaction to its own environment.  As Emos and Anti-Emos, which were the most advanced type of personality that had ever been constructed in society.  They were reciprocal to the a-reciprocity unit and the reciprocity unit, equally.  And that all of this had gone toward its efforts to clean up after the huge dumpy spill.  Which was huge.  It was.  It was all there because humans had been a-reciprocalizers and hadn't disproven its advantage to them until the 21st century.  At least that was what the average citizen said.  The average citizen.  Who hadn't been legally informed.

    But that since they were equal to the Emo and Anti-Emo systems, this provided an reason for why they should actually be part of the Character and personality of the brain, including both a-reciprocity and reciprocity, all the time.  The a-reciprocity unit could continue to produce its garbage in language, so that the reciprocity unit would then repair after it.  As it was supposed to do.  In order to confirm the connection between it and its relationship to the victim, and its relationship to the Emo and Anti-Emo systems, who were ready for the energy of the a-reciprocal, and began Emoizing and Anti-Emoizing him.  Which was what they were supposed to do.  These parts of the brain.  In order that the Reciprocity be able to conquer all of the a-reciprocity, which they didn't need and didn't want.  Even though it was part of the brain.  Which they didn't want it to be.  Even though it was probably the lowest specimen of the brain material and they didn't want it to be.

    But that since they had reciprocalized it finally, they felt better.  Because it's an lot of material to take in that some people harm themselves.  And if they had to reciprocalize it, what would that mean?  And if they had to reciprocalize it what would that mean?

    Do you actually think those are two parts of the brain?  The a-reciprocity and the reciprocity function?  Or are we just reciprocalizers and that's obvious?  But I appear to you reciprocally.  And we eat and drink reciprocally.  And everything we do is reciprocal.  Because that's human nature.  And you can't take that away from us.  Reciprocity and a-reciprocity are not just parts of the brain.  They are the most sensitive parts of the brain.  And it would be Emo or Anti-Emo to say so.

    And since they bring harmony to all the other senses to think about.  They must be.

    But if a-reciprocity and reciprocity are parts of the brain, and they are equal, then how can Brown and Purple show us that a-reciprocity is not an part of the brain, because we need to remove it from the brain, because it is not part of our species; and we have decided that criminally and investigative, because that's what the lowest specimen of the brain material would have to have had done to it.  In order to make us into full reciprocalizers, who would reciprocalize all the time (like we're supposed to).  A-reciprocity is not part of the brain, because we as humans say it isn't so, and so even if it is, it's not, because we're removing it from the species.  And we had already decided that in parliament.

    But, said the observer, if to say so was the function of the reciprocity of the brain.  Then it had already reciprocalized the full human endeavor of a-reciprocity, which was linked to physical health issues.  The Age of the Reciprocalist came into view, when everybody who was an reciprocalist was already decided on the matter and so had decided to reciprocalize everybody.  Which was fair for them to do.  And since they had, which was fair for them to do.  They already were, as per their instinct to.

    And since it felt good to hear out those parts of the brain which would a-reciprocalize or reciprocalize or Emo or Anti-Emo.  They considered it might be true.

    And that the function of the brain had been observed, and described accurately.

    But since they had commenced the territory between the a-reciprocal subject and the reciprocal subject and it was all already thought over and considered they no longer needed to hear from those parts of the brain, which were done competing.

    What do the Emo and Anti-Emo parts of the brain have to say now? they asked.

    We're done with those a-reciprocal logical components, they said.  We can talk about Politics of a-reciprocity versus reciprocity now.

    Cool!  Everyone said.

    So these Emos, they have more a-reciprocity than any of them or anyone can stand?

    No, said the Anti-Emos.

    If everyone was aboard with Anti-Emoism being an thing we could start to Middle out with Emoism too.  And possibly solve some of their problems in society.  Which was probably related to reciprocity.  Emos expressed wanting to kill themselves over their emotions.  Because that's what emos are.  Because that's what emos do.  But since the Anti-Emoists always had reason for them not to be.  Because they weren't that.  Because they were with Anti-Emoists, and that since they were with them they couldn't be Emos anymore because that's what Anti-Emoists do to Emoists.  As much as they can.  In order to stop them from killing themselves.  Which is what that part of the brain does.

    But if we each have each part of the brain, the Emo part and the Anti-Emo part, and each human has both parts.  Then we all have both parts.  And we can talk about our Emoism and Anti-Emoism together as though it was part of the brain that we all have.

    But if it is part of the brain that we all have, then what is the argument between the Emoism and the Anti-Emoism?  We Got This Girl!  We could produce more and more Anti-Emoism to combat the emoism, because they didn't know what combat was.  That's why they were emo.  And we could produce that indefinitely because we are Emo.  And since we can produce that indefinitely we are anti-emo too.  But we are emo because we have to be anti-emo, which is how that part of the brain works.  And since we are.  We can prove that we are emo.  Because we want to kill ourselves.  Because we just went through WWII which was the most terrible war in History (and of the human arms race which was to an large extent, about killing ourselves as an whole planet because we weren't good enough for the universe) but we don't want to kill ourselves also for it because we're Anti-Emo.  And that's the full Glen experience.

    An anti-emo, ooh! Lay it on me, Glen.  Says Sarcasm.

    If I am an anti-emo, says Glen.  Then it doesn't matter that you are emo because I can refute it indefinitely.

    That's exactly why I am an Emo, says the emo side.

    But if we can't talk about that in an book of Politics, said Glen, then what can we talk about?

    And that this had further proven his argument.  Even the suggestion of the subject.  Talking about suicide or anti-suicide.  In the media.  Who were responsible for reporting the investigation.  How would we look into the emo side of things.  And how would we look into the anti-emo side of things, which always had an answer for an emo.  And that this was the real political subject of the land.  How long we could sustain the dialogue between an emo and an anti-emo.  Which had to be done.  Indefinitely.  Probably.  I mean that's why we're emos.

    And that if it could be done there were probably less emos created in the long run, because their anti-emo democracy had convinced them out of it.  Which was desirable.  Because it was.  Because who wouldn't.

    And since Emoism versus Anti-Emoism were sustained as the subject matter of that particular part of the brain, they were still considered actually there for an time.  Long enough time to identify them.  Which was fine.  (It was).  Because they had an democracy on the subject of whether emos kill themselves and what they could do to stop it.  They had to.  That's what citizens do for each other.  And since it was part of the brain, they had to organize their society that way.  And I would hold you and help you stand in your emoist tendencies and let you try to stop me from getting you out of it; out of that subject.  So that you could be anti-emoist with me.  Because that's all anti-emoists do.  They stop emoism.  Which is about killing yourselves.  But since the anti-emo always responds to it; it isn't.

    Hey that feels kinda good.

    Like if it feels good and I'm pointing to it as part of the brain because the pleasure and the description of it were good.  Then it is good.  Then maybe we should look into this because that's how our society is constructed at present.  It would have to be.  In order to be organized after the logic of part of the brain.  Which is what we have to organize society after.  Because that's what we are.

    But what are the other parts of the brain?

    All the parts of the brain are parts of the brain that we can consciously think about because they are who we are.

    And that was what had lead to this because we are.

    And we had mediated them correctly in the narration.  There's got to be an super-ego, we argued.  And there are about five or six other auxillary functions.  Five or six because, well, when the super-ego steps in we might have five or we might have six.  It depends what it decides.  That's what the super-ego does.  And so 5.  Blue.  Green.  Red.  And White.  And that included the a-reciprocity versus reciprocity drive.  Under the White subject.  And so the last one was Gold or Bronze, it didn't depend which, matter of Fiction in fact; the scales of Dragons.  That's what they were.  And so the 6 parts of the brain that were in fact recordable, were the Super-Ego, Blue, Green, Red, White, and Bronze.  Personality, the Mood.  The Ego.  The Superfits.  And the perfunctory canal, and the Super-Ego.

    And that since they all knew themselves as these parts exactly, they were able to articulate it in English.  Identifying each and every part.  For they were like ferns, these little outgrowths of language; that helped them describe what part it was and where and why.

    Whether there was more Emo or Anti-Emo content to deal with was raised as an Question for Order.  There was more Anti-Emo shit to deal with.  Out there.  It was definitely there.  Because it was emo.  Which was the biggest stank.  The biggest stanky stank.  And it was shit that had to be dealt with.  By Emos?  Think Again.  We need to be Anti-Emos too, full time.  Probably.  There are emos created everywhere, and they want to kill themselves because that's what emos do and then they don't even have an anti-emo drive to be able to refute why they should kill themselves.  We need to articulate it in English so that everyone would know what that relationship meant critically.

    It meant that if someone is emo you just reciprocate or not with them because you is anti-emo.  Which is an real thing.  Because it is part of the brain.

    And he's talking Anti-Emo is Part of the Brain as if he hadn't already suggested there were five or six main categories of parts of the brain; and that from this number and previous descriptions they could extract exactly what each type (of the part of the brain) meant.  And to serve it to an Psychological Overlord who was responsible for Everything.  Including parts that we could not tell or not whether they had been intended to be programmed into parts of the game.  The One Big Game.  The One that It's All About.  If there was an a-reciprocity drive there was an reason for an Emo drive, even though at first it appeared unnecessary to think about.  It was.  There were so many a-reciprocal subjects in society they were ruining the nation.  And since we didn't have enough Anti-Emo to combat all of it (which we did).  Wait—we did? —we did—

    So I could just be emo all I want and still be good at arguing my advancements of the New Reciprocity as an political theory that could be socially conscious about the Earth as an whole.  Which has an tendency to draw out its Super Heroes and Super Villains since the inception of the comic book fandom and Fantasy as an genre as an whole.  And if the Emo and Anti-Emo parts of the brain were parts of the brain, it would have to be the Blue part.  —The emotion—  The green part was the Mood.  And the red part the personality.  And the White part (Where was it again?) was the Super-Ego.  And whatever the Bronze part was it had something to do with the conflict between the Super-Ego and the rest of the system, which was headed by the a-reciprocity drive; and it was the relationship between the a-reciprocity and the reciprocity drives that would decide whether the whole system functioned normally, because those drives were responsible for solving the dilemma between the Super-Ego and the perfunctory canal, which was responsible for interrupting all of the drives.  If the Super-Ego could not resolve its a-reciprocal corruption.

    The Bronze was an conflict between the Super-Ego and the Fantasy drive; it wanted to be an Dragon and it wanted to be Bronze but for some reason the Super-Ego had to end its fantasy hypothesis in order to preserve an basic a-reciprocal freedom.  The pressure on the Super-Ego was due to the demand for more discussion of Emos and their consequences and Anti-Emos and their consequences.

    The story about Brown and Purple needed to be about Emoists and Anti-Emoists, because that's where they would draw the line about what a-reciprocity and reciprocity were about.  Emos and Anti-Emos could be observed for their reciprocal and a-reciprocal behavior.  Which was how they would decide who they were as an community.

    Because relating between those Character senses was inherently an reciprocal or an a-reciprocal activity.  If one person was an Emo and another person was an Anti-Emo.  They complement one another as Character senses because that's what Anti-Emos need do; in order to stop Emos from being Emos.  And that's what Emos need do; in order to stop Anti-Emos from stopping them from being Emo.  Which is why they are emo.  When we stop the suppression of the Emo versus Anti-Emo conflict in the psyche, which is an endeavor of the Emotion; the blue part of the brain.  It raises the question of, well, what exactly does it mean for part of the brain to be blue?  It is producing blue as the aesthetic experience of the observer; but in reality the actual part of the brain producing it is probably not blue.  Does this matter for our discussion?  If an brain can identify part of itself as blue in contrast to its actual physical parts which are not blue what exactly is it referring to?  The Emotion.  I Suggest, as part of my Instinct to talk about itself; the political theory.  Such an delicate thing; but since I have an entire Psychological theory worked out (maybe not).  If Psychological theory can be part of Political theory, and it can because it has to be.  Then all of my theories about colors and the brain are valid and succinct.  As an Political subject as well.

    The game was to draw out what was a-reciprocity and what wasn't.  Politically.  Between Purple and Brown.  If I could refer to the parts of the brain that went into naming the difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity it may one day be the basis of an further understanding of what knowing the difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity Psychologically could mean to the average day person.  It could mean, being reciprocal to someone's green mood.  Or someone's red personality.  It could mean knowing the full apparatus of the five main parts of the consciousness, in psychological terms, and being able to reciprocalize with one another on an daily basis in lieu of those characteristics, which not all of us knew yet.

    And so that so far we were off track identifying any kind of identifiable Mood, Emotion, Passion, or Art of any part of the brain.  And that since all of this was also Political discussion it was necessarily about Emos.  If the Anti-Emo mechanism of the brain (the blue emotion) could be proven to exist.  Then they could further positively identify the Emo mechanism of its own blue emotion also.  Both of which were an part of the Emotional system of the brain.  The a-reciprocity drive and its reciprocal equivalent, it turns out, were part of the Mood system.  One could be in an foul mood, of a-reciprocity with everyone and everything.  And still be in an reciprocal relationship with itself and the Creator.  Which wasn't conducive to an foul mood at all.  But that since there had been so much a-reciprocity in the world there was an reason for it.  And it erupted like this, into the psyche, that all of this a-reciprocity would have to be complemented each with its own reciprocity; because that's what the reciprocal drive does.  It's an failsafe, engineering of biology, some perhaps would argue.  If we can't stand to be in a-reciprocity with one another, which is not an natural mental state of humans, then our brain would need an mechanism it could use to reverse that process of injuring itself which had lead to this a-reciprocal disease.  Even if that meant actually stooping to the level of a-reciprocity itself.

    But could it be proven that these mechanisms were also two parts of the brain and consciousness?

    The Mood system.  Which was full of moods.  Because that's what mood systems do.  But at the bedrock of their function, the two basic types of moods a-reciprocal and reciprocal, which were not the only two basic types of moods, because there were other moods that were more popular.  And had to be listed and verbally consented.  It was found to be the fact that the mood system is the most vast system of the brain because what it does, in part, is deal with mood disorders.  A-reciprocal and reciprocal mood interaction was the failsafe in case the species had failed to interact at an level higher than a-reciprocity.  The brain system and function could begin to plastic itself against the reciprocal infraction.  Which he could not even refer to because it was that upsetting to him.

    Once he had leaked out all of these parts of his brain, describing them from his own internal observation of what was in his mind (who and what) and they had begun to become reciprocally functional with one another, again, he realized he had resolved all of his mood disorders for the first time in, since, well like, forever.  We just needed to talk about these parts of the brain more often because we were, at that time in humanity, on the brink of discovering Psychologically what was/are the various parts of the consciousness and why do we need to be able to describe them using solely the reciprocity of our mind to observe and identify them, and how do they differ from the various parts of the brain itself?  This distinction was suggested as the beginning of psychological investigation proper to the advancement of science in the 21st Century.  An sentient organism that can identify the various parts of his or her mind using solely his or her own observation of his or her own mind in the process.  An 21st Century critical analysis that followed from the advent of Science.

    But since it had been written in my terms and my grammar.  It was subject to the inspection of what exactly was what it was exactly.  I mean "it."  What does "it" even refer to in this sentence?  (It was the difference between blue being an color and blue being an emotion).  (It was the difference between psychology not analyzing that fact and psychology analyzing that fact).  Which needed to be analyzed because the actual structure of the brain in physical terms is nothing like the actual experience of consciousness as an structure, which is distinguished from brain structure perhaps itself.  I can differentiate between my brain structure, what it is physically exactly, and my consciousness structure, which (virtually) does not need to conform to the physics properties of what an real brain looks or acts like.  They are in conversation with one another periodically.  Which makes sense; my experience of my consciousness structure depends on my experience of my brain structure, which is more connected and better attuned with the actual physical ways of actual physical reality (and physics).  (Which it isn't).  It's just that when we talk about the experience of the brain structure as different from the experience of the consciousness structure, there do not need to be conflicting parameters between them, and yet for some reason; which is an reason.  Maybe there do.  Maybe there are.  Maybe there is.

    It's just that everyone's consciousness structure are different and their brain structure is all the same (generally), because they are all humans and of the same species.  But that there are variations of structure also.  It is mainly the same unit.  And not everyone has agreeable opinions about what kind of relationship should exist between the consciousness structure and the brain structure, which are connected.  Because they have to be.  And how should one proceed to share with other people the difference between their own.  Which was differentiated in terms of aesthetic stream of thought as an experience of the central consciousness and nervous system.  If one could make streams of thoughts, or even whole puddles, that did not seem to be physically connected with the true specimen of the human brain, then it was those thoughts themselves that had the most valuable because they implied customization.  The aestheticization of the consciousness structure.  Your own experience of reality.  Which was fine, because there was documented connection between consciousness structure and brain structure.  Which was true.  But since everyone had an different experience with it they just called that Awareness and called it the end of the day.  Typical Psychologists.  Always completely ready to accept the most pleasurable conclusion.  Obviously, everyone has an extremely complex relationship between the two types of structures in their brain.  If they found ways to share, for example, what was different about theirs compared to another person's then that itself would be held to be an highly detailed achievement.  To have been able to navigate the difference between what the brain structure tells us (through scientific investigation) versus what the consciousness structure tells us (through scientific investigation also); and this was run as an game of observing what is in the mind and identifying it correctly using only the mind itself to observe them was Science; if ever those two shall (the physical structure and the consciousness (actual experience of the brain) structure) have an disagreement, an difference, an commodity of reciprocal value between them which is primarily, I will mention, aesthetic.  Because it triggers up the instinct to aestheticize something in order to psychologize it to waiver on this difference between them.

    For my consciousness structure is aestheticized; and my actual brain structure, it's already custom enough.  It has enough evolutions and advancements on it that I can begin to think about my consciousness structure for an while.

    And that since I had such an good connection between my brain structure and my consciousness structure (I would have had to have been).  (To be able to accomplish articulating this logical argument).  Then I must have the right kind of connection with nature as well.  And I knew the right sort of politics to wage as ent politics.  Because the trees were dying and the planet was dying; and that was the first thing I had mentioned.  For that reason.

    But I was skeptical.  Was the planet really dying?  No, my intuitive cognitive process replied.  But it was ent politics.  There were actual sacred forests being destroyed at this present moment.  But they were all around everywhere else and not here.  If the connection between the Primary Sector and the planet was severed because they were ever onward a-reciprocal to it and the environment, which was an human problem caused by humans.  Then being a-reciprocal to the environment might not be able to be diminished.  They would go on fighting for resources and eventually die off from failing to be reciprocal to one another and the planet.  Which would cause disease and pesticides.  An food shortage.  And an severe energy crisis.  Restoring the natural tendency to be reciprocal to one's environment meant maybe not locating the problem exactly to be with the humans or the environment.  They were after all, part of their environment.  But someone called an foul play was in the works, (Something was rotten in the state of Denmark) because it was humans who were to blame for the environmental shortage.  Shortage?  Exactly.  Humans needed to be fully reciprocal to one another and their environment.  But they weren't clear yet on the details exactly.  If reciprocity was how they were going to solve an supposed severed connection with the environment, then how would they implement it?  What would it mean to be reciprocal to their environment?  And why did they not know this already?

    The relationship between the Primary Sector and the ent politics must be that it will become sustainable.  But what was it again exactly.  An Psychological theory?  An Political theory?  It was an un-sustainable relationship with nature because we only had so much planet in us.  We had to be able to grow beyond our boundaries.  Into space.  We had to be able to find more resources, and use them to make anything.  Even if that meant moving off the planet eventually.  How to make the Primary Sector reciprocal to the environment?  Expand the environment.  Become space marauders.  Well, at least only until we meet up with other civilizations.  It was the only possible outcome.

    But maybe the problem was that we were a-reciprocal to space in general.  Of which the environment was space.  And space, the environment.  We needed an way to be reciprocal to all spaces, and space in general.

    The difference between Brown and Purple—the whole story—was about this essential difference between humans and the environment.  The tango between a-reciprocity and reciprocity was one perpetrated in nature.  Which was always a-reciprocal to us.

    Proof.  Evidence: It was trying to kill us.

    But we couldn't be completely a-reciprocal of the fact that at least, some creatures, respected us.

    Not legal creatures.  They were unlike legal creatures.  They were unlike legal creatures completely at all.  Or whatever.

    Legal creatures were creatures that had law.  Which we did.  Because we do.

    Legal creatures were always reciprocal to the law, which was reciprocal to nature.

    That's what law is.

    Evidence.  Proof: we had built it from nature.

    And so, at least, we were reciprocal to it in this fashion.  Even if our Politics had to be adjusted.

    If Politics could be about being reciprocal to nature it would be about being reciprocal to the law.

    And how people could do that exactly, when there aren't enough resources on this planet to get us through the Great Cosmic Middle of time without out having to advance beyond terrestrial considerations.  The law would have to change, in time: No using up all of our resources!

    (Before we haven't anymore).

    The role of the new reciprocal theorist would be to promote reciprocity with nature.  If people could discover for themselves what reciprocity with nature was like, they would be able to decide to support the New Reciprocity, which was focused on both Earth and extraterrestrial nature.

    And so the question that drives all the plot and action is whether Brown or Purple was more a-reciprocal than the other.

    A-reciprocal behavior was clearly masochistic.

    It required an disjoin of the Instinct and its Super-Ego.

    Which was always in favor of reciprocity.

    If New Reciprocity was available at every level of society, including the Primary Sector, then we could come to reciprocate or reciprocalize our environment sustainably ahead of the a-reciprocal relationship we had with it and one another.

    But we were a-reciprocal to it, and we hadn't even begun using the vibration frequency of the planet itself, as an sound to signal public politics or the beginning of political discussion.  Which was the best and most advanced sound to use, because it harmonized everyone with the vibration of the planet.  Which should have been their primary political concern.  There was, however the frequency and vibration of the whole universe itself, which could be used to produce an different sound.  And an different psychological effect in the realm of politics.  Purple had never been a-reciprocal.  Neither had Brown.

    A-reciprocity was not an part of the brain; or any human behavior.

    'Not' in the sense that the brain wasn't designed for it.

    But either Purple or Brown, one of them, had provoked a-reciprocity on the other.  And that was the pilot sentence toward legislating a-reciprocal and reciprocal relationships.

    Brown had actually been a-reciprocal, even though the brain is not designed to do that.

    Even though the brain could not actually be used to perform a-reciprocity because it did not have that function.

    But it had.

    And so Brown, not now in both the brain structure and the consciousness structure was part of nature and the mind independently.

    Brown, in nature, was the fact of human race ethnicity; but in the mind (the consciousness structure) it was the mimicry instinct of the human species in lieu of the fact they had an planetary and an universal frequency.  Which could be used to better promote the design and facilitation of the human civilization if it could be proven to Purple, who was the legal authority suited up to handle Brown's a-reciprocal behaviors.

    Brown's a-reciprocal behaviors were, first, not paying deference to the legal authority.  And second, not caring about that; that they were paying no deference to the legal authority.  Both of which were an criminal offense.  After the creation of an law protecting the victim from its own a-reciprocal fantasy, which was a-reciprocal because others (perpetrators) had used their own a-reciprocal fantasy conduct to abuse the fantasizing subject, who was just fantasizing about being in an relationship with someone.  Fantasy that is interrupted in order to harm an individual, and his or her sex life, is not Fantasy.  And so Fantasy need be protected by the law.  Brown was a-reciprocal to Purple because it had ruined the Fantasy, that Purple was the highest legal authority.  And Brown was not.

    And so Brown, being everything that was not, had to be subject to the decision-making of Purple, which was the desire of Purple and since Purple was the law—it was.

    Brown had been a-reciprocal.  Which Purple hadn't proven yet, because everyone is Innocent until proven Guilty.

    But since Brown was the Middle of Purple, and Middle the Purple of Brown.

    Brown—the Earth, the Soil, and Nature—and Purple—the celestial legal apparatus and body of humans' relationship with the rest of the universe—were at odds.  Which they couldn't be.  If humans were going to survive.

    They had to figure out what was a-reciprocal to Earth and compare it to what was a-reciprocal with the whole universe, in terms of human behavior; in order to define the guilt of Brown, which was definitely guilty because they had already decided the outcome of the trial.

    Which they hadn't.

    So they had to.

    Maybe the best explanation was that humans were a-reciprocal to their solar system, in general, and that it was this a-reciprocity between themselves that was the result of that.  They didn't know how to treat the universe and so they didn't know how to treat each other.  And they didn't know how to treat each other, and so they didn't know how to treat Earth's environment.  Which they were part of.

    Your eyes stop noticing the little things, like the font of the security sticker on the door to your apartment.  Because you had been treated with such a-reciprocity.  Which wasn't just.  Which wasn't fair.

    And you knew exactly what a-reciprocity was because you had experienced it.

    And it frustrated you that we were still in the stages of defining its borders and properties because, you were negative, humans aren't so great yet.

    But the real question was what was reciprocity.  And how could they measure it?  Who cared about a-reciprocity?  When there was so much reciprocity to go around?  Which they could point to.  In exact scientific terminology.

    Reciprocity is the basic property of any good political theory.

    People who were reciprocalizers were experts on this fact and knew it was true.

    The New Reciprocity, the writer argued, was another reciprocity-based theory; not something completely new.  That had been built on the previous theories, maybe, but that had its own characteristics and personality all the same.

    The New Reciprocity was an reciprocal theory.  And so it was not about a-reciprocity.  Which had already been decided.

    Reciprocity was about the progress of creating one thing at an time between us; which is the writer's job to do.  If reciprocal subjects in an reciprocal command economy (say anyone in an workplace in Canada) had the task of creating one thing between themselves at an time.  Because that is what people who work together do.  (Again, it could be in the capacity of intellectual collaboration in order to produce an psychological reciprocal product or abstract figure of mind).  In an reciprocal command economy, that would be valuable.  As an Political Philosophy.  The idea of having been 11's together, (1 and 1).  So that progress could continue.  No matter what our status in society.  Was such an Politically appeasing concept to the author because it seemed poetic that there would be an Angel number 11.

    If we stabilized our economy around the idea of creating one thing at an time together, as sharing partners, then we could stabilize our Political economy, or our Psychology, our Religion, our Culture, our Instinct.  All of these.  To allow an greater focus in society that would further promote wellness and awareness.

    It became about the idea of creating one thing at an time with the idea of using roleplay characters in Politics.

    New reciprocal theorists could use roleplaying character to perform their political arguments or "wizard battles" with one another.  So, for example, you could have an politician who is an ent.  And the ent would be able to present an specific identity as an fantasy character to any number of other specific identities as fantasy characters.

    New Reciprocity had to do with the development of these characters in the laboratory; or the Political Science factory of University graduates.  We could roleplay characters in order to train one another to be better at their characters.  Which is about reciprocity.  (It's more difficult than you might think or is recordable to be currently occurring in society).

    Reciprocity between fantasy roleplaying characters would mean an development of the use of reciprocal command, an Political pleasure centrepiece, which has the responsibility to promote an opponent's own reciprocity of his or her own roleplaying character at the same time it does its own.  This is how roleplaying characters will interact.  In order to perpetuate the fantasy.  If they manage to perpetuate an fantasy, in which an interaction occurs between their roleplaying identities that is conducive to the growth and development to those roleplaying identities themselves, then we can say they actually had that effect on their audience.  Which would be Politically handsome.  Or beautiful.  Depending on which way you look at it.

    Reciprocal command is all of the orders of the individual to another individual at any given time.  When he actually manages to give them; to express his ideas in politics about politics because politics is about demands.  This is desirable in political society because that's what politicians do.  They give orders to one another.

    But how can they be played out in delightful fantasy characters for the fun and profit of the Public?

    The New Reciprocity, when we say it is or isn't this or that, actually is the giving of orders.  Reciprocal commands.  Which is encouraging to an reciprocal fantasy engine; if the reciprocal commands can be given between fantasy characters using clever logic we will also understand why they are reciprocal commands.  Because that is what the most convincing argument would do.

    Fantasy is all about being convincing.

    We are able to give reciprocal commands to one another without fear because we know the fantasy is that convincing.

    And since Fantasy is an step ahead of politics, it is the most powerful mode of politics.  An mode that hasn't been mastered yet, which anyone can attest to.  We actually don't have ent politicians yet.  But it's okay because the ents, at least, that we do have, manage to be righteous political entities in themselves anyway.

    But we can see where this is going.  Fantasy is the next step.  Competition of fantasy heroes.  In the Political sphere.  And that New Reciprocity is partly about that transition.

    I am suggesting our advancement into that type of civilization will also help with the environmental crises.  Especially since ents were the first thing mentioned.  The people who have the problem with the a-reciprocal nature between humans and their biodome or biosphere.

    This is also further conducive to post-demographic consumerism.

    The New Reciprocity it could evolve into an appreciation for the process by which we create one thing at an time for the whole biosphere.  Okay, maybe we couldn't be part of all of those creations, but it would make for some really cute documentaries!  How is an butterfly born?  And why do we want to see more of them all of the time even though we already knew and had seen it before?

    New Reciprocity is about bringing one another new reciprocity, which is also relative to the Creation, because bringing one another new reciprocity is how we commence the process of beginning to create one thing at an time together.  As an Planet.  When we do this as political theorists and activists, using fantasy characters might be the most persuasive way to do it.  

    How?

    How do we create reciprocity between fantasy roleplayers (fictions) in the Political realm‽

    In front of everyone?

    It begins with the reciprocal command theory.

    When we say "You are __________" we actually mean that as an order; at some level.  It is not just an description of who you are, but an act of language which communicates an order (consciously or unconsciously) that can be multi-platform and variable.  Describing someone as this or that label; though it might just be taken as an considerate thing or consideration, if we examine it with New Reciprocity (it is taken to be an order, at some level if only subtle).  The interaction between individuals becomes of getting the most demands across, describing each other along the way, even if those demands are reciprocal and both participants in the conversation demand them.

    It's when they stop demanding them from one another, because they already both know they demand it, that we start being dramatic.

    Drama is how the new reciprocal theorists get their point across because Fantasy is inherently dramatic.

    And when we can refer to one another in that fantasy realm as fantasy characters ourselves.  Even if we have to be dramatic.  We have the essence of politics.  (Fantasy politics).  Which is ent, or elf, or troll, or (post-demographic consumerist) whatever or whoever.  And when we start saying it is.  Which according to the new reciprocal theory is itself an demand and not just an description; even though subtle descriptions are sometimes the best kind of demands.  Which opens up an whole new possibility in the realm of Motive and Intent.  Fantasy motive and intent.

    Your idea of an fantasy realm may be different than mine because I am an fantasy writer; in my fantasy world there are politicians.

    Which is an necessary step to take if I want to make the reciprocity of it possible in Politics.

    But which race would be able to be an Politician?

    All of them.

    Any of them.

    Preferably.

    And so humans, in my political world, are free to be anyone they want.  And in my fantasy world are roleplaying any type of living animation they wish to.

Go to Next Chapter