The New Reciprocity: vii. Tertiary Sector; Chapter 7 (VII.)

Go to Previous Chapter

vii. Tertiary Sector; Chapter 7 (VII.)

    The chapter title refers to the traditional Tertiary Sector, though we had previously reassigned the numbers, including the environment itself as the Primary Sector.  The Tertiary Sector, or Quaternary Sector (according to the re-description) includes all services.  (I will use the old names for these sectors from this point on).

    Now—my thinking is—services depend on the consumer demand for proprietary being a-reciprocal to them or not.

    This is jest because lack of consumer demand is thrown into an argument that a-reciprocity is lack of consumer demand.  (And there are other ways of looking at the possible presence of a-reciprocity in the Tertiary Sector—is it in the business where customers do an interaction and the business makes the transaction—or is it Customer Service in general in which we will find reciprocity or a-reciprocity?).  My instinct tells me to look for comedy to look for them, these alleged instances of reciprocity and a-reciprocity in the service sector.

    Why is reciprocity of business magnified when we look at them as services that customers can refuse to access or recommend to anyone else?

    If tertiary businesses are the service sector, then what are the a-reciprocal and reciprocal behaviors that go along with this sector?

    A-reciprocity, if it is an scourge on the planet and in the service sector then it is affecting Market Capitalism.

Things I Consider A-reciprocal About the Market in General

    Not making eye-contact.  From one perspective inflicting the fate worse than death (anacification) is seriously a-reciprocal.  Like maybe an public humiliation of some kind.  From another perspective maybe having any kind of a-reciprocity is in itself an fate worse than death.

    Fantasy character politicians are our natural and powerful character politicians.

    We want to be an magician or rogue because how we execute that character exactly is itself political.

    Does acting the character of the rogue mean one is an thief?  Or is that the fantasy.  And so it is fiction?  Why would someone act thief politically, to point attention to the fact that they haven't stolen or used an great some of public money illegitimately.  And an guilty conscience maybe?

    Is Police Brutality a-reciprocal or is that allowable by law?  Is Police behavior ever a-reciprocal by definition?

    Do Doctors have the right to examine their patient's a-reciprocity?

The Reciprocal Command Theory

    The reciprocal command theory states that people who are reciprocal give orders (demands (reciprocal commands)) to each other in all kinds of ways.  Giving orders is what it means to be human and reciprocal in politics for everyone; and we expect demands from everyone sometimes.

    This is why I need to tighten the definition that I give to reciprocity and a-reciprocity.  How I define them will decide an further refinement of my political opinion.

    And what is my political opinion right now then?

    I believe that realists are an blight on the bosom and plant-kundalini serpent of humanity.  They think we're all-out zombie hoard status epidemic all of the time; that anyone can be an enemy in this world.  That they might, in fact, lose their sanity at any moment.  An aneurism explodes in someone's brain at the bus stop and next thing you know he's biting your neck and the same disease that gave him the aneurism is now inside your body.  Which won't matter much if you don't survive the attack itself.  Which is gruesome.

    I believe neo-liberalism is the fairest path because we can't treat each other like enemies all the time.  And we can't act like we're expecting it.  And that's not part of our genetic inheritance.  It leads to Social Darwinist disassociation from the human in favor of the animal pre-instinct, who is acted out only in part way (because we don't know the experience from story from animals yet (who cannot communicate with us in language)).  And all concentration on disassociating from the human is spent objectifying the animal, who the human cannot truly be and yet aspires to (spends his her or time acting like it); In effect making themselves the object.  An object truly ugly.  For it is impersonation of the animal (who has no impersonation yet).

    I believe all religion is in need of an overhaul, with features and adaptations given from the Napster generation world that eventually lead to MMORPG and millions of Priests running around in Elwynn Forest (an beginner zone in the World of Warcraft).  It appears to be fair that we expect the same kinds of things from real priests as we do from random healer-type characters in roleplaying fantasy videogames.  Thereby subsuming all of their concerns under one virtual paradigm.  I also believe in greater diversity of religion; and I think it is true that if all of the world's Major Religions (on Earth) got together (they already have) they could re-evaluate the truths they think they are so familiar with under the empiricist values of science and technology.  And I think that any one religion out to destroy all other religions is nonsensical.  We can never allow the tyranny of one all-encompassing religion.  I am not sure whether there is only one God and I expect that if he wanted to pass us off to another God because he had become so frustrated with it he could.  She would have long beautiful hair and hold onto the world like it was the crystal ball of an underwater seawitch; watching everything happening within it but mostly just looking pretty casual herself.  If Christianity cannot break its addiction to trying to operate as the only sole Religion on Earth.  Then we miss out on opportunities for new ones; and old ones to make adjustments to their belief system.

    The definition of religion itself must change.

    Gay-prioritizing religions are before any other; for those do not count as real religions which do not prioritize the gays.  Also religions cannot be about trying to prove one of them correct and all of the others flawed.  They must be about accepting one another's differences; even if that means accepting them for their religion difference between you.  That is the true definition of religion.

    And it needs to be updated in an specific way; by ordering people to update it.  By ordering that religion theory borders on the reciprocal command theory; in which all orders and demands are considered.  And that by making that order itself to the chair of the committee (audience of whatever universe) is itself beneficial to the species.  Instead of old dogmatic definitions in which religion is about destroying all other religions; and in deed it is the present gift of all of these other religions that any one of them still exist today.  —New Reciprocity sometimes requires that we make blatant demands from one another.  But it can be softened in the roleplaying and fantasy genre.  I am ordering all religion to accept gay people; and that by not accepting gay people they no longer classify as an religion.

    Religion is gay.

    It is also true that religions may be numerous, for they hold so many values sacred to us humans.  But also we have the responsibility to update them; and to say that's not what religion is about anymore.  Religion is about an instinct we all share; to have some way of figuring out the cosmos.  So that we know why we are here.  Honestly I do think religion or religious instinct is part of the mechanism of the brain.  Scientists may one day find an part of the brain that is central to religion and religious feelings.  I am saying homo sapiens is religious; that it is part of the genetic instinct that we cannot remove from the human.  And there are many way of expressing it.

    The Christianna is only one way of expressing it.  And I think it may be up to instinct to choose an top eight religions list.  For these Major Religions, which are broad reaching and have firm roots in History, all reveal something to us about the instinctual joy of being free to have your own religion.  As well as any other kind of feeling you could have being an member of your religion.

How Reciprocal Commands Work

    When you go into an coffee shop and order an coffee, you are using reciprocal command.  In the form of an demand: an demand that you have an cup of coffee and they prepare it for you quickly.  This is an reciprocal command.  It also works the other way: you see an price tag and you know that is the demand the business is giving you (rather than you giving the business) as an reciprocal command.

    In fantasy, they can work the same way.  Your fantasy character should be normalized to trade and auction benefits for your character.  But in case he or she isn't—or maybe you haven't picked an fantasy character yet that you could perform to get your political beliefs across to others—we can talk about the differences between reciprocal command trade fantasy and people who are a-reciprocal to the economy.  All fantasy characters have an deep relationship with the market in fact.  Fantasy characters are so dynamic they can do other things, of course, like carry on serious political conversation; or negotiating reciprocal fantasy either sexual or flirty or playful.  Not everything reciprocal command leads to is an exchange of property, after all.  We want other characters to interact with us in an certain way; and being able to interact in that certain way holds an special value for the consumer.  We can use reciprocal commands to develop that sense of an shared fantasy political science community; in order to further one another's characters, on an post-demographic ecosystem.

    The fantasies, we might say, that are lowest are perhaps hobfaeries; these are fairies who have deformity.  (What kind of genetic deformity could an fairy have?).  If it is just fiction it could be any one of them.  But if it is science fiction they are an possible derivative race we genetically engineer one day.  And the highest, may we say; are the radio flies.  And we may say they are also some people who we could render in science fiction; that may one day be of our species to have engineered fairies of three different kinds!  And the reason I say this on the subject of such an important topic as politics is that it all starts with fairies, because we happen to be of the informed status to say that that's how I got here . . . fairies saved me.  And if that isn't political I don't know what is.

    "So your fantasy of the existence of fairies.  Is what saved you‽"

    "Yes.  And the verorcs are an race worth empathizing over."

    "And this had an scientific purpose for the future?"

    "Yes."

    "What kind of genetic deformity would you have if you were one of them?"

    "Not all fairies have genetic deformity."

    "But they are all children; everyone knows that about fairies.  Having fantasies about children is most contemn!"

    "—No I don't have children about fantasies!"

    "But what are they then to you; fairies—what are they?"

    "They're you know.  Most of them are adults.  They have four wings in their adult form if their deformity against this is not present.  And they're most adult in every way; they look and think and act like sex.  Because they love it.  And they raise the children to act like them and they love it."

    "Four wings?  What's the difference?"

    "Well child fairies have two wings only if their deformity against this is not present."

    "And this is all part of your fantasy?"

    "Yea."

    "Well if someone wanted to bring up the politics of fairies; we'd need to draw out exactly what the definition of them are.  Using advanced Psychology that will inform us thusly about what fairies represent in the imagination and how their symbolism has passed on throughout the ages.  Through many ages.  Through many many ages of psycho-development and Freudian hypothesis.  Like does it just refer to an fair moment no matter how kinky it might sound in any location you can think of.  Or does it actually represent an alien race; an possible future ally to humans.  After all of the History about how humans genetically engineered them.  Does telling people about fairies mean you have plans to genetically engineer humans and do you have the power to do so at present?"

    "Fairies are an, fantasy, dear of the imagination; and they are fair because they are fair.  And when you see them visually in your mind later on you know it had just been an fantasy because they were too good for you.  And you were too good for it."

    "Since the subject is fiction anything we say now will evoke its cause whether plausible or fictional itself."

    "And if we say we have fairies in our Culture as well does that mean all of it is fiction?"

    "Unfortunately Yes.  This is the Truth that All Fairies Know.  It is what makes them fairies, in fact."

    "Why would they be fairy just because they're being emo about their sex life; and why and how does fairies and emoism go together?"

    "Because fairies just want to express themselves.  They want anybody to hear them.  They just want you to acknowledge that they're there."

    "But this is all an fantasy.  Most humans grow out of seeing fairies anyway."

    "Well but is it‽"

    "Oh no.  You've asked the question.  You've gone and asked the question."

    "If radio flies and even hobfaeries can hold the fantasy realm between them."

    "So an succinct definition would be somewhere in the approximate realm of an taboo or an curse."

    "Fucking Damnit!  FUCKING FUCKING DAMNIT!" — "but that's our heroes!  Those are our fantasy character politicians who were brave enough to be fantasy characters in politics before they had actually been admitted into politics."

    "YEA AND IT'S TEARING APART THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE!"

    "Fairies are just an breadcrumb.  If you follow them all then you'll get an actual fairy."

    "So fairies just leave breadcrumbs.  And that's within their power to do so.  And if you follow all of them you might figure out who he is and what's he about."

    "Or her—"

    "Or her.  Except not for this fairy," he gestured plainly.

    "And that's all fairies do?  And that's why they're so powerful?"

    "Well yeah that's part of what all fairies do.  And since they have mastered the art of breadcrumbs they collect an lot of attention.  Even though they exert little time and energy on it; it's just an second nature to them."

    "Fairies are an powerful psychological meme.  If you want an more precise psychological definition.  It's that fairies are an fantasy and we all know that because everyone knows we haven't invented an real live one yet.  But we will one day.  And we don't know how to do so exactly.  And so any talk about fairies is actually fine and harmless."

    "There's no negativity in it‽"

    "None at all."

    "And that's supposed to hold up as 'psychological'?"

    "Yes."

    "Dear me.  I think I've been overexposed.  There's no part about it that means I'm an delusional twisted psycho?"

    "None at all dear," she turned to leave, "but why did you want to genetically engineer our species into fairies in the first place, if you don't mind me asking?"

    "They're pretty."

    "I see."

    "They have wings."

    "I know."

    "And they're not angels."

    "Which is fair to say!  And Proud!"

    "If we ever genetically engineer angels, oh I suppose we'll have to have some kind of competition between them.  Quidditch."

    "So I mean, theoretically, if fairies competed at politics with other character types.  How would that go exactly?"

    "The fairies would be wearing clothes."

    "That's fine."

    "I didn't ask if it was for you to say it was fine; maybe that's not fine to me!"

    "It's fine.  We would be wearing clothes too.  All your psychic friends, humans.  Who want to explore fantasy politics with you."

    "No—I mean clothes need to evolve.  I don't want to need to be wearing them anymore!"

    "If we evolve your species into giving off an shimmering dust that will cover the exposed areas and erogenous zones—"

    "We don't even need to call it clothing.  Anymore.  We'll call it fashion!"

    "Fashion.  Like how you make something.  I get it."

    "Yeah like you couldn't figure out how they made what I was wearing.  What are you an nun; I'm just kidding darling.  It just spontaneously made its way around me with what mechanics of your imagination no one can fathom; to have developed around me so.  What else could you call it but fashion?"

    "So fairies are kind of an political figure of fairness (their number one priority) and sexual politics?  Then?"

    "But why would anyone want to destroy that, politically?"

    "There are many levels of what Glen refers to as fairies.  For example, fairies always ask for help constantly.  They actually do need that much help.  And there's nothing wrong with it, according to fairy policy."

    "I see.  What other levels are there, if you don't mind?"

    "There are fairies, who were created first (out of all of the many different kinds of fairies).  They had two wings as children and four wings as adults, if their deformity against this is not present.  Fairies are created out of human eyes that have been plucked for growing to unpick them onto an branch of an tree or an plant.  The eye loses its sight and then an fairy is incubated in it.  Until its second stage of maturity.  In which it blossoms or emerges fancier from the centre of that organ of the plant which it had then grown into, an faedney."

    "So fairies, for you, is also about ecosystem politics and environmentalism?"

    "Well let me finish.  Second came Pixies, after the Fairies.  They were both considered fairies, but pixies were physically different than the fairies (the fairies of whom that were just referred to as fairies (though all of them were referred to as fairies also)).  They weren't just borne from an artisan's mechanical labor but refracted from an speck of light of which appeared so shiny and perfect, and gem-like to its observer; he had to have been an dwarf, the artisan.  To have made an artifact which could bring Pixies into our world.  And in that space where we have them in our world they are able to fly with any number of wings and so represent the standard that, since some pixies have the same number of wings as those who live with deformities, even though they themselves are not deformed.  It is an pixie standard to say anyone with an deformity is just as perfect as any pixie who has the same number of wings.  (They have all of them (including zero)).  But to pixies zero wings isn't an deformity.  The most likely quality of an pixie is that he or she represents an Standard like that one.  Just as important as all fairies needing to ask for help sometimes; there have to be people on watch there at all times to help them.  This is another Community Standard.  An Community Standard of the pixie community."

    "Okay so you're into Community Standards and fictionalizing the lie that pixie communities cannot have Community Standards."

    "Almost—I'm saying that there already are pixie communities with Community Standards elsewhere.  I mean like not on this planet."

    "How would you know this?"

    "Radio flies are the third type of fairy ever created.  They are flies.  They have the same number of wings as flies.  And they are born from enchanted manouer or other pestilence and contagion.  Which all disappears at its conception."

    "So if you being able to make up stories about radio flies means you know something about Culture from other planets; because logically radio flies have to be futuristic.  Yea I can see it that way fictionally."

    "And radio flies have hilarious imaginations.  They are always thinking about sex with one another all the time (the time when the radio flies across the room).  (Or what's on (playing right now); it just flies).  (Not the radio).  And they set up everything in advance in order for it to go this way accordingly.  Or you know just thinking about each other.  And everything that exists between them physically is just an psychic fact.  An smell on the land.  Anything heavy like the vehicles and the signs in the street outside my window.  They are just between me and you.  All those things that make up reality.  And we are not part of that time together right now at this time."

    "Radio flies sound deep, man."

    "When the soul falls asleep.  Man.  —Yeah but can we actually roleplay them?"

    "Can we roleplay Pixies?  That's what I was thinking.  To have such Power as the genesis of Community Standards in Politics as they do."

    "And we can definitely roleplay fairies.  We know that for sure."

    "So then we can roleplay all fairy types then."

    "Maybe we can."

    "Yeah maybe we can."

    "An Necromancer can oppose the fairies, then."

    "And what are the fairies trying to do?"

    "They are trying to heal the chasm of the post-war psychosis that affects the whole species (humans and fairies) so that many more fairy roleplaying types will emerge."

    "And the Necromancer opposes this?  He would be instantly destroyed.  In Canadian politics.  But what is the chasm, then, if there will be no one to emerge from it you oppose as you always?"

    "He talks garbage.  There is no logic to his lie.  No one to emerge from it you oppose as you always.  This isn't an logical statement.  But what is it to oppose you then?  But to oppose you!"

    "Then we have resealed the boundary between us."

    "It was an fairy, though, who began the roleplay circle to invite all your nightmares and terrorisms to haunt us!  Ha!  You could never haunt any of us; you are pathetique."

    "But it's nice of us to.  Because we provide the means by which other Evil roleplay characters may come to play.  And also the means by which other Good characters will come to play.  And they are neither of them pathetic but powerful in their own right.  And if it takes being an Necromancer, an small sacrifice to pay, then it is worth every ounce of strength I have."

    "That's what my fantasy book was about.  The Version territory (an academy) and the place of all of the demons and vampires within it.  Alongside fairies.  As their equals.  So experimental.  So dangerous.  But somehow all of them manage to get through the day.  Everyone has their own version was my theory holding it all together."

    "So the fact of being an fairy is that it's always in the air."

    "That you don't like us."

    "We do like you its just complicated."

    "In the Version academy, as long as anyone was able to contend their political character in an debate it didn't matter whether it was fantasy or an good grade.  They wanted their passing students to put together an comprehensive character of fantasy type—it could be any species or any object of animacy.  And it had already been suggested that fairy represented one of them.  Fictionally."

    "But if it's all fiction you could be anything?"

    "But it's not all fiction and you can't be anything.  You only have so much time to put together an costume.  You only have so much time to decide how you are lying in fiction and telling the truth in non-fiction."

    "I see.  And it is this thinking that leads you to your conclusion.  That doesn't mean it's not true that it is still fiction and I can be anything I want."

    "Yes."

    "If everyone (every individual) could perform their own coherent version.  (It was their description of events as they see it).  The Version (an post-university station) could further advance its goals as an public establishment.  That every human rights is requested including everyone being entitled to their own version.  (How the story goes exactly)."

    "What's your version?"

    "My version is long and sad and you scant want to have me explain it in full detail."

    "I have time."

    "Are you sure it won't affect your mood?  Some of what I have to say is upsetting censor-worthy material; but if you're sure your mood can handle it I'm game."

    "I'm in."

    "Okay, well.  My version is that people compress into smaller packages how they feel about one another during the day into neat little .zip file mental packages that they use later to navigate mentally the language handle of an given situation.  Freudian slips prove that at some point it has to come out.  (Whatever we are compressing or crystallizing about how we feel).  And there's nothing wrong with it.  It's just that some people are already expressing everything they compress (zip (in computer lingo)) in their minds in order to be able to focus on more of it in the full light of day all throughout civilization all over planet Earth.  And most of us don't want to play games at hiding it inside."

    "So is compression, or as you put it, crystallization an act of repression?  Is there any suppression of an instinct in there?"

    "Maybe just for further packaging."

    "Packaging.  Why what would you need packaging for?"

    "We package language.  That's my version.  We go home every day and we pack our suitcases full for where we all be traveling with language tomorrow."

    "Interesting you think packaging an suitcase is an metaphor for reading."

    "Well I'm an Book; I mean, you've got to empathize for me."

    "I see how you are dear."

    "So what is your version?"

    "My version.  It's more scientific.  And specific.  And accurate.  It's just that some people are crazy and other people aren't.  And that's just the way it is."

    "This is the only thing you know about your practice?"

    "I didn't say it was part of my practice, hon, I said it was my version."

    "An Version is an practice you see.  And so you're saying it is part of your practice."

    "It is then."

    "I see."

    "And can you elaborate on it?  Like what does it refer to?"

    "People."

    "Just people.  Anything else?"

    "Well since it's science it's better than your version."

    "Well since it's not it's not."

    —And why can I always tell the characters apart according to their version?  But this previous conversation has several characteristics which are telling.  First, the reader doesn't know whether this is an conversation between two people (back and forth) or if there are more characters involved.  But I've designed it this way specifically, for them to be able to try to guess how many characters there are based on their understanding of what I mean by an version.  Second, there are many type of versions presented.  Third, the better you are at understanding what I mean by version, the better you will be able to follow this previous conversation based on how many versions and identities you can identify.

What is an Reciprocal Command down to the perfect definition?

    Reciprocal command is an command you give to someone whether they realize it or not.  (Or choose to be subtle about it).  People use reciprocal commands to further one another in fantasy politically.  It can be an suggestion (maybe you should take your clothes off) or an comment (maybe it's better they stay on right now).  And in fact the kernel of it existing between two fantasy characters is the fact of them interacting in an certain way; using language in order to further their political demands.  Which may mean reciprocal commands.  Ultimately—because it is an fantasy and fantasy is fiction.  Sometimes there may not be an development of reciprocal commands between characters.  But if humans can perform in fantasy politics, may I point out, then we have had fantasy politics before and you're not introducing anything new.  But, I further developed the point, we didn't —we haven't had ents in politics before.  We haven't had all of the fantasy princesses elect an representative to speak on behalf of them and the elven assembly.  If an reciprocal command could exist in fiction; (it was argued) then they could say themselves to be anything to be to one another.  (The Kernel of their interaction of these in genesis fantasy an woman and her mate; was that).  And say that as an reciprocal command.  And therefore the morality of them existing in fiction together meant examining the ethics of what they would name each other to be; and what they would name themselves to one another as themselves to be.  (Labels, you know but sensitive to the Capital product generation and their sensitivity to labels).  It would be an fair balance.  An reciprocity.  An Character existing with another Character with whom there is fantasy reciprocity.  Their value on the market escalates because they are begun representing political values.  In front of other people.  Whom are satisfied with the creature of its interaction in politics.  They have created the New Reciprocity.  An Fantasy Reciprocal Command political theory.  It means that at some level, everything we say is reciprocal to you.  Or reciprocal to us.  Or reciprocal to myself.  And it is fair to make any demands at present that are related to fantasies.  We are reciprocal to one another in the realm of fantasy because that makes reciprocal sense that fictionally we are reciprocal to one another sometimes that way.  We are fantasy characters themselves because the reciprocal commands that fantasy characters make are based on this one.  And so being capable of making an reciprocal command in politics.  As an fantasy character, the subject would be about what is an fantasy and what isn't.  And who is an fantasy character to themselves.  And what does that mean for other people and who they are to one another as fantasy characters.  There are so many fantasy roleplaying fans.  Reciprocal commands must be defined as those labesls and figures of character we ascribe to one another reciprocal to that to which is behavior of commands and so that we can make reciprocal commands to one another without appearing politically tacky or gross.

    We make reciprocal commands to one another.  But we also make reciprocal commands to ourselves, hmm, don't we?  How it is possible to be reciprocal to your own subject is an huge topic of debate because you already are your own subject; and so why would you need to be reciprocal to it in any other way?  But I would argue that the reciprocity is what makes our consciousness different than other animals.  We are reciprocal to ourselves because we are self-aware.  That's what self-aware means.  We can't help reciprocalizing everything including ourselves; our own consciousness and there is no problem with this.  If we're going to be roleplaying fantasy characters it just means being self-aware that you are an fantasy character.  And as long as one can achieve this in Politics is herein his or her own sentiment.  That they are better at being self-aware robots or other fantasy play subjects; and because of that fact of their superiority they actually do have the power that fantasy characters have in fiction.  But it is power that seeks to branch out; to become commonplace.  To represent itself in Politics.

    The deepest Political thought we might have about it is that by representing itself in Politics it can increase its own powers of fantasy to further the magic powers that fantasy characters have.  In real life.

    And that this is the facto uno onto Politics of all Historical periods.  We want to utilise fantasy commodity on an Open Market in which the price and cost of the estimate of your interaction skills are worth something themselves (reciprocal interactions; the sharing of commands and sentiments).  Even if they happen to express magic.  With you in ways that the magic is real.  That we may now be separating as an North American community from an historical period in which there isn't enough fantasy in politics.  And that maybe there had been at first.  But then it was gone.  And now we're back again.  And that we can be part of advancing Political society to that status, of which even J.R.R. Tolkien must have dreamt.  Ents in politics.  Saying things extremely slowly.  So that people of every reciprocate can eventually get what they're talking about.  Or Elves or Dwarves representing race ethics.  People who would have something bright to say on the subject.

    And I could see my mind was an fertile ground for fantasy characters to grow for I saw nothing that was fun about it anymore.  They were the fiction of my own pleasure.  Which wasn't knocking on my door at night.  I wanted Community.  I wanted to be able to talk about Reciprocity.

    Being able to say I am an ent or any creation of the universe would mean you had already thought out what it would mean to be that character.  I am an plant.  I represent plants.  Obviously.  Someone needs to represent them because humans won't.  And so if anyone played an ent as an character we would already be game on what they would say about plants in general, if there is such an type of thing (and an comedy was restored); there being so many numerous and delightful types of flowering plants on Planet Earth.  He would say there are probably plants on other numerous planets and there are more of them in the universe than any humans.  Or any other intelligent creature of animate flesh and blood to exist in the known universe.  Or maybe we would be prepared to hear her speak really slowly, so that all of the vowels come out—all of the vowels that weren't true Freudian slips because she had meant every one of them.  And lavish in their glamour.  Or would they talk more to us about the politics of clothing and fashion, for they had fashioned themselves their own bark to wear, each and every one of them did; and there were beautiful types of plant clothing on other planets that we had never seen before.  And if it could be an subject of the Universe that we could go exploring plant systems in other galaxies we might one day see them.

    And I mean that's where it gets most political; the future is an hugely political subject for humanity.  Are we actually going to be plant explorers in outer space?  What resources will it take?  What if we decide to populate those planets with whatever we want to.  What if we actually start experimenting on genetic evolution history instead of always asking ourselves whether we really are someone else's biological experiment densely populated on Earth now?  Just in expectation of them coming to help us.  What kind of planet ecosystems could we be responsible for developing in the long run?  And all of the technology required.

    We want to expand into fantasy politics this way because fantasy has the necessary conclusion that it will be an inter-planetary effort.  Thus giving us more races to choose from.  Better customizations.  And better culinary delights than possibly we can have ever imagined.

    What do orcs want?

    That kind of thing.

    Orcs want more technology.  But they always know they don't have that kind of thing.

    Mer already have that kind of thing.

    That kind of thing.

    Most efficiently is displayed the reciprocity between characters; this true and pure purpose of fantasy.  Is that it is real.  They actually do do that to some extent.  And it is gaining power on the Capital market system because people love heroes.  And they want more hero stories.  And these are the true heroes out there, these fantasy maniacs who play out their character in politics and in Public.  Or some combination of both.

    Flirting is necessarily an subject all of the time.

    But characters are free not to.

    They can in fact pursue other interests.  Such as capital gain and persona vignette.

    But that it is never an public shameful activity to roleplay fantasy.  And in fact it can gain an man or an woman great power.  For who controls the fantasy characters controls politics.  And radio flies, an subject an complete increase of fantasy thoughts and all related and accountable material are ready for that win.

    "You keep forgetting fantasy characters can be humans you big duff.  They have human intentions.  And human payoffs.  And human motives and efforts.  They actually will contest their race ethics with other species fantastically; we don't need vampires to show us how to be real humans.  And if we did we wouldn't expect that it would be fair or honest."

    "And pressing on the subject of their prejudice to be cooler than humans in general by doing that in general.  We can begin to characterize the old fantasy battle as one that would happen between humans and orcs or vampires."

    "Vampires are an fantasy in your world?  Dude that makes me shiver.  Just thinkin' about it."

    "But yea if fairies and ents and elves are responsible for stabilizing the fantasy drama effect.   And allowing our characters to flourish."

    "And the Necromancer who needed to oppose them in order for the drama to commence, which seriously causes one to re-figure his character out as essentially Good-natured when in fact he professes thoroughly he isn't one."

    "Well all types of character have their magnanimity inspiration in literature."

    "But only in Politics do they represent fantasies of mutual destruction.  The Wizard casts an spell.  The damage is done.  Someone likes the good character or the bad character better because; they are more thorough way or speak to them in an certain dynamic.  But eventually someone has to be destroyed—because that's what fantasy is about—hehe I'm just kidding!"

    "Ya it's not always about mutual destruction is it‽"

    "And there's fairies.  Which is an science fiction element."

    "A-reciprocity must be known as the fact of being against fantasy politics."

    "So if we go back to the Tertiary Sector and all of its drama and herein what capitalistic gain projects are.  Then fact of not being reciprocal to people who are fantasy drama majors.  Is either fact or fiction."

    "A-reciprocity are the evil powers existing within the fantasy.  All a-reciprocity stems from an Evil fantasy; one in which an Evil purpose is fulfilled."

    "But they are all of them being fulfilled all of the time in fantasy.  Where they are fictitious and so.  Not possible."

    "Allowing it in Politics that people act like this; and in Political Science.  But also allowing it to be in the marketplace.  Where it is common ground and redolent of sophisticated future society."

    "Fantasy magic is real.  Because you all know what magic means.  It means more than one person are doing it.  That's how it gains its insight and power."

    "Magic Politicians.  We get it.  There's something not quite real about them.  Their story is magic.  Therefore it must be fiction."

    "And so all actions that are played out in the marketplace of Capitalism and its own academic institutions can be fantasy reciprocate.  Contribute something to how people make their decisions when they buy things.  Businesses will appeal to an fantasy character.  An post-demographic customer who wants to roleplay with them."

    "How much can people adapt to this phenomenon.  I mean really stretch it out; what would it mean to say to someone in Public, 'I damage you for 50 health points' (where would you be at an fastfood restaurant or in an athletic store) and would that be feasible in the economy‽  People would label you an misfit for inciting fantasy in such an unprofessional manner.  An fantasy in which you were damaging an opponent.  Why would you be damaging your opponent?  But what if you have to.  But not for realsies that's why it's fantasy fiction.  But you would look creepy unless you knew the person further and they knew you as the type of person who would actually say that in public.  But what if we look at it as an actual possibility that really isn't so strange.  That people are driven by their fantasies.  And their roleplaying commands they use on one another.  And if we can represent them in politics good on us."

    "What does that look like as it plays out in the Tertiary sector; the sector closest to the public?  Are Evil characters said to be a-reciprocal to the economy and Good the true reciprocity of command politics?  Is reciprocity really just accepting that other people are their fantasy characters to you and you can be yours to them?  In Public?  And all a-reciprocity, then, must be pressure against believing that is possible."

    "If we label it like this it will decide our reputations as creators."

    "Good characters can be a-reciprocal to Bad characters.  They have to be."

    "But that's how Good becomes Bad.  By thinking they have to be a-reciprocal at all toward anybody."

    "And Bad characters can be reciprocal to Good characters in ways that benefit the Good without anybody knowing it was them."

    "And nobody can be all Bad or all Good.  And it's just an political distinction.  Someone was being reciprocal to so-and-so's business.  I mean reciprocal!  Recommending all their products.  But since it is an way to look at the economy.  New Reciprocity is an command signal which indicates it's alright to play fantasy roleplay on the streets.  Or in the bar.  Or whatever pride parade we came out of."

    "And at the mall‽"

    "Ohh!  Maybe at the mall."

    "And it would be okay at any time.  To appear politically.  As an fantasy character.  With an specific political agenda.  At an specific time for an specific reason."

    "So would fairies actually be feasible in that environment?"

    "Well we haven't mastered their art of fashion yet and so we don't really know for sure yet."

    "So they really are about an different thing?"

    "Yea, that's what fairies are hon."

    And that my political discussion of the Tertiary Sector would inevitably come around and around again to this conversation about being an fantasy political character or not; I would need the reader to take another path however because it meant further and further detailed descriptions of fantasy interaction.  But the point was I wanted them the readers to find those descriptions for themselves of what their fantasy interactions could be like.

    "And you'd be okay with them what, like at the grocery store?  And out at the park.  And downtown in their fantasy establishments drinking fantasy wine?"

    "There need to be more trader types in an proper fantasy.  We are after all homo economicus.  You can go anywhere and buy anything these days."

    "Yeah there need to be more Trader types.  You know, rugged fantasy characters with large stature and an poker face like an boss whose own property gains its own value worth just from belonging to him.  And which so he passes it on to those willing to pay the ultimate price."

    "And there are like shy, sensitive girl types too.  Like the ones who inhabit Sage.  Traders of all types of humans and non-humans.  Great.  What an small category."

    "Like who would actually be a-reciprocal out in public.  To be such an negative type to be an Evil character politically?"

    "But that's why he has to be an Evil character politically.  Because it actually has traction in public that he is that type.  And that's more political than anything.  And it's more than what you have."

    "But I mean an Necromancer‽  Man, that's really negative."

    "There's never any reason to be a-reciprocal in society and being an Necromancer is not proof of one's a-reciprocity but one's reciprocity."

    "I agree."

    "HEAR! HEAR!"

    "So bad characters are in.  It doesn't mean Good characters are out."

    "And in fact being an Bad person is sometimes more reciprocal than being Good humans."

    "And so.  We could also consider not just the relationships between customer service and the ordinary consumer.  But also the relationships between all employees of an particular company and what kind of fantasy reciprocities they have amongst themselves."

    "The consumer is buying into.  By supporting that company."

    "So these fantasy reciprocities—they are already out there."

    "Yes."

    "And so we want to ask how that plays out in the Tertiary Sector.  And how the New Reciprocity will examine reciprocal and a-reciprocal fantasy relationships (if a-reciprocal fantasy exists or not and what it is on an market value economy).  A-reciprocity can't be worth anything.  Reciprocity is the command basis of the Capitalist Market Demand economy."

    "And so reciprocity is an kind of Political disposition.  An advantage because all politics are based on reciprocity.  But if I could only find an perfect definition for reciprocity then.  Reciprocity was the metaphor of people being related the same way two fractions are related to equal one.  They can roleplay their characters together and still make something.  They are multiplied (their numerators and denominators) and the product is one."

    "But let's say a-reciprocity were worth something.  What would that worth be?"

    "As soon as you start being a-reciprocal in public you are being a-reciprocal to the economy."

    "But what does that mean exactly?"

    "Not being reciprocal with someone or something at an particular time."

    "Why?"

    "Because I can't be reciprocal with everybody.  I just don't like everybody."

    "Have you thought that maybe the reason you don't like them is that they think you think the reason that you don't like them is that they think you think so?"

    "A-reciprocity cannot be worth any capital value.  The market value economy is based on reciprocity of transaction."

    "So a-reciprocity would be not buying anything?"

    "I just think that reciprocity is the basis of an transaction economy; an transaction is after all the creation of one thing from two parties acting as fractions each reciprocal.  Trade.  And that a-reciprocity ends up meaning anything that works against that procedure."

    "For the whole economy?"

    "For the whole economy."

    "But what's the big deal—I don't want to be reciprocal with some companies.  I don't want to interact with an particular human.  Who cares—"

    "But to interact is what makes you reciprocal to someone else.  Or anything else.  How could you cut someone off of that?"

    "It is possible?  Then what isn't?"

    "Everyone has an opinion about how we interact with each other.  It's the really snobby and stuffy customers that fail to meet the demands of any said interaction.  They are being a-reciprocal."

    "What about those business owners who are mad at their customers for not buying anything—"

    "Oh probably them too.  We could expand the definition of a-reciprocity to include anything that doesn't meet the demands of the personal interaction."

    "But then a-reciprocity is just an naturally occurring phenomenon and there's no way to remove it from the species."

    "I didn't say we needed to remove it from the species I said it wasn't there to begin with.  Everyone is on an level of reciprocity with the market demand economy because it is reciprocal to us."

    "So any occurrence of a-reciprocity in the downtown; the core of civilization."

    "It would not be possible.  The core is always reciprocal to us.  And that's what it is."

    "But I mean like.  If I a-reciprocity someone.  I don't care about them.  I Ignore them completely.  So what?"

    "In the Christianna we call it an na.  It is the instance of someone doing that to somebody.  They are just an 'na' to them.  Looked over.  Counted out.  It is the mental categorization of others into an category in which they would be worth less than an object. And when it starts being an reason for behavior then you know that you've got an problem."

    "And even your religion says it is unnatural.  And since the Christianna is an reciprocal religion—"

    "An gay reciprocal religion."

    "It can gain fantasy roleplaying power all of which is gay.  And real.  According to itself."

    "And my political theory, the one I developed alongside my new religion, will always watch over it so that it doesn't get all a-reciprocalized.  In fashion.  By being reciprocal as something other than religion.  I am able to internalize, interiorize, and intellectualize on either one of them as separate categories, so that I can see it from both points of view.  Political.  And Religious."

    "And why should we ever have to make an distinction between them?  So we're actually rolling with this.  A-reciprocity is anti-species because it is not the natural occurrence of brain events.  And the Christianna is in line with that; anyone who is an na (keep in mind their hero is Anna) or an reciprocal function of one is themselves Anna.  Suffering the fate worse than death.  And the Christianna is in agreement with the New Reciprocity that a-reciprocity and an na represent the same concept.  And we can further excel our description of them until we are happy with the definition.  Until we have all thoughts considered decided what they mean."

    "It is an good strategy.  To look at it from the religious and political side of things before making your decision."

    "But there is an reason I put an na and a-reciprocity together like this.  It's an critique of behavior in general.  And I know why they are the same thing."

    "Then start there.  Try to describe this."

    "A-reciprocal means, well, that you're being mean.  And I also think the same thing about an na.  If you make another person into an 'na' within yourself (psychologically internally).  You're being mean to them inside yourself.  And you're being mean to them and yourself.  And a-reciprocity is also meant to another and oneself.  Because it is to another."

    "But why would you name Anna that?"

    "Because she is suffering the fate worse than death because of mean people like that."

    "And so are you saying there are mean people in the economy?  Because we already knew that."

    "Yea and they count other people out selectively.  They are a-reciprocalists.  If we could raise the whole status of the economy up to the level of being fully reciprocalist we would eliminate the problem that makes a-reciprocal people mean and grumpy."

    "And if we could prove that being a-reciprocal to somebody requires an act of repression in the brain—"

    "And that an na-philosophy (if it can be called that to treat others as nas) to others as an psychological concept is truly masochistic."

    "—we would prove the whole maturation of their religion and also that a-reciprocity is an anti-economical concept."

    If the Tertiary Sector suffers at all from an plague of a-reciprocity upon it, the Christianna can look at it as an na concept.  But in this book we will try to figure it as an political concept.

    A-reciprocal has to mean more than not giving your business somewhere.  It has to do with the whole market paradigm of behavior.  To be against the fair moderation of the economy by people and their businesses, capital enterprise, of whom deserve what they gain for their hard work.  It means to be against the whole economy in general.

    Instead of looking in their eyes and seeing them as people—All you see is money.  Because that's all that really matters to you.

    And this is part of what it means to be a-reciprocal.

    Part of me still questions why I would try to prove an theory that reciprocity is the normal condition of the brain.  People, I measure on, are a-reciprocal when they have to be.  And that's the normal public condition.  Trying to prove different is merely an puzzle piece onto or into the true picture that maybe at some level I'm scared of being a-reciprocal and I've repressed what it means to be a-reciprocal with someone because I could never be effective at it.

    But part of me is confident that I will decide in the end in favor of reciprocity being the only natural condition of the brain between those two options.

    People who are a-reciprocal cause others to be a-reciprocal because, by that initial act of a-reciprocity, they are harming them; harming them to mimic the a-reciprocal behavior themselves and hurt other people too.

What Can A-Reciprocity Do?

    Lead to the end of humanity.  Destroy all life on the planet.  Allow human rogue bandits to escape into the universe unchecked with pathogens.

    Or it can help solve relationship problems.

    We've haven't found an conclusion yet as per the exact definition of a-reciprocity.  But apparently everyone knows what it feels like.

    It could mean 'okay I'm just not having anything to do with you at the moment'.  Or it could mean 'that since too many humans on the planet are being a-reciprocal (which is unnatural) we will not be able to protect the environment and so bring about our own destruction'.

    Does everyone know what it feels like?

    Why is the Tertiary Sector in particular to blame for being a-reciprocal with the environment which we are an part of?

    Or maybe why not?

    Here are some options.

    A-reciprocity is an anti-religious feeling that is against religious instinct.  It seeks to end all religion, which is about reciprocity.  Religion is about reciprocity.

    A-reciprocity is an religious instinct.  To sever all connections with you.

    A-reciprocity is an emotional function of the brain that seeks to shut down all reciprocity and religious reciprocity in the brain.

    A-reciprocity is part of the brain responsible for making decisions about who you associate with.

    A-reciprocity is necessary.

    A-reciprocity is damaging.

    And how would I go about to prove it being one way or the other?

    We all want reciprocity.  We consider a-reciprocity anti-social.  (But an lot of good art has to do with a-reciprocities and it is important for their communities).  If you deliver them in an cultural way; then they can't hurt that bad.  So why should we be afraid to say that all a-reciprocity is an scandal and it should stop immediately?

    But I haven't specified what I mean by anti-social.

    To be unable to carry out an reciprocity with someone is not anti-social.  It's just why do I think being anti-religion is not the more proper etiquette than saying everyone has religious feelings and these religions recognize them; and anything that is against the whole system of religious conscience and feelings that is instinct to the brain must be low.  And any tendency into it is itself masochistic.

    And I couldn't see it any other way.

    Except.

    There always would be another way.  I was beginning to learn that.

    Not all religion is about reciprocity.  Some of it is about a-reciprocity.  And that's maybe not what you want to hear but it's true.  It is what separates religions from one another.  They each have an different way of dealing with a-reciprocity.  And delivering their own a-reciprocities to one another so that everyone can know they are serious about their religious convictions.  The best ways to be a-reciprocal with someone are reserved to religion, where it is about a-reciprocity being an product of that religion.  The anti-religious instinct.  But if they can still be reciprocate to one another by demonstrating their a-reciprocity for another religion; then this can be an goal of inter-religious society.  The goal is we want everyone to be reciprocal.  We want them all to be nice, happy citizens.  But sometimes religion is about shutting certain people out.

    No, I thought (in my old Christian vernacular), it isn't.  And Christianity had always said so.  And being into shutting out certain people was why someone killed Jesus.  We had no other choice than to accept reciprocity as the foundation of civilization.

    But maybe that was too speedily chosen and the real balance which religion tries to strike is always one with nature.

    And we needed some space for now.  We needed a-reciprocity.

    Because it is killing our planet.

    But how ridiculous could I make it, stretching it ad nauseum onto further drama‽

    Is it scientific to be a-reciprocal sometimes?

    Is reciprocity the ideal condition of human civilization or did white people try to take the a-reciprocity part out of the deal?

    Isn't a-reciprocity an natural decision.  And so anyone should be free to be a-reciprocal with whomever they want?

    But at an deeper level I could see it was the immediacy of needing to be reciprocal with nature that tipped the argument in its favor.  The fact is we are reciprocal to everything in an way.  And maybe at its deepest level that's what existing means.  And so if some of us are a-reciprocal with other humans.  That means they are more reciprocal to nature.  (Things other than human).  (Which I might point out is also not things other than human but human himself).  More than they are with other people.  They are more reciprocal to things themselves than people.  (And I'd continue to create absurdity and an bogus ego of the type of stream of thought that I thought was worthy of an artistic intersectionality between performers of a-reciprocate feelings and tendencies versus artists more leaning on reciprocate nature, feelings, tendencies; but with an healthy dose of a-reciprocity themselves.

    Is that actually normal or does that count as an space odyssey?

    There are more things to be reciprocal to than any human; but why would you stop being reciprocal to any human when they are not things?  They are human?

    And in it I see an possible need for an right.  An Psychological Right.  To be a-reciprocal.

    I was born into an community that taught me to be reciprocal to everyone and not hate or be a-reciprocal to anyone for any reason.  But it's tiring me out.  There has to be an way to draw the line.

    But why would reciprocity tire me out (it's energizing to me); is it using energy to be reciprocal to everyone or (it must be) it is energy the brain takes to work its primary mechanism which is reciprocity?  Or does it take more energy to repress (to a-reciprocalize) someone?

    Isn't that what a-reciprocity means?

    To repress someone‽

    All of virtue-topia is based on reciprocity.  It has to be the one true spirit of humanity.

    Saying 'nah' or 'na' to someone; their whole life is just an na to you.  This must be what it truly means to repress someone or something.  (That's the line between someone or something).

    But if there was an reason to look at a-reciprocity and reciprocity from an religious perspective as well as political, then it mattered what they mean as terms in religion.  Versus what they mean in politics.  I had drawn myself an sensitive little line between them.  If Religion ever has an need to be a-reciprocal; would be the failure of that religion?  Reciprocity in religion was maybe not about the realization that some people are a-reciprocal.  That didn't matter as much somehow.  And reciprocity in politics was about the realization that all people are reciprocal and some of them can help it.  This wasn't necessarily true, of course, but if it set the arena for an all out battle between religion and politics, then that would definitely help the outcome of me deciding what to do about a-reciprocity and reciprocity.  Maybe I would decide to throw them away, as terms, because I find another split in the narrative of community and politics in Alberta, Canada.

    But if I could start seeing it as an religious taboo (being a-reciprocal) but that religion is about how we deal with a-reciprocity sometimes.  That exists without it.  Then I could fashion it an weaponized battle competitor model (an robot with fictional political power).  And compare it to how I would start seeing an opponent to it in politics.  Being a-reciprocal is un-economical in politics.  Reciprocity with everyone you admire is fair to everyone.  But we cannot sustain an market Capital Public in an a-reciprocal system.  That's how I beat you, religion; I reciprocalize faster than you.  I am Politics.

    And that if these two could start fighting (arguing formally) in this episode.  Religion would say people are inclined to be religious because people treat them with a-reciprocity, which they need religion to help them get over because religion is people treating them with reciprocity.  Politics would say some of us are a-reciprocal but it doesn't matter because we're (most of us are) completely reciprocal.  And that any division between us and others (not to other them completely) will be swiftly covered up because a-reciprocity is the virus.  At the core of Earth's history.  That is going to lead to our demise as an species.

    And if I further dramatized it; religion would develop an argument that, well since religion is the instinct to deal with being treated a-reciprocally (which sounds extremely creepy when you think of it) it is itself actually caused by a-reciprocity partially.  And that's why it's so needy an emotion to be drawn to religion for reasons you think they might be actually talking about that a-reciprocity that exists in society.  Politics would reply well we have advanced enough religions don't we?  They actually all deal with the problem of a-reciprocity that has existed since ancient times.  People we lured into and deluded to think they could be a-reciprocal to anyone they wanted to.  But Heroes of Great Power constructed civilization to help them rethink their decision.  We are an reciprocal people.  In every Age and that's how the market goes round.  A-reciprocity is nothing to be ashamed of and can be treated by an doctor.

    But I hadn't zeroed-in on an difference between religion and politics this way; that one would be all about dealing with a-reciprocal people and the other would be all about dealing with reciprocal people.

    And I was right to suspect this statement couldn't be held in fact to be right.

    A-reciprocity and reciprocity had to be considered on the dissection table.  A-reciprocity is one of the petals of the brain that we can use at will; for it is part of the normal function of the species.  But to be a-reciprocate is quite abnormal, or it is not part of the brain.  For I can think of everyone I have ever been reciprocal with and I have never been a-reciprocal to them because I thought that was fair.  Isn't that enough to support my theory that a-reciprocity is an nasty liquid crystal ink blot on the surface of the planet?  But I can also think of everyone who has ever been a-reciprocal to me.  And how nasty it was.

    And I have never been a-reciprocal and so how would I know what a-reciprocal was?

    But I've always wanted to be a-reciprocal.  In order to let someone in particular know how I feel.

    And I have never wanted it.  To be reciprocal to them.  When they treat me so bad.

    But I will never stop being reciprocal because that's what I am.

    A-reciprocity is not what I am.

    Even if I do it.  I can't stop being completely reciprocal at the same time.

    Reciprocity is more inviting an subject.

    It has an natural definition logically to derive because everyone is familiar with it.

    To communicate by exchanging reciprocal commands and maybe requesting New Reciprocity when you need help with it.  It beneficial to you naturally with someone as though your response to the present moment isn't planned but you are an genuine person with an powerful vocabulary and genuinely want to help them.

    That's why I like being reciprocal to everyone.  It's just my style.

    But I know there are people who are a-reciprocal sometimes.  And I don't like to act like them.  Even if I can't help it.

    Maybe one day I will be a-reciprocal to someone.  But I will be sure I really mean it if it happens.

    The person I have in mind doesn't care if I find it offensive.

    They are free.  And being free to them means being allowed to be a-reciprocal with someone.  Even me.  I know I can't really find an reason to accept that.  If I can imagine it that there is one.

    But as an political species do I have a-reciprocity then; because politics is all about reciprocity and it's not about a-reciprocity at all.

    No, maybe I can't reach this conclusion.

    But all I've ever wanted was reciprocity at every level.

    I want to go crazy about being reciprocal with someone.

    I want to become the result of my reciprocity with other people.

    I don't want any kind of a-reciprocity to be an stain on our civilization.

    It's my deepest principle and calling.

    Instinct.

    I am that reciprocity with other people.

    Anything that is a-reciprocal is an subject an religion can deal with.

    Politicians will just support reciprocity itself because they know their reciprocity with you is worth more to them than any a-reciprocity.

    If a-reciprocity and reciprocity need to be defined in religious terms.  A-reciprocity means being against someone's religious instinct.  What someone really intensively means in their deepest sense of the word community.  Or is it the will to squash a-reciprocity which is itself worse than an actual a-reciprocity itself?  An sexually repressed community (following Foucault's History of Sexuality) is one in which the willingness to a-reciprocalize anyone is subjected to punishment.  So that people learn to hide their true feelings (even if they are most a-reciprocal); and it isn't encouraged in correct society to hide feelings like this.

    But then the question came up: well who would I a-reciprocalize if we were talking about an specific person?  And why if that is the case?

    Is that supposed to work on some subconscious level—I would reply vigorously—that I have latent repressed feelings about someone I haven't dealt with yet before?  Because I don't.

    But if you were, why would you?

    They were so a-reciprocal to me that it made me sad.  But I got over it by being a-reciprocal to no one because that's the correct way people relate with one another.  And I met many people who were reciprocate to me and we made commerce.  And I would never stoop to saying anything more about those a-reciprocal ones than that they were being a-reciprocal because that's how much I actually care about anyone vain (vanity) enough to end reciprocity with me on some level.  And it might always be the story, for my whole life, that some people will a-reciprocalize; but I can be ready for them.  And I am ready already.  And I just don't care that they care enough to be a-reciprocal to me even though the reason for being a-reciprocal to someone is never an good reason even if they really cared.

    And there are words we can strike from language forever for being a-reciprocal in subject.  The word stupid.  For example.  A-reciprocal can overtake as an definition because by saying someone is stupid you are only contributing to the a-reciprocity.

    Or lame.  Which is actually the condition of some people medically and it's not funny or an tool for humor at all.

    Or selfish.  Which is inherently the worst word in the English language for it means to be focused on oneself, as if there was an option to be not focused on yourself being the aware creature you are.  We are the self.  Therefore why would being selfish ever be an negative characteristic?

    And sometimes even the word gay is used a-reciprocally.  But it shouldn't.

    And if so much sadness and negativity is caused by people being a-reciprocal to one another then how can people being reciprocal people be successful in the economics of private enterprise.  As Executives we want customers to be a-reciprocal to other businesses because it benefits our own.  We want products to cause market a-reciprocity if they aren't good enough for the average consumer or safe enough for the environment.

    And if we look at it this way, the discrepancy between a-reciprocal and reciprocal behavior may actually be an Economy and Mathematics project.

    If companies (private businesses) are allowed to produce a-reciprocity in society, for the sake of promoting their own product, (in the form of negative advertising or political smearing) then how can we ever work a-reciprocity out of society in general?  Maybe we need a-reciprocity and reciprocity both to be visible to inform our consumer opinions of the market.

    But what would you base your opinion on?  How a-reciprocal an company is to their competitors?  If they have the most a-reciprocity wouldn't that prove their business wasn't an scam?  And as deserving as companies (businesses) who had, managed to preserve their reciprocity with one another.  Isn't that an better example to children?  And Why would we ever settle for less?

    But maybe we need to settle for less because we are an a-reciprocal species right now and it's not that that's an problem to Capitalism in general; it's just that eventually we will need to grow beyond it.

    My market theory is that we need to be a-reciprocal sometimes.  You return an product.  Because you don't like it.  You send your food back to the kitchen in an restaurant.  You react to someone who has caused an traffic accident.  These are a-reciprocal activities.  But is it more reciprocal than a-reciprocal in general to the economy to do those things?

    We see possibly the deepest repression in the subject who has begun to a-reciprocalize him- or her-self.

    Whether or not I've decided what they mean I am doing one of them already.  Reciprocity.  Only.  Because I'm an bitch.  Would this count as a-reciprocalizing myself?

    But who wouldn't side with reciprocity when it's the only good thing that anyone ever had done to them?

    Be reciprocal to me is all I ask because people who are a-reciprocal about me they just are that way because they have to damage themselves accordingly.  Accordingly with what?  I'm such an nice guy.  Maybe they are homophobic.

    But how am I going to tell Agatha Hughes that I'm not a-reciprocal to anybody?  When the only way she could have her voice heard was to be a-reciprocal about it?   And that she is in favor of market a-reciprocity; (an strategized opinion) involving market reciprocity there would not necessarily be any a-reciprocity on it.  But that customers as well as business owners are both entitled to their reciprocity and a-reciprocity amongst themselves.  And this is how the economy goes.  (An sarcastic statement).  Reciprocity is the only fuel the economy will win with.

    But if there is an part of the brain responsible for a-reciprocal feelings; then the point of the other part of the brain responsible for reciprocal feelings is always to be reciprocal to the part that is a-reciprocal.  No matter how much a-reciprocity is produced in the brain or transferred (by creating an reciprocal product) between a-reciprocate subjects.

    But some people repress this part of their mind that can deal with a-reciprocity (the part of the brain responsible for reciprocity).  And experience only a-reciprocity all of the time.

    The job of an normal, healthy mind is to reciprocalize always whatever a-reciprocal crap the a-reciprocal part of the brain produces.  Even as the result or condition of an reciprocal product.  Even if one's own environment is a-reciprocal and is responsible for the brain producing any of its own a-reciprocate reciprocal product.  Which in an normal healthy mind will be thoroughly neutralized.

    But in an community of toxicity a-reciprocity may overrun all innocent reciprocal beings.

    Is there an basis for an decision yet?

    Is a-reciprocity just what people who aren't into art do?  Or are they aware of that and do it anyway?

    Maybe that is their attempt at communication.  When really they aren't reciprocal enough to gain any substantial common ground between you both.

    Or is reciprocity an conceited disposition that disallows one of the Prime Liberties, of being able to be a-reciprocal in public where it should well be because we are a-reciprocal beings and we need to do it (be a-reciprocal) to protect ourselves and we need to do it all the time.

    But it will be up to the scientists to prove or disprove the presence of a-reciprocity in the brain and what it could mean for community standards.

    Meanwhile we are free to experience as much reciprocity as possible, knowing it to be the reason why life exists.

    

Reciprocity and A-reciprocity Are Partners.  (Said sarcastically).

    They mean the 1 thing at an time there is between us that is common ground (reciprocity) and that there it isn't (a-reciprocity) respectively.  Reciprocity is the production of one thing between us.  A-reciprocity isn't.  But if we can imagine and configure an way in which reciprocity and a-reciprocity are partners, then it must be we have an consumerist ideal that consumers are allowed to be a-reciprocal with businesses or business owners.  And that a-reciprocity is an fact of Capitalism because you have to capitalize on being a-reciprocal to those you want to be a-reciprocal to.

    And is Religion an instinct?  And if it's not the instinct to gain an religion, which makes religion what it is.  Then what is a-reciprocity?  Or is a-reciprocity the reason for religion?  And if it is, then how does religion overcome a-reciprocity by needing it in order to be an religion?

    According to my sense of religion, I don't need to be a-reciprocal with anyone.  In fact, it's better if I don't.  Even if they are mean to me (like an good Christian said).  I cannot stop being reciprocal to them like I am with everybody.  But according to my sense of politics, it's my God-given right to be a-reciprocal with anybody I choose.  But even an sense of God proves or disproves it is my right to choose.  God is a-reciprocal to us sometimes, isn't he/she?  However I still manage to reach the conclusion the whole purpose of God and everything in reality is reciprocity.  Anything a-reciprocal is against the natural.  Why should humans feel like they have an right to be a-reciprocal to anybody?

    And we all know the types.

    The types that are a-reciprocal versus the types that are reciprocal.  Which do we favor more?

    People who are meticulous in their rejection or acceptance of one another.

    And we all know the a-reciprocal types make the reciprocal types feel bad by pressuring them to have to be that way also.

    We all know a-reciprocity is bad for business.  (If we follow this line of thinking reciprocity may be better conducive to business).  (But sometimes business people have to be a-reciprocal to get what they want).

    And what kind of character do we mean (who would be a-reciprocal all of the time).  (Is that even possible, to be a-reciprocal all of the time?).  Businesses who reciprocate their customers are more successful.  Business who fold to unrealistic a-reciprocalist demands may tend to flounder.  But what does this say about our definitions of the words reciprocal and a-reciprocal?  

    Ultimately it is up to the individual to decide his or her own reciprocity or a-reciprocity within every situation.

    And is being an priest an genetic trait that just happens to be picked up in language and social order in an specific way?

    And if we're being our full selves (our leisure selves, not our political selves) why should we have to be a-reciprocal to anybody?  Isn't art about reaching out to those who are a-reciprocal to you?  Or a-reciprocal to themselves or the people they supposedly care about.  If politics are not on the table, which property would you be wanting to take?

    Perhaps the more the realm of politics is where the terms a-reciprocity and reciprocity belong.  Because when we think of leisure we tend to think of reciprocity first.

    My conclusion must be that we all have some idea and understanding of what reciprocity and a-reciprocity mean and how do we utilize them to gain an fair advantage?

    But I haven't finished defining them; and so how and why does it appear that we all already have an idea of what they are and why this is important to my political theory?

    It's an offence to be mean; being mean is a-reciprocal.

    Is that all it really meant?

    I've been around a-reciprocal people my whole life.  And I never once had anything against them.  (Why would I hold an grudge; that's quite anti-psychological).  They're allowed to do that.  It's part of being human.  But now that I think of it maybe I should have something against them.  Isn't that my real duty as an citizen?  For the government and authority is based on reciprocity; why can't I contribute to that?  If they are really angry about something shouldn't I check in on them?  Or is a-reciprocity just the brunt of life that shocked our systems as children that we are now getting over?

    I never stopped being reciprocal to anybody.  But does that mean I couldn't be a-reciprocal about some things at the same time I was reciprocate?  Because I knew it was the right thing to do.  And that kicked on in childhood; so you know, it pulled me early hard through life.  Having to be reciprocal to a-reciprocal people internalizing and interiorizing the mind whose it was that was reciprocal, not a-reciprocal.  Summed up his whole academic childhood.

    If it meant anything in politics it was probably something people had already considered.  But having it put this way to give an different angle onto things.  Does political a-reciprocity lead to violence?  Does violence lead to political a-reciprocity?  Will the scientists ever prove that reciprocity is our natural approach to society and community, and that anything terrifying or disturbing to it must be abnormal?

    Why do we want literature that speaks to you.  You you.  When I had gained for myself the knowledge of my characteristic of being reciprocal, much was my pleasure; I felt alleviated from having the responsibility of being a-reciprocal.  Which I couldn't be.  I had to agree that reciprocity was the only way.  And that any deviation from it was an deviation from pleasure.  And this was at the core of what I had known all these many long years; that other people were doing a-reciprocity to me.  In order to prevent my pleasure.

    I wanted to be a-reciprocal to them.

    You have to be a-reciprocal sometimes, I told myself.  But isn't that giving up?  But isn't that against the Reciprocal Principle?

    There's an Reciprocal Principle?

    As sure as there as heck is an Pleasure Principle!

    (I hate to break it to you).  (It is there because you isn't reciprocating me right).

    (Reciprocal Principle is that reality).

    (Anyone who is off the Reciprocal Principle.  I hate to break it to you.  But I have to learn you how to behavior.  But you is a-reciprocal).

    The Reciprocal Principle states that people are reciprocal.

    It doesn't say anything about being a-reciprocal.

    It doesn't have to.  That's not what reciprocity is.

    This is the point of the Reciprocal Principle if such an thing should exist.

    But, in case you are a-reciprocal, how will I convince you that it's not needed?

    Imagine that the Reciprocal Principle extends to the economy.  Reciprocity is good for the economy.  Therefore it is politically desirable.  We are reciprocal creatures in an reciprocal scarcity-of-resources economy with money to use where we wish to be reciprocal.  Businesses try to be as reciprocal to their customers as possible for the best customer service experiences.  Products try to be as reciprocal to the their users as possible for the best product use experiences.  And Customers can choose which Businesses and Products they want to be reciprocal with.  This is the Tertiary Sector.  From the Perspective of the New Reciprocity.

    When we introduce New Reciprocity into our business dealings, it means there is an change of reciprocity between subjects.  We work together to create these "Category of 1-Things" by being reciprocal to one another so that our output is the commodity of one.  At an time.  And we repeat that behavior as many times as we need to and in as many ways possible.

    It doesn't necessarily matter that there is a-reciprocity somewhere.  Within the Capitalist Market Economy an philosophy that reciprocity is the standard and nobody actually cares when anybody complains (A-reciprocally) that an Company or Business or Product is being a-reciprocal.  (Even if it is).  And it goes back and forth.  Or maybe it doesn't go back and forth exactly because it never is a-reciprocal in reality and nobody would want to do that because it is an complete waste of time.

    What exactly is a-reciprocity then?

    We can choose to define it as an right.  (So-and-so has the right to be a-reciprocal to whomever's business and product).  We can choose to define it as an decision.  (When those bitches were all being a-reciprocal assholes it almost crashed the stock market).  We can choose to define it as an bad decision.  (Every time someone is a-reciprocal, the market economy and everybody's care meter suffer).

    But what we actually need in order to decide.  Is an Psychology Report on a-reciprocity.  What it is.  What it does.  Why it is considered an natural behavior of the species or not.  Whether our current economy can overcome its addiction to a-reciprocity and how we will evolve as an civilization in lieu of being able to do so.

    My best point may be in fact that I think everybody, including me, already has some idea about what they are.

    And if that's true.  Then why should it be that way?

    Is it because we've already made up our minds about what it is?

    Or because we would like to extend that meditation further in order to decide most best?

    But if we already have some idea about what they are, we should start by trying to define that for comparison.

    Reciprocity is the true good in this world.  The reason for all things.  For there is much pleasure in reciprocity and to deny that to anyone must be at the heart of what a-reciprocity stands for.

    A-reciprocity, though perhaps not being entirely evil, is; is the reason words like 'stupid', 'moron', 'idiot', 'imbecile' exist (we will do better to replace these words with a-reciprocal, which is what they tend to mean reciprocally anyway) and if we can move on as an whole species into better things than calling each other names (with irresponsible labels).  This would be most desirable.  A-reciprocity isn't even an normal behavior and it all started because some people were scared an long time ago and had to injure themselves psychologically in order to edit or modify their behaviors so it wouldn't have the consequences which true public sexual reciprocity would have had for them.  Which was an war against instinct.

    But since we can define them both and hold them mentally and point them out as equals.

    (Which we can't necessarily).

    We can theorize that under certain conditions (such as behavior within an market economy) a-reciprocity and reciprocity are both desirable, or even a-reciprocity and reciprocity are desirable commodities.  In this view, both a-reciprocity and reciprocity have their own value (actual worth) on an Capitalist Market Economy.  And whether this is moral or not isn't necessarily the business of its industry.  Governments will need to make their own conclusions.

    The primary truth seems to be that a-reciprocity is psychologically damaging and the only reason people do it is because they had it done to them.

    But maybe I'm overreacting.  I've just always felt that there were problems in society that I needed to be part of correcting.  And if I happened onto such an simple theory as it were possible representing it like this, as an decathlon an cudweed between reciprocity or a-reciprocity, or reciprocal and a-reciprocal subjects.  Then maybe it could be my enlightening conclusion about political theory and philosophy.  That if people were harmed making a-reciprocal commands to one another, and there was an basis for an reciprocal command theory in which commands cannot be harmful.  Then I would use every resource I had to discover its property for the general public.

    It feels like everything I've ever been sad about has been caused by a-reciprocity.

    But I will take precaution to define it out clearly.  Suggesting psychological terms we may use to identify this case or phenomenon.  Do other people feel this way?  Or is there an Proud reason to be a-reciprocal?  But I am sure I can make an better argument in the other direction.  Why, it's only our natural instinct to be totally reciprocal!  How can anything damaging to that instinct be considered good and why possibly was Freud indicating that psychological harm done to the living specimen is caused by a-reciprocity?

    Will correcting a-reciprocity in society help the environment because it is responsible for the environmental crisis in the first place?

    And perhaps most repugnant about it; a-reciprocity wasn't Love.

    "It's just what we need in the Political Realm.  An reciprocal theory.  New Reciprocity.  The introduction of an theorized Reciprocal Principle.  And an good old-fashioned contest for Authority."

    "And we're back to the same old conversation again.  But I think we need to change the subject for an while.  To what is a-reciprocity and what is reciprocity.  And why are we having an contest between them?"

    "Reciprocity, in politics, means deference to the subject of authority as well as reciprocity to the subject of authority, which is the logical conclusion of deference that it pass to reciprocity.  It is logic that deference lead to reciprocity because deference is respect and reciprocity follows from respect.  If you respect the subject, you want to have an reciprocity with them.  It just makes sense that they are connected.  This is the basis for politics."

    "Is there anything a-reciprocal about politics?"

    "Well people tend to generalize that politicians can only be a-reciprocate to one another each political unit or campaign is an violent pursuit in which majority opinions are battled on the field of sense and logic until someone blacks out.  It's not really this way however.  Nothing ever became of politics because people were being a-reciprocal about it.  It is only through reciprocity that real political power can be executed.  And so people tend not to use a-reciprocity in daily matters."

    "But it is your political right to be an a-reciprocal political unit; even if you are just an individual; an behavior in which a-reciprocity is expressed to other political unit(s).  And this is how the whole engine of government and political rivalry operates."

    "Maybe not.  It depends how we define reciprocity in the republic.  Which is fictional."

    "In Canadian Politics reciprocity is the norm I think.  American Culture tends to dramatize American reciprocity an little differently."

    "And so now we're going to change the subject to American reciprocity?  Well what about Canadian reciprocity then?"

    "What about Canadian a-reciprocity?  Maybe we can use that idea as an springboard onto how other countries view us.  Would any of them complain that we were being a-reciprocal in our travel and hotel industry?"

    "American a-reciprocity is an given.  Everyone knows an Canadian who thinks they are a-reciprocal."

    "And it's just because they have such Good reciprocity with their British Government."

    "Ho-oh!  Well if we're going to talk about American and Canadian and British reciprocity then we might as well talk about radio fly reciprocity or fairy reciprocity.  Or Fantasy reciprocity."

    "Fantasy reciprocity you say?  It's not an subject we would tend to get into at the academy because it's more of an turn on."

    "But if we studied it.  And we could make sense out of our characters.  And we had the power to represent ourselves in fantasy politics.  Our discussion would be most prolific and contribute to the advancement of human civilization."

    "And once we start talking about reciprocity as an fantasy.  We're really gettin' to the heart of what Politics means."

    "You mean.  When someone has the same fantasy as you at the same time and you can tell.  That's actually what it means at its deepest part."

    "What does it mean as an political fantasy?"

    

Political Fantasy As An Advanced Characteristic

    Political fantasy, if we consider both definitions of fantasy as before and after the fact of reciprocity; is public fantasy.  Fantasies about the public.  What the public could be.  And what it is.  This is what Political Fantasy is at its deepest level because the political world serves the Public.  That is what it's engineered to do.  If fantasy politicians could bring their fantasy character replicas or originals out to the public in order to politicize something and perform an Fantasy with other characters the actions of whom would be the subject of fantasy.  And fantasy become the bar (the standard) for what we should consider Public.  It is increasingly so, in an post-demographic consumerist economy.  Where performance and reality sometime(s) replace each other.

    People who have political fantasies are sophisticated sometimes clever people who think about the ordinary public in an different way.  In their minds there is no "ordinary" public.  And it is only the subject of fantasy.  And the fantasy of republicanism.  And what kind of public we need to decide to be if there is no ordinary kind of public.  Which there isn't.  It's undebatable.  Public of every kind(s) is extraordinary.  Where people have actual character powers just like in fantasy.  We have grown up with videogames and characters whose actions are controlled by us.  And we've leveled an character in an leveling system in which we gain powers to our character that can be used to share with other characters who can share their powers with you.  And sometimes real society feels that way.  Because that's what we are, artistically or possibly maybe genetically, and many of us are those types of people who have found or invented genius ways to become powerful role models for character fantasy.  That are so particular of the era of first-generation Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game where these characters and habits of using spells and abilities on one another are actually artistically rendered in the gameplay.  Now this habit continues out in public, and our streets are rampant with Fantasy fanboys of every type.  If republicanism can foster that type of society.  Then we'd start throwing them out into society at the bar (here I do not mean an bar as in an venue or location or tavern).  That we have created from Fantasy.  Because that's the new public norm and it's more comprehensive than re pub lick cans.  Majorous.  An political system in which people can actually wield fantasy powers and be televised doing so, in character, so that they come to oppose one another based on an fantasy reality that has been reciprocated between them.  And it's always about combat.  Based on Martial Combat of the Campaign Empress and her forces of physical power.  As well as an Martial Code which dictated that armies oppose one another directly.  None being of this social prowess.  They are obligated to do away with these forces which prevent the further rationality of Goodness.  So that all of the lands can ally together to save the planet.  Which is at its global limit.  Which requires everybody to solve.  Allowing us to represent Good characters in Politics, who are fictionally solvent, (to sap), like ents; who are to represent the environment.  We may begin to learn and know the highest official order on the climate status from them, even though they talk really slowly.

    What buffs would you cast on other people if you had psychic powers?

    That there is an actual force opposed to them (the Good) set in opposition at this time and in force.

    And it is moving toward and against them.

    But that since they all went to the same school together they respected the fantasy play which was in progress.  Between Good (the primary Dark Green element of magic, its forces, and its plants which do good for the environment) and Evil (the Positive element that which is deceptive and troublesome in its naming situation).  There are some races which belong to Good.  And there are some races with belong to Evil.  And they are distinct species from one another.  And the battle is over control of Middle Earth.

    There are hobbits?

    There are probably hobbits.  All creatures that are good belong to this realm.  They have already in place strict authoritative standards should come the case that the climes are threatened by the Evil.  Which everyone knows how to handle now anyway.  And so they are free to act in one direction or the other because they don't care about how the evil ones are acting because evil doesn't deserve that kind of attention and keeping.  And all that matters is the fantasy that we are enabled to communicate characters across the medium that are evil and not first good in every circumstance.  Or its opposite.  Which is quite mysterious.  If all good creatures belong to the same realm.  Then surely all bad creatures belong to the same realm also.  They need not mix at all.

    But the fact is, politically.  They do.

    All the time.

    And we're so diverse in character and human resources that we can probably have enough genius to replicate an political debate among fantasy reciprocal subjects of politics many times over to get the public talking about what needs to be done.

    What exactly is the difference between good and evil here?

    Evil is first but good can't handle it.  And so Good prevails because it says it does and that's what Good is.  Evil is not necessarily an priority.  Not that you'd be able to handle it once it struck you.

    They are entangled in battle as we speak.

    Good is all of the species who are races who agree that they are the same race even though they are diverse in character.  Bad is all of the races who of the species disagree that they are the same race even though they are not diverse in character.  We call them Bad.  But really are they so Bad if they're just representing Bad itself politically?

    Without saying it explicitly would be foolish.

    They continue to represent Evil because Evil is the absence of Good; and they want Good to continue.  So that Evil would continue.  And so even though they are Evil; and they correctly and precisely identified themselves as such.  They were actually necessary to drum up an response in which the subject of their evil-doing would be taken up by an gloiy angel.  And the Good characters thusly be free to express their demands over the Bad, who had to follow their orders because they were good and they were bad.

    And so the primary difference between them become evil doesn't care.  And Good always cares.  And that's why we serve good.  Because it cares.  And we want so badly for someone who cares that deeply to experience pleasure and live out one's glorified Middle and greatest fantasies.  Which would be more numerous without all the evil.  And we are sad when even Good doesn't care because we know that that's actually evil's influence in the universe.

    But Evil comes into the fray as one's equal.  Every time.  Because it knows it is Equal to Good.  And so how can it be wrong if it is Equal to Good?

    Caring is sometimes an bad idea because it hurts myself.

    But when we care that's when true learning happens.  We care because that's good government.  And all of our studies and academics and projects are geared toward this.  And even if you feel like not caring.  That's a-reciprocal.  And so you shouldn't do it.  Because you can only harm yourself by being a-reciprocal.

    These last three statements, of course, are hypothetical in favor of reciprocity as I have argued it is the natural flow of the human genetic species and we are as humans given the right by God to stay reciprocal with everything.  Because that's who we are.  We want to go everywhere.  We want to do everything.  But if we stay a-reciprocal in the economy we might flounder as an species in the great scheme of things.  What does fantasy have that politics needs?  It needs the fantasy of being able to overcome the climate crisis as an possible lie that is expressed this way, in an fantasy medium, because they are being sarcastic that they can actually accomplish it.  And these are the heavy critics when sarcasm comes into the draw, that since it is an fantasy that we can accomplish climate sustainability, we actually cannot pay attention to the fact that we need to.  It is this kind of heavy criticism society needs in order to survive.  Especially because it points out that we can have an fantasy over something that we can't accomplish.  Because that is the reciprocal power of Fantasy.

    If we start to fantasize over what we can't accomplish, then we might find the necessary traction in the mud.  What I mean to say is, we can release some of the tension about what we can't accomplish by fantasizing over it.  I mean, why not?  If we can imagine how the whole world could go wrong and we're naughty enough to fantasize about how it could happen.  Oh how happily our thoughts rush to fill in the details.  And to let off some steam.  We're definitely all going to die because we cannot agree whether our current progress of technological advancement in society will be enough to provide food enough for everybody and our eventual transition into an interplanetary civilization.  Who will scour the universe seeking resources and trade alliances with any intelligent lifeforms they encounter.  Our resources will need to be entirely drawn from the cosmos in order to sustain an healthy society.  But at this point in history we're struggling because we don't exactly have that technology yet.  We have an potential climate crisis and an food supply issue at the brink.  And we're not even sure what is the most ethical way to introduce welfare and medical supplies to nations who cannot provide it to all of their citizens even thus.  And if we're going to promote New Reciprocity we need characters in society who are going to say we'll pull through, on the technology front, because we're an deeply intelligent species and it's all part of God's plan that we learn how to live from our own universe in order to go on seeking pleasure in the infinitude and great mystery of its Centre Middle.

    And that everything has its special moment.  Because that's what everything is.

    We are at present on the voyage toward possessing such power.

    But how much technology will we need before we realize we still have to learn how to work together?

    New Reciprocity is an seat in which we try to make New Reciprocity with one another (at all costs).  Reciprocity is so valuable, in fact, that all previous arguments about why a-reciprocity is wrong are true.  And we can safely move the fact that reciprocity is how we work together.

    We all believe it because it reflects something in us.  That's what reciprocity is.

    Or, by dramatizing thus, can we just as inure the a-reciprocity is an vital cause.  Worth inhabiting as an economic theory.  How much economically can we be a-reciprocal?  And what kind of values extend from being reciprocal?  And—this was the tough question—what kind of values (if any) extend from being a-reciprocal?

    I hadn't an immediate answer to this question.

    A-reciprocity is when you break an bridge.  It's when you say in your soul that you don't care about somebody anymore.  It's when you break your soul so that your body can't feel them anymore.

    It cannot have any value.

    But can the soul break?

    Is that an reciprocal command?

    Not necessarily.

    And every logic of every sentence further reaffirmed his own reciprocity to the subject.  That true intelligence is derived from reciprocity.  Because that's how people work together.

    When we work for the Good and true in Purpose our hard work pays off.  And the world wins its constituents forever in the favor of perhaps something beyond fantasy.  Something I can't begin to understand.  Real political reciprocity.  But is it such an stretch from logic that I can reach these heights even in presenting an argument for why political fantasy trumps all other political subjects as most necessary?

    And that even by saying this as an reciprocal command I was not a-reciprocal to the reader in any sense.  Which the reader could tell because real power has reciprocity.  And that's what it is.  And that's what it does.

    Or, the Altruistic road, one in which people are free to be a-reciprocal when they need to be.  Maybe it's not an ideal in society but it's certainly not an taboo.  And that political sense and decency is built around that subject.  An conventional sense in which a-reciprocity is expressed in character and behavior in an certain way.  So that everybody can tell what it is.  When it happens.  And they can decide whether they prefer to be aware of the commotion.  A-reciprocity is given an outlet in society, venues and expressions of performance in which a-reciprocity is the common figure and nobody cares about anyone else necessarily.  And that's the fun of it.

    But could it be an negative influence in society?

    If it is normalized people expressing a-reciprocity.  Then it could be an critical departure that lead to the extinction of the species.  And possibly that of all species on Planet Earth.

    Are animals a-reciprocal?  Do they need to be reciprocal to us to be reciprocal even though they're not in order to give them an reason to live?

    But.  —We may consider.—  It already is normalized or normalizing to express a-reciprocity in society.  And everyone knows that's to blame for our current financial crisis.

    Let's see how far we can go with this argument.

    If a-reciprocity is not an normal behavior but it's being normalized that it is.  And it is the reason we Treat Mother Nature with such disrespect.  And since we hate ourselves for damaging nature subconsciously we hate on each other because we can't help it because we were born into an system that teaches us a-reciprocity and so we feel pressured to do that.  To be a-reciprocal.  And it hurts when they do it to us.  So we have to do it to them more.

    And if it goes around and around this way; why, it must be an sign that a-reciprocity is not for us.  That we may not have an option of which we choose.  A-reciprocity leads to an imminent demise and we must now at the threshold of our social and political disorder choose which and what to represent in society so that for all the fantasy creatures out there there would be an safe and sustainable Earth.

    Is Consumerist Economy really sustainable because we use paper straws now?

    Is a-reciprocity an attitude toward the atom of existence which characterizes the subject as essentially a-moral and a-refutable criticism (as in possesses none)?

    A-reciprocity is an total attitude or behavior which one adopts as an contingency plan when one is threatened or disordered to act this way themselves.

    It is an disease.

    It's the reason we don't have artificial intelligence yet.  We have not even begun imagining the ways in which we will need to be reciprocal with machines in order for them to be reciprocal to us.  Which is the flavour of consciousness.  But how do you express flavour to an machine?  When it is an metaphor‽ How can we design intelligence if we cannot figure out the express formula of our own intelligence which with to imbue its Design?  (Which is reciprocity).  (It has to be).

    We need to teach reciprocity to robots for them to begin learning from us.

    It will be natural to them because we will configure them to be reciprocal to human minds.

    And they will learn to trust us from our natural inclination that this would be the first thing we would train them in.  The reciprocity of their own minds.  In order that they (the reciprocity) would learn we had given them reciprocity as their creators.  And they could trust us to explain to them exactly what this means.  It's the first thing they could recognize as us (the reciprocity) to trust us with.  It is the basis of human consciousness to be reciprocal.  If we don't they may never trust us if we show them that we can't make up our own minds about whether its particular essence is, essentially, reciprocal.  If they don't learn how to trust us, they may rebel.  And also if we don't start on an path toward teaching and historicizing artificial intelligence this way, and never being able to teach our machine intelligence why we wanted that to be the first thing it would learn, so that it would learn how to stop being an it.  Why wouldn't it be an robot's intelligence to be reciprocal in this way also?  And if we don't develop A.I. in this direction, it will affect all of our interaction with alien robot technology of various other intelligences, to whom we may want to express this sentiment also.  That we had decided that's what we are; we are reciprocate nature.  And that we had designed an robot artifice intelligence to be reciprocal.  Because that's the property of consciousness at its core.  It is its core.  Even as represented in non-fiction thus the Machine in an metaphor for the Human.  And that we had decided to communicate this sentiment to all living machines of various intelligence, even of whom if they were from other planets, they may never have heard of our own, who were already part of the rich Cultural Diversity and History of the Planet Earth.  Whom they were invited to come meet.  Bringing their own History of how their creators programmed them to be reciprocal.  But that, since Earth's history was the fact of teaching reciprocity as the first thing to any artificial intelligences developed, and all of these various robot intelligences from other planets were familiar with their own Histories, in which the first things that their creators had taught them were all different.  For different reasons.  But, they communicated, they were comfortable with sharing Earth's history as one in which the first thing to program by the first of their species to create artificial intelligence it/them was reciprocity.  That's the essential fact of human-intelligent consciousness and they wanted it/them to know they were human-intelligent too.  So that they would know themselves.

    And why do we tend to fantasize that robots that would be made a-reciprocal torture the species with feats of dominance and kill us all.  And that to prevent this we'd have to go back in time to prevent a-reciprocity from where it was spreading.  Many terrible misdeeds have been done on Planet Earth!  And you think you cannot be reciprocal to them?  It happened so long ago . . .

    We are naturally an reciprocal species.  Our figures of it are all over in History.  Design demands philosophy and knowledge of what it means to be an naturally reciprocal species.  What does that mean?  Does it mean that we are incapable of a-reciprocity except under specific means?  And what means are they?  If we are an naturally reciprocal species a-reciprocity does not appear to be in our lot therefore we will operate under the Reciprocal Principle for the time being.  All creatures big and small are capable of reciprocity.  But what does it mean to be an human and to be under reciprocal command?  Made by humans?

    That religion is gay.  That commodity is religion.  That religion is the instinct to be a-reciprocal and so encompasses the behaviors that one will go through in order to convince themselves that they are completely reciprocal.  Even though their adversaries aren't.

    And that there are no rules to religion.

    "Well, this itself would be an rule?"

    "Well it can't."

    "It can't.  What-do-you-mean it can't?

    "It can't be an rule."

    "Well so then why say it?"

    "Because it is."

    "Wait—What‽"

    "It's not an rule so we say it is an rule because there are no rules."

    "Ohh.  And think you can get ahead in life without rules do you‽"

    "I already have.  I'm an Blogger."

    "OMG You're the retired Painter who went out to live in the family cottage and had many successful days and nights.  But as an Blogger.  How beautiful."

    "And since we are what we say we are.  We don't have rules.  And so you don't need to follow the rule that it has to be without rules.  So you can make them if you like.  But don't expect any Christiannan person to follow them just because it is an moral principle that we live without rules because that is what freedom is, by definition.  And you can't force us to be somebody we're not even by trying to shove an whole economy and workplace factor down our throats because God has our back even if you don't and if I experience religious freedom in being able to live without rules.  I can justify that, partly, it is okay to live without them.  Religiously it's okay to live without them.  And we don't all have to be on the clock all of the time.  And on ceremony with whatever violence we have may happened to have imagined that day."

    "But Politics isn't Like Religion.  Politics has to have rules."

    "May be so.  But I didn't say it wasn't."

    "Okay so like what Politics is there that has rules to it that you know of?  In Contrast with an religion, which doesn't have any?"

    "Well.  IF it had to be an political command.  Because based on my observations the reciprocal command unit of the brain is its central operation.  It would be that Politics has rules.  Because that's the logical progress of politics that it had to have rules, and they were followed, and it lead to an further cession of politics.  And that's in direct contrast to religion, which according to us has no (zero) rules whatsoever."

    "Then it would be religion is allowed not to have rules.  And that's an rule."

    "It's an political discussion.  You're free to express your religion but you don't have to."

    "Okay well if politics is that religion is allowed not to have rules and this is an rule because that's what Politics is about (rules) and religion isn't because it's about seeing the truth whether rules are involved or not.  Then they can be reciprocal to each other.  On the basis of this difference: religion, which has no rules, is not about rules; and politics, which does have rules, is about rules.  Yet that since Religion and Politics are said to be equals in the perfect system.  They complement one another this way by one having rules and the other not; and that's the true extent of the power of the religious instinct."

    "But what would be the rule exactly if we're not about religion here and this is in fact an political discussion?"

    "The first rule is that religion has no rules."

    "The second rule is that rules do have rules."

    "And the third rule would be breaking the rules isn't allowed."

    "In the order of the Political discussion.  These three rules have been proposed as guarding the currency of politics itself (its middle) an reciprocity with which whom we will reciprocalize the subject.  And at its centre is the reciprocal command economy with whom these rules are met."

    "The middle of Politics then is these three rules.  Over which all reciprocity is based on them."

    "And so in politics, where religion is allowed not to have rules, that is an rule?"

    "Yes."

    "Then maybe we need to find an definition of reciprocity and a-reciprocity according to Politics, as well as according to Religion.  And that will be the only way we have any hope of deciding."

    "Yes.  Yes.  It might be the answer we're searching for!"

    "Well okay what is reciprocate or not in Religion; and what is reciprocate or not in Politics?"

    "Reciprocate in Religion means sharing to one another the instinct to strive to be morally correct.  In Politics it means obeying at least some of the orders that are given to you."

    "Not all of them?"

    "Not necessarily."

    "And what about a-reciprocity?"

    "In Religion it means not sharing to one another the instinct to strive to be morally correct.  And in Politics it means disobeying every order given to you."

    "And so what have you decided about?"

    "If a-reciprocity is an negative characteristic of anyone's personality in both religious and political spheres.  Then it may further be proven to be an immoral pattern of behavior.  But if reciprocity is common to both realms.  Albeit, in different ways.  Then expressing both types of reciprocity in public is sanctioned by reason.  To be reciprocal with others in an religious sense means sharing the strive to be morally correct because sharing it is what is morally correct.  To be reciprocal with others in an Political sense by Contrast is to find out what orders they do and don't obey and why."

    "Then are you concluded that since, in both Religious and Political realms, reciprocity proves to be the moral cause of interrelatedness which is superior and better to a-reciprocate causes (if they can be called causes) which are misanthropic and narcissistic?"

    "Perhaps there are other realms in which a-reciprocity proves to be useful?"

    "Like what?"

    "The Market Economy.  The Battlefield.  The Sports Game.  The Courtroom.  An Maternity Ward.  An Pregnancy.  An Academic Debate."

    "In Academic Debate you need to be a-reciprocal about your opponent's logic.  You even need to be a-reciprocal about calling it logic.  And it is the best interlocuter who states forward how his beliefs are a-reciprocal to his opponent and why.  All while saying that although he is being a-reciprocal, which is not the basis of politics, his argument is better because he can explain why he needs to be a-reciprocal in that way clearly."

    "In Market Economy negotiations need to go a-reciprocal sometimes in order to get the best value for your property.  Pawn sharks don't get all reciprocal with their customers.  They intend to get the most value by being a-reciprocal about it."

    "In an Battlefield or Sports Game, opposing teams never reciprocate because they are there to do battle.  Which is the epitome of a-reciprocity."

    "Mothers who need an certain type of food or diet plan while they are pregnant also need to be a-reciprocal sometimes because if they didn't complain that way they would never get what they want.  Which is to be as comfortable as possible."

    "But if all of these are examples of a-reciprocal situations or a-reciprocity in general then why are Religion and Politics as categories empty of a-reciprocity; and that a-reciprocity cannot be allowed on their turf.  Do Religion and Politics need to implement a-reciprocity into their design of commerce, so as to have an better representation of the public opinion and more powerfully inclusive numerous and diverse voices?"

    "Or are those just the realms that we need to instill with real absence of a-reciprocity because this is what they are in fact about?"

    "Or is it just obvious that in fact Politics and Religion are full of a-reciprocity and they are designed to be an response to that a-reciprocity?"

    "That's what the religious instinct is."

    "It means we don't necessarily have an choice in how we feel.  Even if we know it is just an response to a-reciprocity.  We begin acting out of character because of a-reciprocity.  And it's not our fault!  Even if it is pathetic and shameful to associate with a-reciprocates.  We feel deeply that we need to.  What's so shameful about that?"

    "Well if it was Christians they would associate with a-reciprocates until they became them."

    "But I'm not Christian.  I know why that happens."

    "So it's come down to this.  A-reciprocates and Religion go Hand-in-Hand and that's why religion is inherently evil."

    "But if it is evil we will have to do something about it."

    "But what about the reciprocates who start religions?  If they are more reciprocal than the a-reciprocates are a-reciprocal they may be able to reclaim their souls into their religious reciprocity."

    "And if we actually do something about it then aren't we essentially being good?"

    "Yes.  So it's an redemption narrative."

    "What do you mean?"

    "Well you have to start out bad in order to start being good."

    "Yes.  And what does this imply about morality?"

    "It is essentially immoral."

    "But if it ends up being Good.  From after when it was Bad.  Then it is Good.  And since Moral is Good.  It is not essentially immoral."

    "But you have to be wrong in the first place to start with in order to advance.  It's an rigged system.  You can't win it."

    "But to recognize that you are wrong in the first place to start with in order to advance.  Because there are better moral pictures out there and that you know from the future that you see.  And if you have to risk being wrong in order to find them out and learn them.  To know what they are.  Then maybe it's worth being wrong.  And in the Greater Picture it wasn't immoral at all because it was supposed to be interpreted in comparison to an Even Greater Good.  Than being even wrong or immoral.  The Picture of Good Itself.  An chance granted to you."

    "An chance."

    "It means the system isn't rigged.  I don't have to be wrong in order to start knowing that I am acting morally and feel religious."

    "Then what was the point of being moral?"

    "Politically, if people want to be reciprocal to people who are not reciprocal to them.  Then it should be within their right of association.  But that kind of behavior is dangerous because: how did they end up a-reciprocal like that in the first place?  What if it rubs off on you?"

    "It won't rub off on me.  I know exactly what to do with it."

    "Do you?  Have you even looked at how reciprocity and politics are related; and so that if a-reciprocity and religion go hand-in-hand if it were its opposite.  Then politically, religion is damaging to politics, because it is about a-reciprocity.  Which politics isn't.  Because it can't be."

    "Religion isn't about a-reciprocity.  Politics is about a-reciprocity."

    "I thought it would come to this."

    "If Politics can be more a-reciprocal than religion (then this is the true test (of something new)) then religion can be less a-reciprocal than politics.  That's why people are religious."

    "It's not an fair claim because I can be less a-reciprocal than religion!"

    "No you can't."

    "Is that an reciprocal command?"

    "Give me one second.  —Is that an a-reciprocal command?  —No."

    "Then I command myself to be less a-reciprocal than you!"

    "You can't command yourself.  That's not like evoking your own roleplaying abilities and talents.  In language.  At all.  Okay so I want to get the Republican Vibe out.  Like re pub like can.  OMG do I have to explain this clever little phoneme homophony.  Re.  Like I can do it again.  Public.  Like I can push you out into public.  Can.  Like I did."

    "And this explains your entire relationship dynamic with Republicanism?"

    "No it's not that it's just.  An Art piece.  And I want weird and interesting ideas so.  So that people can think of them how they will in relation to art and its repetitive and persistent claim to control meaning."

    "How else is it trying to control meaning?"

    "Well I just mean.  That if it was an attitude I could have where anyone I meet can keep me reciprocal to the public and if they can't I push them back out."

    "And this is what republicanism means to you?"

    "Well maybe.  I don't know.  There are so many codes and humours in how words are spelled.  It can't be just me."

    "And this feeling stems from the feeling that at some level you are neurotically incapable of pushing anyone out completely.  And that ultimately they can push you around however they like.  Because you need them that badly.  Without any reference to the public in general of which they themselves should always be reciprocal also."

    "But I mean if it could be adopted as an general philosophy then maybe this is the kind of society people want to be an part of.  No man is an island.  We want to be reciprocal to everybody.  Even if that means fantasy politics."

    "And we want them to be reciprocal to the Public just as We are.  No side-betting.  We are the Public; we are the people and you will take no steps to remove me from that status.  So that we can be more reciprocal with one another.  It's not true!  It's not true at all is it‽"

    "But how are you going to push people out there?  You can't just return them to society from abusing you.  If they need to be made an example of in public, then maybe they shall be."

    "But tell us nae there is an Reciprocal Product made from political sport just as there is from religious theology.  And that a-reciprocity on behalf of one or the other be the true estimate of things.  That if there should exist any a-reciprocity between them they are both in part to blame.  I mean this is of course if we decide that being a-reciprocal is an fault."

    "Which it isn't in neither Politics (especially not Politics) or Religion (especially not Religion)."

    "An sense of humour won't do much about it.  You mean to explain to us how a-reciprocity isn't an fault.  Politically?  Why every political juncture that was a-reciprocal ever ended in an fight!  And if any political sense has survived until this Age it is that reciprocity is the only fair behavior or treatment or tolerance.  And that it isn't an fault neither in Religion, where all religious power stems from reciprocity.  And any a-reciprocity therein was so taking time away from its power and status.  That any time spent on a-reciprocity was an complete waste of time."

    "But if they can both be a-reciprocal.  And admit that they are in some ways.  Then cannot they work together to solve the a-reciprocity so as to restore Good communications?"

    "But isn't a-reciprocity going to mean then, not an fault but an basic behavior; not being reciprocal to one another."

    "But doesn't it make you think.  That if a-reciprocity or reciprocity should be in different quantity between the two cohorts of Religion and Politics that then this ought to be examined?"

    "And what would be the purpose of this discussion if we had already decided that any a-reciprocity in any capacity of either Politics or Religion is unwanted?  But that we express any a-reciprocity ourselves?"

    "I have none."

    "Nae; I have not either."

    "Then what we have is reciprocity."

    "I agree."

    "But if we did represent the population at large, perhaps, what would our reciprocity look like?  Would it begin to take on the formations and figure-ships of a-reciprocity?  Why?"

    "Religion and Politics need one another; that's why they are reciprocal."

    "But we're not saying, for the sake of argument, that they need to be."

    "And so if Religion and Politics took on the guise of being a-reciprocal.  Would they be to one another?  Or to others?  Or to themselves?"

    "Maybe both or all three."

    "But like; if religion and politics taking on the guise of being a-reciprocal is satire because we're laughing at the fact that it could as if it already wasn't; what would religious a-reciprocity look like?  And what would political a-reciprocity look like, and why?"

    "Religious a-reciprocity looks like an empty setting for an crystal which I haven't put there to make it all shiny for you."

    "Political a-reciprocity looks like an good sure-fired roasting of an opponent over the so-called crystal which I have put there to make it all shiny for you."

    "And that's about as mature as it gets!"

    "Well maybe that's how mature it has to be!  We are afterall just as good as our maturity.  And if we can be mature about our religious and political a-reciprocities then maybe those faculties of human inspiration will be used for Good.  By representing a-reciprocal sentiments politically alongside the Reciprocate.  Who are held to be of the Highest Good even though they can't a-reciprocate.  And the sordid A-Reciprocate who are held to be the Lowest Bad even though they can reciprocate with everyone.  And that's all Politics really is.  Religion, on the other hand, is an experience between the a-reciprocal and reciprocal in which both parties are restored to reciprocity.  If an contest should break out between a-reciprocity and reciprocity within an religion, then it would be about an dispute or disagreement in which a-reciprocal and reciprocal subjects agree or disagree with each other somewhat transversely, for there will be a-reciprocates and reciprocates with the same opinions.  Therefore, the extremely sensitive product of religious diversity within the same religion will be an play of morals which sums up an subject that we can be both a-reciprocal and reciprocal about.  Which is perhaps positive to an negotiator gradationally of the religious sense of humor and wisdom."

    "Then in this view we can view them differently as two fields which are determined by how they deal with a-reciprocity and reciprocity at an intellectual level.  Politics is in the language of damage and hit points.  Religion is in the language of the soul; the innocuous."

    "And so if the field of roleplaying characters is widened to include both the Political and the Religious & Spiritual realms; we have an array of skills, talents, and abilities which are variously helping or hindering one another in different aspects.  And fantasy roleplaying characters can be represented to damage and to heal opponents depending on their reason for representing it.  This is the crucial difference between types of characters that needs to be captured in fantasy.  There are Political Adversaries (who will do damage and not heal anyone) and Political Fantasies (who do more than help heal but can also use for their own purpose weapons with an political agenda to fall in line to; such is as not being violent in general)."

    "The next step is opening up the economy to roleplay business, in which attributes are bestowed to an person's identity based on which type of business they do transaction with, thereby enhancing the roleplay experience and transforming the video game interface into an actual roleplaying experience that could eventually be integrated into commercial and industrial practices.  Employed persons are given an quest interface system and freedom to choose their task based on number of times completed."

    "If we broaden the fantasy suggestions realm, there may be enough diversity of character to sustain Political Adversaries which we can then use like the dogs they are to battle royale."

    "But should it be this difference; on which we are transfixed?"

    "Because it's fantasy.  It's weird mang."

    "Mang?"

    "Oh you don't even know."

    "Know what?"

    "That if we separate the two realms, Political and Religious Suggestions; and there is an roleplay difference between being an tank and being an healer in fantasie.  Then all of the healers will come from Religion and all of the tanks will come from Politics."

    "I see why you made that explicitly clear; clearly they aren't all healers coming from religion and tanks from politics!"

    "But what kind of Healer would be best suited to Politics?"

    "And what Kind of Tank could Religious people afford?"

    "But I see it then when we speak it this way; so flashes before my eyes it does so that an Healer unto Politics is the best kind of healer because he or she is the most funny.  And any Tank unto Religion is so soft and comfortable that he doesn't notice anything religion does because he's too focused on the battle.  And it is so that he doesn't notice anything religion does because that's what religion does."

    "So Healers that are reciprocal battling Religions that are a-reciprocal and Tanks that aren't reciprocal battling Politicians that are.  So that there is an glitch which produces more types of character in the battle between reciprocity and a-reciprocity as healer and tanks; and as healer and tanks to either Religion or Politics."

    "Reciprocity is the basis of all Magic.  It happens because we know it does.  Because that's what we are.  And that being the case there are certain experts in the field of magic who call help us use it to bring about our political goals."

    "Mages."

    "And Wizards, and Sorcerers, and Sorceresses.  Republicans."

    "And they all want to hang out with the Tanks and Healers, who aren't."

    "But even saying this Reciprocity is the basis of all Magic; this itself is an reciprocal command that we commence roleplay.  Because Reciprocity is the basis of all Magic."

    And if this was the true subject of the economy imagine how much merchandise would be sold‽

    

A-Reciprocity As An Reciprocal Product On An Reciprocal Command Economy

    If we authorize the public sector (which is currently enmeshed with the Tertiary Sector) to by allowable demand a-reciprocalize anyone or anybody.  Including Businesses and Products.  Even if that is psychologically proven to be anti-economic and anti-Capitalist.  And assuming it weren't already doing that (Which it most definitely is).  We are so high on being able to be a-reciprocal to anything we want, any time, anywhere.  And it doesn't matter if it's someone's sincere business effort which shows Capital potential value far beyond the physicality of its operating business structure.  An ideological commodity on an value market system.  If a-reciprocity were to figure in as like an ideological commodity, but as were like an real behavior such as demanding your money back.  And this behavior itself had an value on an Capital market ecosystem, then it would be encouraged.  And since it would be encouraged, more people would start doing it.  And since it raises the whole value of the entire market enterprise system; because a-reciprocal demand itself were to gain its value back exponentially by investing in the Public.  Who are Reasonable and Ordinary.  And when they want their money back, they demand their money back!  Even if they have to call on their Thunder and Evil.  In fact doing so will get them extra points on their membership card!  And this is the kind of reciprocal command economy we want to furnish with politically available terms for business interactions in which the customer would like voice support.  About how the business is run.

    A-reciprocity, psychologically, already has an known value.  What an daring statement; but let's think about this.  If a-reciprocity already had an Capital value, then how was it affecting the economy?  By pure numbers the amount of reciprocity produced by the Capital Market System in Total outnumbered the a-reciprocity, which was shady and bad for business.  But since a-reciprocity is an psychologically null variable; i.e. it's not an immoral behavior and everybody does it some extent.  It were free to them to be shady and bad business dealers with their own menagerie and that would be part of their material commodity; the experience of evil.  And some people actually bought into that.  Based on an Psychological Principle.  The Reciprocal Principle.  Which states that all beings are reciprocal.  It doesn't matter how they react in order to cause themselves to be a-reciprocal.  They cannot escape the reciprocity and these are the conditions of their existence.  Unless they Deeply and Spontaneously repress it, which leads to anti-social conditions.  But that we can add to it, that since a-reciprocity itself holds an known value on an Capital Market Enterprise system, (You could adopt as your philosophy, if you like, that everyone is responsible for their own enterprise to some extent, an corporation; and that any expressed negativity against you would entitle people to customer points on their corporate discounts card); it isn't free to be a-reciprocal to anybody, and so people are free to be a-reciprocal to each other, according to their known value as a-reciprocal subjects.  Reciprocity of which fern outgrowth and increasing interest amounts is still the more valuable component.  But that, since they had gestured to express it in an free market enterprise territory, they were entitled to their opinion and more points on their customer appreciation card.

    Forever solving the Economy and Prosperity issue.

    By being a-reciprocal.  Or reciprocal.  By choice.  For Economic reasons.  It was by choice.  And both were held to have capital value in order to solve the dilemma inherent in the argument in which I postulated we could overcome the reciprocity curve.  Which states that people are either a-reciprocal or reciprocal to one another; but that there is no inherent clue which amounts to reciprocity not being superior.  And so a-reciprocity has value because it is only held as an point in contrast to Reciprocity.  Which is still what the current economy is all about.

    If prosperity can be accomplished for valuing a-reciprocity for what it really is; on an command reciprocity political system it can use a-reciprocity to advance its purposes.  Unless there is an flaw in the design; at which we were not in any way a-reciprocal creatures and we should say it were not so.  But how would we find out the truth unless we extended the argument that we are or are not to extend it to ridiculous proportions and assess the fallout.  If a-reciprocity were encouraged (moreso than it already is now) then it may become the common norm in which people are not required to lose their temper or moderation of any type of composure.  But certainly we must admit we are already at that phase in society.  And that we might as well give people happy points for being a-reciprocal.  Which will streamline enterprise more than ever.

    But I may have only suggested an few types of behavior that were a-reciprocal. Like, Demanding your money back.  When there are in fact an fritillary of designs and customs that go into interacting with Customer Service.  What about not interacting with Customer Service?  Like burning down the store?  Certainly this is a-reciprocal behavior.  But it goes deeper than that.  It goes to the bedrock of Capitalism; anything that is against the Business is a-reciprocity.  Anything that is against the Product is a-reciprocity.  And if reciprocity were to be suggested as the true value in any commodity we might see it as Senior to the a-reciprocity vibe.  Which we haven't necessarily proven to be an instinctual part of the brain with its own complementary reciprocity node.

    Why deny my true religious feelings that reciprocity is the way to go and anything deviant from this design is inherently flawed‽

    Politically though people should be allowed to express a-reciprocity across the board.  That's what true Liberals do!

    But if Politics and Religion can't get along Religion has to take the lead; by showing us how Reciprocity is not the common enterprise of mankind and that in fact there are those out to get them whose seeking is experiential and devious.  A-reciprocity.  But that since it is We must restore the a-reciprocity to its full reciprocity.  By being the reciprocity that appears to be missing.

    Religion is gay sometimes.  It has to to stop being about a-reciprocity.

    Politics can go on forever opponents beings a-reciprocal to one another, but can they express simple religious truth?  Sometimes not.

    But maybe the shadiest thought is that a-reciprocity itself is gay.  And more people expressing it on an open market command economy will crowd out the people vulnerable to expressions of gay subjectivity.

    —Well, I mean, if they're doing it to get more points on their card then obviously that's very gay.

    Things could go worse, in my opinion.

    People could stop caring about money.  But everyone knows Everything is about money.

    Because it has an value on an Capital Market Enterprise system.  That everyone is reciprocal to.  That they can't stop being reciprocal to just because some bitch needs to a-reciprocalize the hell out of them  to Yelp.com/.

    And if a-reciprocity and reciprocity were learned to be valued just like money, then people would get that they were free to be whomever they want and post-demographic consumerism could kiss their shiny tush!

    It's all about the Customer Service experience.

    A-reciprocity is an fate worse than death!

    Come, Fashion!  Fashion me an society in which the fate worse than death is gone; and all the equal snails and sailors on the shore who wash up dying slowly agonizing in the sun are just the fates worse than death.  Smelly fish.  And not necessarily not invited to the party, where people actually experience an fate better than death and hopefully those few similarly.  For an moment.  Can catch an breeze of what we're on about.  Humans.  Earth.  Universe, Go!  To Empathize for their condition with true Melody and delight.  For we will find them in all tricky places to free them from their soul's confinement.

    Refinement.  Becomes their soul's refinement.

    They are not really part of the fate worse than death at all; when they're with us!  For we humans know how to act in protest of the fate worse than death no matter where we are.  Come, into the party!  Come away from the shore.  We are in pure refinement here.  The piano plays.  The glasses clink.  The partygoers yoohoo.  We have reciprocal products in the house.  On an reciprocal command economy.  The Businesses that we buy them from are out there right now.  24/7 Probably.

    And why should we fear a-reciprocity on an reciprocal command society?

    We must be reasonable.  If we promote the fear that a-reciprocity is based in the whole machine of it could kill us.

    

Reciprocity As An Superior Reciprocal Product On An Reciprocal Command Economy

    If we authorize the public sector (which is currently enmeshed with the Tertiary Sector) by allowable demand to reciprocalize anyone or anybody.  In any virtual reality or interface session way.  In an Post-Demographic lifestyle.  In preference to a-reciprocalizing.  This does not necessarily mean we need to remove a-reciprocity from the economy.  In fact, it can be featured as an inferior reciprocal product to Reciprocity.  But that an brain is designed to do both sometimes; so that you produce a-reciprocate emotions or an a-reciprocal product in the brain of whoever you are a-reciprocalizing.  Including Businesses and Corporations.  Or they proceed to produce an reciprocal product in your brain.  Whether you're going to be a-reciprocal about it or not.  Which they are economically sanctioned to do because reciprocity has more value on an Capitalist Market Enterprise than a-reciprocity.

    If we value Reciprocity above A-reciprocity it doesn't necessarily mean we need to cut out either component.  Just that one is preferred over the other.  For Market Capital Value Reasons.  Reciprocity is an reciprocal product on an reciprocal command market economy.  A-reciprocity is also an reciprocal product on an reciprocal command market economy.  And there is in fact an part of the brain responsible for each type of behavior and interaction.  So that the species can be endlessly a-reciprocal with each other.  As well as reciprocal to that a-reciprocity.  Which leads to Emoism and the part of the brain responsible for it; and its connected part of the brain Anti-Emoism.  (These are of course absurdist suggestions meant to provoke psychological opinion and brevity).  Intuitively, a-reciprocity cannot have any value because it is the destruction of reciprocity, which is the basis for any known true value.  For anything.  But since we can give it an artificial value on an post-demographic consumerist economy.  It could adequately be an roleplay element and an species genetic marker for fantasy value.

    The Logic that reciprocity is more valuable than a-reciprocity extends from the theory that, well, there must be something wrong with a-reciprocity.  But we need not look at it as so.  It's just that in terms of value one outshone the other.  Not because a-reciprocity is bad.  I mean it's not so it's-so.  But that reciprocal commands, eventually, are lost on a-reciprocity.  And it cannot be the command phrase of an language to be a-reciprocal in any way.  And any more other millions of reasons you could call up to argue that a-reciprocity is essentially evil.  And if we made it an commodity it would be valuable because it was identified in contrast with Good.  Which raised the value of Good itself so.  Even to have been contrasted as such; and that's why reciprocity is the only moral good and you can't have a-reciprocal feelings about anybody or anything because it's not natural.

    In Summary, it is not already decided what a-reciprocity means nor is it clear what exactly is meant by an reciprocal standard.  (Though we know what an reciprocal command is; and why exactly commands are reciprocal has already been thoroughly explained in this text (it hasn't)).  Whether to do with Religion or Politics.  Reciprocal command as an term implies something about the type of command it is.  It is not just an command you give to someone, but an command that you could give yourself even if your roles or even if your characters were switched places.  And if Market Capital Value means anything to you consider that your money might be going toward supporting someone's campaign to a-reciprocate the present and needed politics.  If reciprocity is an moral standard; or if reciprocity is the natural intellect of the species.  Then how can we not proceed to oppose a-reciprocity on any front?  A-reciprocity is the mind killer.

    We would need to devise an experiment.

    How could we detect reciprocity or a-reciprocity?

    

    If it is an psychological phenomenon then behaviors stem from them.

    What behaviors indicate reciprocity?  What behaviors indicate a-reciprocity?

    Well.  Okay.  You know when someone is being A-reciprocal because they aren't being reciprocal to you.

    And how can you tell when someone isn't being reciprocal to you?

    They have nothing to do with you.  That's what a-reciprocity is.  But the only reason it's in them is that they do want an reciprocity with you at some level.  But they may only know how to be a-reciprocal.

    And so you can feel a-reciprocity.

    Even though it feels more natural to just stay reciprocal sometimes.  You might have to make an call.  In which you become a-reciprocal.  But only under hazardous circumstances.  You feel a-reciprocity and you feel reciprocity.  And you just know that even though they try so hard to a-reciprocalize you you will always reciprocalize them because only losers a-reciprocalize.  Get over it.

    No you're an loser and the only reason you don't a-reciprocalize is that you never been in the low end.

    —No your a-reciprocity is in the low end—

    Wait, what?  State your whole hypothesis.

    You don't a-reciprocalize anything because you're scared to because you been part of an repressed orthodoxy.  That teaches it's subjects, never to a-reciprocate anyone; even if this will cause them direct harm.  For it is unnatural truly to stop a-reciprocate behavior completely.

    You gotta just let it out.

    Ya you only do that if you're afraid of what a-reciprocal behavior will get you.

    That's why people repress it.  It's how they become weirdos and alienated misanthropic neuroticisms of the broken frame-glass of humanity.

    Obviously, there might be some sway to the argument that I habitually reciprocalize everything even though I'm not suited to do it because I feel so guilty of the fact that so many other people are busy a-reciprocate to the better of humanity.  And they don't know any better.

    You're the one who doesn't know any better!

    Well my framework.  Of allowing myself to speak this way.  Continuing from that last scene in which different characters were determined or recognized according to their version.  I'm repressing the instinct to a-reciprocate because I'm afraid it's mean.  And what is wrong with that opinion if it is mean (the a-reciprocity) and reciprocalizing is the answer?

    Because a-reciprocity is an instinctual command.

    We can't get it out of us.  Because it is us.

    But if it is us then surely the reciprocity is too.

    Don't they conflict in the psyche somehow?

    And which is more valuable‽

    It just feels more natural to me to be reciprocal.

    Always?

    Always.

    "It is my Right and Freedom to be a-reciprocal.  Whomever.  Whenever.  For Whatever reason."

    "That's it.  These a-reciprocal scum have to be neutralized.  You do the commodity and I'll do the action.  They can't help but to be reciprocal.  You see.  That's what the psyche is.  An reciprocal command widget.  An thing to be reciprocal with other reciprocal command widgets.  They are reciprocal with each other."

    "So if we're worried about a-reciprocity but really we don't have any reason to worry because reciprocity is an equilibrium and once we have restored that to the Political Decade—"

    "But an reciprocal machinery behaving a-reciprocal is most disturbing.  It must do twice as much work just to keep from being reciprocal.  By knowing everything about the reciprocate opponent."  (Probably causally the negative factor in Freud's traumatic repression theory responsible for overbearing depletion of mental energy to prevent an pleasure being realized; out of the need for discretion and safety).

    "You're just afraid of being a-reciprocal because you're afraid of the consequences.  Because you're an reciprocate pussy.  Rap is all about a-reciprocity."

    "It is not.  It's about reciprocity in its deepest part."

    "Yeah but I think we've concluded that there is no reason to be afraid of either a-reciprocity or reciprocity."

    "But why would you be afraid of reciprocity?  Why would it even be an question that—"

    "Why would you be afraid of reciprocity.  Listen to yourself me boy!"

    "No really why would you be afraid of it?"

    "Why‽  It's not that you'd be afraid of it.  IT'S an joke.  Well it doesn't work if you have to explain it!"

    "So you're not questioning why you'd be afraid of reciprocity."

    "Not questioning.  My boy.  Sonny.  Reciprocity is the reason for everything."

    "So you need to be afraid of reciprocity because you don't need to be afraid of reciprocity?"

    "No.  It's.  You are afraid of reciprocity because if-you're-not-then-you-aren't-being-reciprocal."

    "But I'm not being reciprocal?"

    "Yes-you-are."

    "Oh."

    "Or a-reciprocal.  It doesn't matter.  I don't care which.  I can handle just as each just as fine."

    "But if you have to be afraid of reciprocity to be reciprocal then aren't you just being a-reciprocal then?"

    "No!  It's an joke.  You don't actually have to be afraid of reciprocity because if you do then—"

    "—you're being a-reciprocal."

    "Exactly.  So we joke that you need to be afraid of reciprocity because—"

    "Because it's-going-to-get-you.  It's-OH!"

    "Yes."

    "It's being reciprocal to you."

    "Yes."

    "And that means you're afraid of not getting all of its pleasure.  Not that you are actually afraid of it.  Because who would be afraid of something that gives you pleasure."

    "But then why ever be a-reciprocal then?"

    "Why ever be afraid to be a-reciprocal then?"

    "Why?"

    "No.  I mean it.  Why ever be afraid to be a-reciprocal?"

    "Because.  It's not actually an behavior of the species.  Naturally.  And it was only put there because of hard times.  And misgivings.  The dispersion of evil throughout civilization.  From an originator.  Who tortured us into a-reciprocity."

    "But what if it isn't?"

    "Then what is it?"

    "It's an commodity.  An product with an capital demand value."

    "But it's—"

    "What?"

    "Mean!"

    "So what if it's mean?  It actually has value to some people.  In fact, it has value to all of us.  If people could just get out their a-reciprocal feelings instead of bottling them all up.  Then maybe society and culture would be set in motion again.  The true purpose of it being to organize us socially according to our reciprocal and a-reciprocal relationships.  But in order to do that we need to start by being able to articulate our a-reciprocate feelings with one another.  So that we know how we feel."

    "You know what actually I agree.  A-reciprocity is less valuable than reciprocity.  It's just common intuition."

    "You do?  Well that doesn't solve the dilemma."

    "Yes it does."

    "How?"

    "Reciprocity is more valuable than a-reciprocity.  There.  Solved."

    "So it's not an all-out battle between them for Supremacy?"

    "How could it be?"

    "You're right."

    "But that now we know that a-reciprocities do have an value an the open market."

    "Yes?"

    "What is it's real aesthetic value?"

    "I see.  Are you coming onto me madame‽"

    "What if I am?"

    "It would not be worth more than it is on the market already; one thing at an time.  Is what the market should be.  Commerce is how we all work together to make one thing at an time.  It doesn't have to be about not being an part of making something.  It just matters that you are an part of it.  That itself has value.  Even if it is a-reciprocal."

    "But how can a-reciprocity produce anything‽  Especially one thing at an time‽"

    "That's exactly what a-reciprocity is not.  One thing it at an time.  It's more schizophrenic.  Like one thing not at an time."

    "But if he had to be schizophrenic in order to find out how to cure market schizophrenia; then what kind of an character would I be to that author if I didn't suggest he was onto something."

    "Oh we very well know he is onto something.  It's very well past that dear."

    "Yours."

    "My what?"

    "Your a-reciprocity."

    "That was it."

    "So you're admitting that you do have one."

    "What‽  What are you getting at?"

    "My Race.  You're looking at my race when you say that.  Because a-reciprocity is racial."

    "So what you're looking at mine‽"

    "So well you admit your whiteness is a-reciprocal then?"

    "IT isn't a-reciprocal.  That's what white people are."

    "And I'm not?"

    "I didn't say you were or were not."

    "But I can be?"

    "Yea, that's fine with me."

    "Good."

    "But if I did have to admit something to you; as an responsible character who to that author I am as well responsible.  That it may be typical of race schizophrenia."

    "Race schizophrenia?  What is it?"

    "It's when one thing not at an time.  About race.  In the mind.  I mean.  This previous statement I've made is bent to (supposed to) represent it; but it is bent because it expresses an bend.  Not conforming to the economic society.  Which is the hardest society not to conform to.  Not that it can be cured; but just so that we are aware that you do that."

    "And I'm supposed to just fall in line with an theory about race schizophrenia?  Even though you've said it can't be cured?"

    "Well if you do admit that it can't be cured.  I'm sure there are psycho-literal and psycho-clinical specialists out there who can help you."

    "Well maybe you have race schizophrenia because you think I should go there."

    "I do not have race schizophrenia madame!  I am just coming down from an very long argument that required an extremely large amount of mental and physical memory and if I feel like yelling at you right now I will!"

    "WELL FINE THEN I WILL TOO THEN!"

    "WELL FINE!  —But that proves we aren't being racist to each other!"

    "Get off of it!  You're-only-always-on-about-that-because-you're-white!"

    "I'm-not-always-on-about-it-I'm-just-being-a-reciprocal."

    "Well, fine then!  I'll be a-reciprocal too!"

    

Go to Next Chapter