The New Reciprocity: viii. Quaternary Sector; Chapter 8 (VIII.)

Go to Previous Chapter

viii. Quaternary Sector; Chapter 8 (VIII.)

    Subject of focus: that the author suggested race schizophrenia, (an bend) as if everyone of any particular race could all be schizophrenic.  And feelings like your race could be one of them.  But on the other hand, if everyone of any particular race cannot be, then what?  Given what they had gone through as an race; If everyone of any particular race cannot be schizophrenic all of the time as some of them are, then, is it to their detriment?  If everyone of any particular race cannot all be schizophrenic at once when isn't that an item for facticity; given what they had all gone through as their particular race which was worse than enduring or attaining merely several cases of schizophrenia.  Isn't consideration of both sides or all of these facets to this suggestion what we must mean if we choose to indicate an race schizophrenia?  An deep paranoia about one's race.  And why as you are able to present it to others; or maybe not, completely.

    However returning to my argument if the Quaternary Sector is held to be responsible for anything in particular, it must be to oversee the proper functioning of the economy; that people indeed will work together to make one thing at an time together (their order of operations will stretch from the parameters of their ordinary employment) to the function of the whole economy.  And that no matter how high in status or lowly of character; there be an procedure to follow to create one thing at an time.  Sometimes these are reciprocal products; We're talking in extremely abstract terms hence.  When we create one reciprocal product at at time together; and we know it's reciprocal because we had created it together.  This is the proper function of the economy.  And the function of commerce.

    But sometimes it breaks down.  It doesn't always work the way it's supposed to.  People are more inclined to a-reciprocalize and break the proper function of the economy.

    When this happens, it is the responsibility of the Quaternary Sector to restore proper reciprocal measures.  Why, in particular, are they a-reciprocate; and what historical context do they come from which is post-demographic?  

    If it was an demographic for Super Heroes and Super Villains comic enthusiasts, for example, we would expect them to be a-reciprocate because that's the parameters of their fantasy.

    But other such types might not be able to restore an economic sense (Fantasy) to their narrative.  They might come from repressive conditions or human trafficking.  But they are the most reciprocal and smartest people; and they really deserve to gain in to an economy that reciprocates them.  And rescues them from human trafficking.  Maybe they were treated a-reciprocally and then since had begun to treat others a-reciprocally themselves.  Including themselves.  And if the Quaternary Sector had anything to say about it, it would be that there is an way to restore reciprocate conditions in an way that is economical.

    There is an rhythm and an beat to it.

    One thing at an time; really means one thing at an time.

    And if it really is that slow.  Surely anyone can do it.

    Especially if everyone is helping them.

    This is what we project to do with the commerce.  Help everyone.  Create that 1 thing.  That One Precious Moment.  That they need.  That they can afford.  That they are required to do.  That they deserve to be treated to.  And it's really not asking much.  Because to so many people, property is not the only parameter of them having that moment.  Well not necessarily much of it.  They could have like an special scented candle or an twig of spruce.  And it would make the Moment Precious.  And how much Creativity must we have to be able to create that one thing at an time.  No matter what it is.  Of any form.  Because being able to is how we will master an human creativity.

    "I've never been a-reciprocate before."

    "Wait.  Are you-sure?"

    "What is a-reciprocate‽  Like OMG.  There are so many people who are totally reciprocate and have been since birth.  That's just the way it is."

    "And we can have an safe space in which people who experience a-reciprocity can return to the Public in General, which is not specifically a-reciprocate in General."

    "So like what is an general principle?"

    "IF people are going to be reciprocal roleplaying magic users in an republic-type environment.  Then they are allowed to be a-reciprocal fantastically."

    "And what do they get for being a-reciprocal fantastically on their customer points cards?"

    "Wow you really are so weird aren't you?"

    "But the point is they're allowed to be Evil.  Fictionally"

    "But why would anyone have an reason to be evil fictionally?"

    "Well if they get free points, that's an reason!  But how much will it be worth on an post-demographic environment?  But they do.  But they are."

    "And it is worth something isn't it?"

    "Is it because Capitalism is evil?"

    "When it has to be.  To Be An Super Villain."

    "In order to make lots of Super Heroes that will rise up against them."

    "But what if it's not Comic Book Heroes of Fantasy.  And we're just talking about Fantasy in general where maybe there are some Super Heroes.  But not that many.  You know they are really rare.  That's the point."

    "But it's only financially rare."

    "So some people are allowed to be Evil because they take the opportunity.  And some people are allowed to be Good.  In an Fantasy type setting environment.  And since this is Fantasy of Evil we will point out that we have more Super Villains than you think we do.  And we are real fantasy heroes because of-it."

    "And so they get Costco super points coupons on their Customer Service card so that they can go to that other dealership and win savings."

    "And people who are Evil are a-reciprocal.  That's the point."

    "But that some of them can be reciprocal.  In evil ways."

    "That's worse than death.  Mind you.  Take an step over it.  If we are aware of it.  Then what do we do about it‽  We be Good.  And Reciprocal.  Reciprocate!  Men at arms!  And Reciprocate!"

    "So that some people could be Good and be a-reciprocal in some ways."

    "Why, that would be against our privileges as Good citizens, to which we are entitled.  We can't actually become a-reciprocal.  You know like the guards in England.  Batman in London.  Being a-reciprocal is what the yucky radio flies do in the streets."

    "You realize that you are suggesting your own Fantasy Subject in an Political journal.  And that anything you do can and will be used against you!"

    "But radio flies, darling, it's an fantasy subject.  Therefore only half of it is false!"

    "Then a-reciprocal people are evil and Good people are reciprocal and Good prevails because none of the a-reciprocates are brave enough to say so!"

    "Because none of the a-reciprocates are brave enough to say so‽  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of Good; that it should make a-reciprocates brave enough to say so‽  And so the Good are the real a-reciprocates.  And we're going to party all night long like its evil."

    "You cannot in this grocery mart be a-reciprocal with me!" the fantasy character of Good literally jumps into the scene as if it was rehearsed.

    "We are Reciprocal by being evil," says the fantasy character of Bad.

    Stunned, the Good roleplay character is, every time.

    For that is when to counter their spell best; by invoking Arcana Major in Public!

    "I claim the Arcana Major," says Good.

    "You cannot claim Arcana Major," says Bad.

    "But I did.  And this final force will defeat you."

    "Why?"

    "Because it's Arcana Major."

    "Arcana Major.  What is that?  I'm still confusing you.  Obliterating you.  Most Definitely."

    Not even caught off guard, Evil continues to a-reciprocate itself.

    Major Arcana is Ready.

    Good shall prevail!  (They rush to safety).

    And Peace is Restored to the Galaxy.

    Because the point is you want them to start behaving like you because you're an better roleplay character than they are and that's what politics and the customer market economy are all about right now.  Post-demographic Consumerism.

    And this brings up the subject of whether roleplay really is about character.  Do people have special roleplay powers because they are Good people; and they are entitled to that privilege of which they said they had been entitled.  And that this is the basis of Good powers.  Which are Real powers.  Which have been expressed in the consumerist economy.

    One thing at an time?  This is the consumer economic process‽  

    But we had said one thing was evil.  And one was Good.  And this was an consumerist economic process.  In which the Evil, the a-reciprocity itself, would be considered Good.  Because it was a-reciprocal.  And since a-reciprocity had an known economic market value in an Capitalistic Command Economy.  In Canada.  It was safe to roleplay here for every fantasy character type, including all of those Good people out there who deserve to be able to.

    And being a-reciprocal is inherently anti-religious because it is an na-philosophy.

    And when an na; an na.  You know Anna?  The one to whom na is said.  Like she wasn't even an person.  This is our second messiah.  She is that; because of the one to whom na is said or withheld from.  And when anybody adopts it as an philosophy to say or be 'na's to one another.  That's a-reciprocal.  And that's not Good.  And we don't Allow that.

    But it is reciprocal the translation between an na and a-reciprocal then?

    An na is a-reciprocal, because like Anna, anyone who experiences it experiences an fate worse than death.  But it is more like an type of philosophy that you take with you to be the opposite.  To be about another person this way.  That anybody could actually be an na.  It is the true absence of all religion.  To treat another person as though they were an na.  And that if you treated anybody like an na you would not be entitled to that privilege which is given to the Moral and the Good.  That they never need treat anybody like an na.  Because it wasn't moral.  And not just between themselves.  But between themselves and Evil characters in the economy too.  Who were a-reciprocal.  And treated other people like they were an na.  It was actually happening.

    The Exchange Between Good And Evil.

    The Evil characters knew that they were being Evil fictionally, (decidedly by their own word as well) so as to benefit themselves by backpay.  (Backsies).  And the Good characters knew that by being a-reciprocal they were in fact allowing themselves to be an spectacle of the post-demographic consumerist economy which allowed the Good characters to represent themselves as Good.  And such.  Was the profit of their Margin.  That their Pleasure Sense was involved.  And they knew that all Reciprocity was based on pleasure.  And that since some A-reciprocity had been given . . .

    "Give it an go!  That's an woot n' tooter!"

    "Fire is Glo is hot!"

    "And that since some kindling had been started they relaxed an bit because they knew there would be an fire soon.  And an big feast afterward.  And all were merry and well fed."

    And that since a-reciprocity has an value on your points card you actually gain capital value from being an Evil character in public fictionally.  Which is fine.  Because people do that all the time.  We play with the line between Good and Evil because we want to express our reciprocal traits.  And our fantasy roleplaying character.  And we want to do it economically all the time.

    And that's why people get fired in the market economy.

    They mix up their Good and Bad characters.  And then realize they have actually become Bad themselves.  But that it's not so Bad because since they have that experience they know it isn't.  And that since they know the difference between Bad and Good they are essentially Good characters, who cannot behave badly in any way.  And are not more interesting for an roleplay commodity.  In which reciprocal command Evil characters would have to be given their own opportunities to prove their cured or catered to evil power.  And then at this moment it was the first time in his life he had allowed himself to be Evil.  Because he knew it would get him more points on his shopper's points card.

    But that it had redeemed the whole economy, which suggested that some people are a-reciprocal sometimes.  And that if they could be caught getting it on their points card that they had been a-reciprocal at an certain time at an certain place.  It would be normalizing to be a-reciprocal sometimes.  And worth the transaction (in an Capitalist Market Economy) which valued reciprocity (or Good) above all else.  (Even a-reciprocal types of reciprocities).

    But that since a-reciprocity had taken the moment to be reciprocal because he had stepped out in the scene at the grocery store as a-reciprocal.  He wasn't.  At another level.  And it was an known Evil that using reciprocity and a-reciprocity to your matrix of benefit was itself an own commodity.  And nobody thought that he was for at any moment or at any time.  Good.  Because he had stated outright that he used the figures to manipulate his senses into a-reciprocity at anytime.  Anywhere.  And he could in fact execute an command drive that stated all of his a-reciprocity was in fact available on the market economy at an price.  And that since Good would be featured in this episode wherein Evil prevailed because it was a-reciprocal.  And it had stated it outright.  And that even the presence of Good in the market economy could not subdue their tremors into the economy.  Which keep good people up late at night.

    But that all Evil would be cast out in this interaction because heh it wouldn't be evil at all.  And it would only be fantasy.

    Which has an market genre.

    And an actual capital value.

    If people were being reciprocal and a-reciprocal; and it was helping the market economy to fluctuate normally.  Then post-demographic consumerism would prevail and objects of severe rank and commodity would be available to an post-demographic consumerist group.  Who had the luxury and equity to furnish such an lavish design of commodity that would suit the respected buyer perfectly.  And we would continue to do business this way.  Producing one thing after another.  That were totally reciprocal to their buyer.  So that they had to buy it.  And this is how the market economy would go around so to speak.  So that anybody could have anything they wanted or could afford.

    But of course everybody can't have anything they want.  Because we haven't invented that yet.  And there are an lot of lousy, a-reciprocal products out there that people shouldn't be buying.  And that since it is in the interest of the economy that people buy new things that they invented the Quaternary Sector or, as what it has been reduced to in this conversation, is really the business of returning the economy to the proper transaction of business.  So that people will continue to go on buying things and affording things and reproducing what they find for ages.

    The Quaternary cannot extend beyond the Politics of its day, which are about resources.  And so if for some reason we find something we cannot create yet; but only we can imagine it.  It is the job of the Quaternary Industry to find an way to create it.  So that everybody can resolve the post-demoraphic consumerist dilemma, which is the diplomacy between fantasy roleplay characters on an open market who are by consumerist demand either Good or Evil.  And in which place both will be respected for the transaction of business.  Because they give each other time to represent each other.  And by thus representing themselves they are expressing their character as either reciprocal in command or a-reciprocal in effort.

    Which would be an low blow, on the market economy.

    Evil characters of all types have been responsible for the proper focusing of Good.  And just because they are now worth something on the open market doesn't mean that Good hasn't been more or equally responsible for the proper focusing of Evil.  And just because they admit that they were responsible for people deciding to choose Good over Evil doesn't mean that it's an inherent expression of the human arts to be Good or any type of reciprocate conduit to Supremacy.

    And since Evil characters have an value on an open market economy fictionally.  They are free to reciprocate or a-reciprocate as they please.  Which shouldn't concern Good as much since they are deciding their own reciprocate measure.  What do you mean more responsible for the proper focusing of Evil?  That Evil has accomplished more Evil than Good has accomplished Good.  By being a-reciprocate on the open economy.  Which it was an benefit to do so by its customer points card.

    But that it had all been set up by Good that way in which an way so that their preference would always be Good.  Because that's what Good wants to do.  And everything Good has much more pleasure in it because that's what Good is.

    But nae, Madame.  (Say would Ariel to the female Tempest).  If a-reciprocity is good because Evil wants it to be; then reciprocity is Evil because Good wants it to be gone.

    No that is the limits of your reasoning hitting the edge of the glass in which you are an specimen.  Finally.  Good is God.  And Reciprocity is Good because Good wants it not to be gone.

    But then.  You agree.  A-reciprocity is needed in order to be reciprocal.

    I Would Be Very Open To Talking About An Post-Reciprocity Environment.

The Quaternary Sector Restoreth

    From not being able to create one thing; The Research and Knowledge Based Economy (The Quaternary Sector) restores that ability to the market economy.  Of being able to produce one thing at an time.  In an Post-Demographic Consumerist way.  As being the sole mechanic of the work day that it has to succeed.  Of producing one thing at an time.  Even if it changes slightly the category of thing being produced.

    Even if that Design and Invention process involves an Fantasy.

    But who would dream of this system?  In which Fantasies become Reality?

    And how could an whole consumerist system causerie to produce one of anything (abstract reality 8) how would people work together to make sure it happened?  And isn't that the sole discretion of the consumerist demand principle?  Would be an matter of the academic republic.  To invent ways that people can causerie or conspire or scheme to make sure that it does.

    A-reciprocity and Reciprocity are reciprocal value figures.  That determines what it does.  For a-reciprocity and reciprocity are things that do things.  They are the action and the behavior of the person.  And that this could become what the entire economy is about essentially.

    People are free to collect points on their customer points card for being a-reciprocal or reciprocal to the company.  And that could help in the whole process of their commodification in social space.  For what the a-reciprocal customer recommends them to do may be quite some good advice.  And anyone cheap enough to share it for customer points values on their reciprocal customer appreciation card.  Deserves to be commoditized in that social space.  And that if it should ever break down, what kinds of behaviors are necessary to qualify for Evil points or Good points on consumer points card, that people stop being a-reciprocal or reciprocal with one another in an consumer points setting.  The Quaternary Industry would be there to re-correct it; the Quaternary Sector would research why the customers and being a-reciprocal or reciprocal at that place and why an transaction between them came to an end.  And offer possibilities of behavior and action which perpetrate the negative or positive space (it depends how you look at it) the instigation of Evil as an a-reciprocate starter to the instance of either Good or Evil (fiction) happening in an business space.  { It's about people beginning to roleplay their character in an public space.  They instigate an scene using either reciprocity or a-reciprocity; it proceeds from the time of perpetuation to the transaction, exchange, or interaction between characters whom it needs to become apparent why is Good or Evil.  And then the business and the public judges them (Are they fit to be thrown out or did they earn those points on their card like an true champion?) } And if we're only talking about obscure or abstract figures; things we are reciprocal to in our own minds.  (Where they are reciprocal).  The act and Design of reading is to provide these reciprocal figures to you.  So that you can recognize them and see how they work.  All of these things are made one at an time.

    The Goal of the Quaternarian is to point out that since our economic and commercial figure is one thing at an time.  Even if it is including our own minds which can have their own virtual space; and any part of it that can be created together with the economy.  That one thing at an time has to be produced.  And so these weary figures who are expressing their a-reciprocity on an reciprocal command economy are earning their customer points cards just like they should.  Even if it has to be the exact production of one performance.  Of Evil.  Which there is probably more to than we at first tend to think.  How will I represent the subject?  What will my character look like?  How will I deserve my customer points on my customer points card?

    And this is how they'll get 'em.  For centuries onward.  Timeless countless centuries.

    Until a-reciprocity and reciprocity are both still valid in the Public.

    (Suggesting we assume an positive response for the natural existence of a-reciprocity and reciprocity from the Psychological Community).

    (And if we happen to continue the market economy on the basis of that fact ye shall be named; the economic expression of the exchange between Good and Evil in every day society, where Evil is valued less than Good because that's what it wanted because that was why it was (announced itself as Evil).  And it still deserves those points on their customer card for pulling it off because it's an badass thing to do and we must award its merit).

    But inevitably, the expression of Good and Evil were not completely fictional.

    And that at some point we would have to restart the market in certain areas by punking them to think it was okay to express a-reciprocity and reciprocity again and that, as they had already suggested, neither one necessarily pegged you as an Evil or an Good fantasy character.

    Could Good characters perform Evil better than Evil itself, for example?  And how many customer points on my card would that be worth?

    Reciprocity is religion.

    I wanted to say.

    Of course I can perform Evil better than Evil itself.

    That's what religion is.

    I thought of people on an post-demographic consumerist economy expressing their various a-reciprocal powers in different theatres of the mind (the consumerist store).  Where, if they would feel free to express a-reciprocity everything might be funnier again.  And economical to the species.   And that such reciprocity and dignity had been displayed—right in the middle of it; The Worst A-Reciprocities You Have Ever Seen—but that since everyone had gotten into their fantasy roleplaying character out in public the moment itself had an communicable value which added to the value of the whole economy in total and added to their personal style and character value.  Which was readily valuable on an Capital market.  And so everyone got their tension out this way.  A-reciprocal people are awarded, gratefully, with their customer points.  Not as many as the Reciprocal people (like the ones who write letters to companies or make suggestions at the Customer Service), people who write reviews online or participate in the customer survey; creation of Culture that distinguishes between product(s) and service(s) separately.  And all of the fan culture out there for Businesses and their Products.  Gather their own kind of customer points (virtually) based on their own estate.  Without ever implementing an actual system.  Where, generally, would collect all positive and affirming comments about that person's Good.  Which is valuable itself in an way.  (Evil would say).  

    But that the order of narration continue in this way also; so that we may always have these ways of unveiling the secrets of the universe.  As to continue by narration from one thing to the next thing at an time.  And that any deviation from the norm in the behavior between Good and Evil would be thoroughly industrialized by an fantasy artist.  An Literary Critic.  And an Arbiter of Translation between them.

    But what unit of narration exactly would we measure by?

    One thing happens.  And you may know all of what it means scientifically but you still won't know what it is.  It is something happening.  That you may be reciprocal to.  And if we measured all of these narrations as things we were reciprocal to.  We would forever be able to entertain an a-reciprocity also.  And that this was the proper order and investigation of Good and Evil; that some a-reciprocity be experienced or witnessed in the order of the store; which has it's own a-reciprocity or reciprocity backchannel.  And if they or any other customers present should happen to share their own Good or Evil (for free points on their customer appreciation card).  It would be about the deviation of the a-reciprocal from the reciprocate pleasure.  The narration would proceed by sliding in how one sect (yours) was reciprocal and another way a-reciprocate.  And how in their various ways.  They had managed to stage Good and Evil on the same stage.  It was epic.  It was Legendary.  And.  It was of the presence of the individual molecule of value on the Capitalist Market Economy.  Capitalism.  The reason for expression of good and evil in the Market place, where both have value.  If we could artificially create an value for a-reciprocity; it may match with our instinct and so be difficult to deem artificial in fact so because our brains are designed to handle some a-reciprocity.  The natural boom and bust of the economy is the story of the reciprocal versus the a-reciprocal.  Whether they represent demons or fairies themselves.

    If the unit of narration necessarily included the economic instinct.  That we measure one unit of narration exactly by one thing happening; one instance of a-reciprocity or reciprocity in the economy which is met with another a-reciprocity or reciprocity.  That whether it seemed to be prepared by humans or by gods.  May also define their full reciprocity.  From where their powers lie.  Good and Evil represented fully.  One scene.  One character.  One flaw.  And then Good would respond by doing the same, predictable thing it always does.  Not One scene.  Not One character.  Not One flaw.  And if there were any a-reciprocity or reciprocity between them it would be measured as the core; the atom of commerce.  To which the value of money itself is reciprocal.  But we know Good would far surpass the Fate Evil would give us.  And that's why it is worth money to us to represent Evil.  And since it is fictional, they aren't allowed to use any moves that actual Evil would use.  But would we be aware of it if they did?  Unless they are virtual.

    Which is what it is coming to.  Virtual existence.  And virtual paradise.  Fantasy Roleplaying Characters on an roleplaying economy.

    Points awarded for helping to hype the commodity of the whole customer experience of an particular business.  So that nothing boring would ever happen there.

    The precise unit of narration we seek to define the parameters for is there for an reason; it is the moment of the breach of a-reciprocity or reciprocity as an Public subject.  Someone actuates their reciprocity or a-reciprocity.  Everything results from that breach.  And its breaching is why we recognize those moments as one exact unit of narrative, in which the power of a-reciprocity and reciprocity are combatted, virtually or non-virtually, for control of the narrative.  It all starts when someone "steps out of character;" which nobody would do because we are all already in character all of the time or whatever.  And so it starts.  Someone is a-reciprocal.  Or.  Someone is reciprocal.  That's actually how it goes.

    Every single time.

    And we all grieve the potency of a-reciprocity on the open market because it is so boring to produce thus so.  Upsetting an commodity.

    But is it actually?

    If someone is a-reciprocal and that is found to be the quantifiable entity of masochism.  Something damaging to one's own system.  But which all who are able and well-informed be immune to; because it is that type of a-reciprocal behavior which damages itself thus so (the common instinct of the species).  In order to be a-reciprocal.  And since everyone reciprocate knows better than to damage themselves or try to damage other people that way because that's the only way to be reciprocal.

    And why should the unit of narration become an subject of an new reciprocate discussion for the Quaternary Sector?  That if they can show where in an story the reciprocity and a-reciprocity occurs.  And how.  And why.  Then maybe, despite some people being a-reciprocate, we can actually proceed to make the proper order of the economy as in essence the creation of one thing at an time among many people; Good and Evil (variously neither or both a-reciprocate and reciprocate) even if that process of commodification is virtual and product or brand viral.

What is the order of Reciprocal Entities?

    Reciprocal entities are things with which you are reciprocal to, whether they, identifiable in observation to the senses or not we have an intuitive recognition of some of their characters.  The order of Reciprocal Entities must be those which stem from this basic narration.  The moment the a-reciprocity begins.  Or the moment the reciprocity begins.  The use of them for Good or Evil purposes.  And finally the end of the unit of narration in which Good and Evil and an economic variable (the value of a-reciprocity versus reciprocity in that moment) due to the actions and occurrences of the characters by which roleplaying fantasy is expressed.  And their current moderated environment by that Business.

    If the Good are reciprocal to Good; and that's why they're good.

    And the Evil are a-reciprocal (to everybody, potentially).  And we can use them to advance one another's politics.  At an economic value.

    Then the whole purpose of Evil will come to Question.

    That people will give up on it for more should we say capitalistic projects.

    But that some.  Out of respect for the economy.  Will actually try to become notorious villains who demand an refund.  And gesture to take that territory for Evil from Good.  Invoking or calling up Good characters themselves to defend its charisma (of being able to perform Good better than the Good themselves) before potentially good characters who want to switch sides.

    Reciprocal entities are always the order of the First; Good.  And the second, Evil.

    And this is how narrative value is ordered in the 21st century.

    And once the interaction between Evil and Good; or a-reciprocity and reciprocity (whichever exhibition of its set in the psyche it turns out to be more complicated about) has ended.  The amount of time in which that 1 unit of narration happened also evokes an economic exchange of Capital.  A-reciprocity or reciprocity is valued above the other at an particular time.  How much money it's worth.  There is an decision and an calculation about what type of points they accumulate on their card.

    And that all Narrations, in actuality, are in fact this unit of narration in its most basic form.  An Force of Good and an Force of Evil narrated together across an span of time in which they share reciprocal and a-reciprocal feelings and commodities.  And there is an certain economic value at play.  People who don't think they can pull off evil will just try to be good.  But perhaps the most virtuous of all are people who don't think they can pull off good because they aren't good enough.  And people who think they can pull off Good will too.  And they all have to work together somehow in order to create the order of the economy.  One thing at an time.  1 precious thing, created by the Post-demographic resource plastic age of customization.  And that everybody involved will be most worthy of continuing the market economy in Philosophy and Animation.  That 1 thing of anything doesn't have to mean an actual product on the consumerist demand economy.  That it can in fact be an virtual thing.  That exists between two people.  Or more.  And that since its reciprocal value is virtual it can be commodified and offered an Cultural expression.  The Reciprocal Product.  The commodity of the reciprocity in the psyche; which is mirrored in an capital opponent's brain.  And its known reciprocal value on an Reciprocal Command Market Capitalist Economy.  In which commands themselves can be either reciprocal or a-reciprocal and that everyone knows the tone of voice of either one of them.

    Reciprocity, then, becomes about reciprocity of the virtual command commodity; one thing is worth more than another because it makes certain people act an certain way.  And they do that deliberately And so Good is the basic start of an narration.  And Evil is an reciprocal narrative element in which makes people act an certain way so as to cause them to be reciprocal or a-reciprocal; whether they are Good or Evil.  And all of the reciprocal dilemma that comes from it.  And they know they are part of the value by acting that way and fictive elements are in play such as how much someone's reciprocity is worth.

    Larger units of narration may be detected but I am convinced this is the smallest identifiable one.

    An span of time in which Good and Evil exchange economic values in an eco-centric system and either reciprocity or a-reciprocity are reported.

    This is why when you try to be reciprocal with someone they often end up the bad character because someone has to in order for you to shine independently.  (The Judas-type figure).

    But if you try to be a-reciprocal with someone they will a-reciprocal too, and thereby ruin the reciprocity.

    And if a-reciprocity is said, at an quasi-level to be reciprocity, then where do we draw the line on what types of behavior we allow in the Capitalist Marketplace?

    And if a-reciprocal behaviors are found to be in fact more reciprocal than they are a-reciprocal, then what will even be the point of considering a-reciprocity an subject.  And why is it helpful to the human condition?

    To dramatize the fiction that goes into making one thing at an time; in order that the whole process would finally continue to proceed to make the next thing.  The robot arm of the economy is responsible for manufacturing one thing at an time (is an metaphor for the economic function of the whole civilization under the New Reciprocity; the creation of 1 whole thing at an time may include the complete play (an scene) of Good or Evil in reciprocal and a-reciprocal figures for the marketplace).  One scene at an time in which someone perpetrates their reciprocity or a-reciprocity either against Good or Evil in Public.  By actually transforming into that temper.  People responsible for sharing and acting Evil are respected for their talents alongside the Good as long as they produce one thing to help us realize when its our turn to take action.  This may be the performative extent of the Quaternary Sector or Industry that it inspires people to dramatize the fiction that goes into customer transaction choices.  Like who is being a-reciprocal and why?  And where does total reciprocity actually lead?  Why can't this particular place in this particular metropolitan sphere have some drama that actually increases the value of the economy?

Does An Narrative Unit Design Need to be Legislated to the benefit of consumerism?

    When we narrate Capitalistic enterprise space as an unit of enterprise, as I have described, the beginning or onset of some kind of a-reciprocal behavior.  Or, preferably, an reciprocal one.  At the intersection of identities in the consumer demand marketplace.  Though to be contrasted between Good and Evil so that an character can properly express his or her opinion.  It involves an commerce of exchange between them; they let one another help represent themselves one an reciprocal product; and an finalizing detail.  Which is always or usually that some souls have been saved from evil over to good or from good over to evil.  (This involves an act of persuasion).

    What I mean is that not the essential capitalist economy is that enterprise be defined by this negotiation between Good and Evil; is which is that fictional and sanctioned by the Pubic sphere?

    It allows for such an variety of opinions and voices; that it must be equal to some value of great commodity to allow such behavior to continue.  And that the Creativity of these "perpetrators" who are either reciprocal or a-reciprocal depending on how you look at it.  Will begin to evolve so that all types of behavior become an subject of public conversation.  An reason or not depending on the points card.  And it will be more conducive to art because artists will have more figures of character to observe whose complements were within their design.  If art becomes precise enough to narrate these figures of character as I have described them, between a-reciprocal and reciprocal space and territory.  As Good and Evil in some capacity; it will be most humorous and beneficial to business.  Because they had measured the basic narrative unit as an exchange just like the one here I have imagined.  Which goes into all narration.  That if we had found the basic unit and fact of it; we could operate our behavior around it.  Because everything is narrated these days.  If it's properties, such as a-reciprocalism or reciprocity or an market capital economic value in terms of money; of wither the which is the objective of either the a-reciprocal or reciprocal object, which is subjective to have that economic capital as an value of their person.  It is of benefit to both parties which receives the roleplaying objective subjectively.  This is the basic commodity of enterprise.  That the outcome of the transaction is always kept for the narration in order to help understand how people see things.

    Are they true Good characters?  Or are they faking?

    When will their economic commodity end?

    Do they roleplay like this everywhere they go?

    Storytellers who can frame Enterprise thus; as the beginning of either Good or Evil but that the reciprocal command will prove dominant in favour of one or the other.  And that the actual value realistic exchange is about an loss or gain of economic value in either Good or Evil.  That an pattern of a-reciprocal and reciprocal values are communicated across the medium of narration.  Performing in Capitalist Space.  And represented as either Good or Evil, politically or not.  And it is by the representation of these common a-reciprocal and reciprocal behavioral memes in an pattern.  Not to be an exact science.  Then it will prevail to be an representation of which was the better Good.  Good.  Or Evil.  Which may surprise you sometimes.  Evil people aren't exactly the smartest; but maybe they're aware of that too, to some extent.

    And that if all Enterprise is to do with the sequence of events as I have told them, an play between Good and Evil for their different judgments ratings based on amount of a-reciprocity versus reciprocity in their character, then it is the beginning of an narrative art in or of the economy.  To do with reciprocity and derivation or deviation from the subject in Capitalist Marketplace Economy.  Is the Deviation deliberate or not, of course?  Will be the subject.  For all reciprocal creatures are sacred.  And any merry-making in the other way.  Of a-reciprocity.  Will be strictly an bad habit!  But the enormous depth and futurism of these characters, who know they appear Evil.  Fictionally.  Even if it is considered an bad habit.  They are such glamorous and conquest figures they defend an consumerist opinion.  About what kind of reciprocity is allowed in the grocery store.  And they will be respected for being so a-reciprocal as that; that they had to be an Evil fantasy character.  To get points on their consumerist ideology corporate card.  Isn't that the fantasy?

    

What Does Psychology Add to the Design and Management of Legal Assortment based on the Fantasy psyche?

    Psychologies that are sensitive to the economic reciprocal value of being a-reciprocal on an open market economy; meaning perhaps that some will specify in reciprocal behaviors only for the sole purpose of marking something important about Psychology.  And so some of psychological training and background will specialize in anti-psychologies contra psychologies the a-reciprocal arts versus the reciprocal arts; and their heritage and grotesque misrepresentation upon the economy of society.

    So as to lessen our instinct of value for what a-reciprocity may mean; for we think it may be an useless part of the ecosystem and needs to be removed completely.  But nae, we respond that nature itself is a-reciprocal sometimes.  And she be an weary beach that storm upon our waters to remove reciprocity from the subject is an rape.  And an economic value cannot be based on it.

    So we had better be precise.

    Are people predisposed to be an behavior that is a-reciprocal?  Or is it threatened into them by discipline and torture?  I don't see any problem with people being a-reciprocal in the market and economic, capitalistic urge.  In which reciprocity is not taken for some reason.  But isn't that the struggle I know too well from childhood, then, that all acts of a-reciprocity are forbidden in the natural order of things.  And it was the reason I was gay.  Was I just paranoid like the Doctor said; paranoid always that some people somewhere are a-reciprocate?  And it lead to violence?

    Somewhere else.

    How strange.  How to make money off of it?

    How to stop being paranoid of fair reciprocal fantasy roleplaying zero-sum game on the market enterprise of Capitalism which includes, by definition, a-reciprocity; but which need to include, by definition, reciprocity only.  Because Fantasy is always about reciprocity?

    A-reciprocal can be included as an element fictional; but not exactly in Fantasy exactly as per the definitions of what Fantasy is in total.  Fantasy is never a-reciprocal because that's not what fantasy is.  But an derivative mediation between the fictional and a-reciprocal; or the fantasy of reciprocate beings of far greater girth than Angels.  Fantasy could include a-reciprocity by definition because it was strong enough to produce that picture and still Good will have had to prevail.  Despite it's own propogandic mechanism which works against itself as an Genre in order to disencumber such magics as will train their adversarial conduct in the House of Good.  From the best pickings among the Evil controversary; so that their Warriors will be trained to be best suited to them.  Evils we have learned of.  Fantasy, by definition, had to be a-reciprocal; because that was it.  It had to be evil.  That was the whole Fantasy Genre, that it be powerful enough to suspend evil for an time above the view of the reader a-reciprocalism in animacy forever onward; in order to extend the fantasy.  And so they had an reason to produce Evil in an consumerist demand fantasy that would enable the Good characters to perceive the very most fortune of their representation of Evil without distracting from them being Good.  Which is their primary motive.  Which is why they allow Evil characters to be part of fantasies, speaking of course in terms, by which their a-reciprocity comes to an end and peace & order are restored to the galaxy.

    But how could we represent evil characters nobly; for they were always on the receiving end of a-reciprocity being a-reciprocal themselves?

    Good characters were perceived to be the object of fantasy.  And since they were pointing that out by actually being part of the fantasy even if you were not.  They could continue to be reciprocal indefinitely and all a-reciprocity would be defeated in this environment.  But then again, the environment is a-reciprocal itself sometimes; and this is within the design of Capitalism that performances be reciprocalizing or a-reciprocalizing in nature.  They actually intended to be against the fantasy in some aspect.  Because it allowed the basic narrative unit to progress despite there being Evil.  And that all characters were allowed on the open market economy.  For the value that their characters devise to win.  But that since reality would inevitably go back to the logic that real Fantasy characters cannot be a-reciprocal in any way because they carry that responsibility to reality.  Their purpose being to end all a-reciprocity; such an artist was required to draw up the subject.  In order to narrate people into their reciprocal environment of fantasy that exists within the known downtown core.  In which everything has its own grid location.  They can be a-reciprocal about it if they wanted.  But most of them would be reciprocate and most beautiful and creative in nature.  It didn't matter whether someone was being a-reciprocal somewhere.  That happens all of the time.

    But that it did matter where someone was being reciprocal.  Even more.  Because that's how it was designed.

    And the reciprocal realm fantasy of the roleplaying generations can pivot around such commodity in such commodity it became the norm.  And businesses would thrive based on the inherent fantasy roleplaying experience they provoke.

    If people were traumatized so by the a-reciprocity that they had to go into Therapist's offices in order to recover.  Trying to make sense of it all.

    Then how could we allow it to have an value on an market capital economy?

    But maybe because it is not normalized yet; this in fact is responsible for the more hard-hitting a-reciprocities?  Which will recover more thoroughly in an progressive society that had normalized the event of a-reciprocity in naturalized consumerist environment?

    New Reciprocity needs to breach the control room (metaphorically) in order to raise the whole status of the economy according to its reciprocity or a-reciprocity with Nature.

    It's so hard to be reciprocal because nature has always been a-reciprocal to us.

    And why would anyone be a-reciprocal enough to need to a-reciprocate with an a-reciprocate piece of nature?  Of which all pieces of Nature are.

    Clearly, they are not all a-reciprocate.  And which ones exactly are.  And which ones exactly are not.

    New Reciprocity must be the commodification of the exchange between modes of reciprocity, New Reciprocity being the one of them.  All new reciprocities (New Reciprocity) have value in an reciprocal command exchange environment.  As being the fairest subject in the land.  In which Evil will flourish but only under the control of Good as an fictional product.

    So that those whom want to be a-reciprocal to us have their Good or bad reason; (usually an bad reason always) and the same for those Natures we reciprocate.

    Human society cannot be based on a-reciprocity that isn't fictional because it is the worst masochistic situation which leads to all other ones; that can be thought of it.  It is the fact of self-deprivation of reciprocity and the reciprocal commodity.  Which is Pleasure.  And immediate.  And who would say no to it other than an masochist?  Someone with imposter syndrome?  Or someone who knows where greater pleasure lies?  Must a-reciprocity be an economic figure that one uses for persuasion in order to indicate an Greater more powerful type of reciprocity which will result in the most pleasure being collected by the fantasy artist?  And so become an actor who uses a-reciprocity and reciprocity (an Politician) in order to communicate Fantasy across the sexualities?  And how we can progress as civilizations?

    But if an Politician were using Fantasy magic Frankly.  What type of character would he or she be exactly?  And why would they be able to pull it off?  An a-reciprocal Demon-type.  Or an reciprocal fairy type?

    And what does this say about Fantasies everywhere and where they be transactions between reciprocate and a-reciprocate forces?

    If Psychology is needed to write the Law; for it is compassion and understanding of the true meaning of Fantasy which teaches us that a-reciprocity is never reciprocally fantastic.  And that should we defend our own citizens from being subject to a-reciprocal intentions and memes; we need define the parameters of Fantasy in Law to reflex on the subject of the use of a-reciprocity for uses other than economical gains.  Which may escalate into violence, as all a-reciprocity is wont to do.

    But that if it be normalized and graduated into Law; the quantity of a-reciprocity in society will factor into the legal management system's decision about how to write or develop law further.  Is a-reciprocity ever justified in any situation?  And what would we tend to define as the extremities of its personality that would not be allowed as public behavior?

    How much Fantasy can we extract for the Public in the realm of Politics?  In an fantasy which would be based on the inclusion of a-reciprocity or not?

    And what does that say about the Political System?

    That this is exactly what is an particular type of fantasy.

    The reciprocity of complete and total fantasy.  An world in which a-reciprocity had been defeated.

    But that for now; we could say we were familiar with an story that was a-reciprocal in some measure and that being as there are Good characters that it was an fantasy an world in which a-reciprocity would ever be defeated.  We were actually living in an world in which the fact of a-reciprocity's or reciprocity's superiority over the other hadn't been decided.  And were living in an Fantasy.  Of an sort.  That fantasy exactly was the balance of Good and Evil; or the balance of the reciprocal figure with the a-reciprocal figure.  Stories in which both could maintain and persist.  For the sake of fantasy, which was a-reciprocal to the dilemma of anything or anybody ever being reciprocal.  And that was just how it is an fantasy itself of why we should ever make it.  An fantasy consumerist economy.  In which the fantasy reciprocal gesture dilemma itself adds an certain value of commodity as being part of the fantasy genre in public.  And that this other type of genre would flavour it so; to be a-reciprocal insomuch as there were a-reciprocal people in the world and to be reciprocal always.  And never be concerned with which or wherever.

    Reciprocal and A-reciprocal could become their own type of story and cease to be Fantasy.

    But it would be the main subject of Fantasy which was reciprocate and which wasn't.

    An battle with Everything At Stake; and the true reciprocal heroes were sorted out from their devious affiliates whose a-reciprocity had narrated them into an fiasco just as it should have in order to teach them an lesson.  Never to be a-reciprocal.  And that anybody being a-reciprocal should be ashamed of their character, for it was far stronger and just to be reciprocal all of the time, which is its own type of energizing power.  And this is the basis of all Good characters.  In advance against the forces of Evil, which succumb to a-reciprocity for economic reasons.  (Not real moral reasons).  Not having the Good and Character which would enforce against them the security measures; of having to be reciprocal all of the time.  But they such as deadly opposed it to be reciprocal all of the time they decided to be a-reciprocal whenever they wanted all of the time even if that changed their status to be Bad or Good in character whichever the whichever for.  And such again it became an claim to status over reciprocate and a-reciprocate properties which were not necessarily definitive in themselves as terms over whether the subject had been Good or Evil.  Both Good and Evil being more complicated as subjects than an simple a-reciprocal battle.  —Who is being more a-reciprocal?  Obviously bad because that's what Bad is—  But so as to show them as complex figures and subjects who narrate reciprocate space as either reciprocal or a-reciprocal characters; not necessarily in the same quantity or differences every time.  And that in general we were more benefitting from the reciprocate but that a-reciprocity being an reciprocal subject in an known fantasy being as that is what fantasy is about.  The beginning of the narration of fantasy must always be the first narrative unit of which I have identified as Enterprise.

    Fantasy meant narrating the Good.  But also the Bad.  And a-reciprocity versus reciprocity as characteristics didn't necessarily define either one of them as Good characteristically or Bad.

    How could this be possible when one eventually had to win out over the other?

    Because winning was defined in terms having the best of both worlds, of a-reciprocity and reciprocity.

    Or because we had to assign an economic value to either one or the other?

    And why be afraid to act out of reciprocity or a-reciprocity on an open market then, where everything is relative to reciprocity and one can claim for themselves an status by being a-reciprocal to such Businesses and Products which are not worth their dollar?  Market Critics.

    Because the forces of Fantasy for Good will have repercussions for you.

    Or because the forces of Fantasy for Bad won't.

    And that if there be such an question about what it is to a-reciprocalize somebody on the open economy; it is shown to be neither as good nor evil.  But somewhat mixed being the sort of both.  And not be the defining parameter of Morality in an fictional economy.  For Fantasy can be either reciprocate or a-reciprocate and any industriality between them is most economical so as to show the defining parameters of both Good and Evil for their character and personality mixtures of a-reciprocity or not; for the market to decide.  And that Fantasy characters of both sorts being able to express their opinion as either reciprocity or a-reciprocity neither one would prevail to be immediately recognizable as Good or Evil and they would become complex distortions and utilitarianisms.  Of the Fantasy regime exploit.  The actual soil required for the best fantasy to grow.

    At that if Nature, at least, could be considered one of the Sectors; and maybe add an few other sectors.  We are free to industrialize the fantasy.  The fantasy of market reciprocity.  The fantasy of a-reciprocal memes.  The use and utilization of a-reciprocal and reciprocal methods for producing meaning and purpose.  If that is even possible.  Or maybe they will just stay economically sanctioned by the majority opinion that there need not necessarily be an exchange between Good and Evil, and lawlessness is the rule of the day.  But we are drawn so to express these characters who are Good or Evil or a-reciprocal or reciprocate for an variety of reasons and in different ways; and it's not the Good characters always who are winning the debate because most Evil characters have already moved on to more a-reciprocate things.  Which is most worth an dollar penny on the open market value.

    Bad doesn't need to be reciprocal.

    On Second Thought—Bad doesn't need to be reciprocal‽—

    What have we reduced the truth to if we begin to say Bad doesn't need to be reciprocal?

    Or what have we advanced it to?

    What is Good that is a-reciprocal?

    An market economy that allows a-reciprocity to have an known value on the open market?

    Or an market economy in which there is no a-reciprocity; then it could not be Good because it is no longer a-reciprocal?

    But Good and Evil cannot be based on a-reciprocity or reciprocity alone.  And so if we allowed a-reciprocity we would not be perpetrating.  An offence against the economy.  (Is that what we really want though, if we adjust the meaning of offence to be that which is performed in the name of evil be it a-reciprocal or not?).  (There would be no wrong way to reciprocalize in the open market economy).

    But wouldn't Good always answer that it is reciprocal?  No matter how much a-reciprocity Evil produces?  And that is the reason Evil cannot help but produce reciprocity?

    Which is why it is Good, even if it doesn't know it yet.

    Which, when it produces a-reciprocity, it produces?

Setting Up An Play In Which Reciprocity And A-Reciprocity Play Themselves Out

    If the post-demographic fails to continue producing one thing at an time (even when that one thing is an reciprocity or something abstract about the way in which we are reciprocal to each other (an virtual commodity or economic fantasy value of either reciprocity or a-reciprocity)).  The Quaternary Industry is on an bend to set up the necessary conditions in which New Reciprocity restores reciprocal and a-reciprocal conditions to an locale.  Indiscriminate of whether they came from typically Evil or typically Good characters.  Perhaps by creating plays and works of art in which, people who identify with good or evil, are caught on stage as characters being reciprocal or a-reciprocal themselves; thereby providing examples for the economy of how we can behave in order to restore proper economic conditions.  To particular geographic areas.  New Reciprocity stands for using the full extent of Philosophy and Human Powers of the Mind to continue the Economic Ideal; of working together reciprocally, so that our resources and efforts that factor in, become one thing at an time together.

    

Extending the Numerator Contra–Versus Denominator Metaphor

    In any reciprocal equation there are numerators and denominators.  And so how does the metaphor hold under this nuance?  When we use individual fractions to represent Political or Economic parties whose combined resources & labour equal 1 of any type of any thing they wish to create; and that this be the Philosophy of New Reciprocity that we work together in whose combined resources create more individual things and new inventions.  Bending the whole talent of post-demographic consumerist economy to be able to provide the most customized objects available.  Including virtual powers and virtual industries.  Which could be used for Roleplay.

    Numerators are the top half of an fraction.  Denominators are the bottom half of an fraction.

    And in order for them to equal 1 when multiplied together.  One of them must be larger insofar as the reciprocal numerator (which is its denominator) is smaller than it or vice versa.  For an larger denominator to have an fraction to be multiplied by that equals one the fraction it is multiplied by must have an reciprocal value.  In order that the result of their combined quantities will be one.

    A-reciprocity as an type of philosophical entity is an costly error because it is not the natural commercial or residential inclination of the Human Species.  It means to replace reciprocal value with a-reciprocal value (less).  An offset which when applied to the reciprocate fractions equation disallows fractions from being economically multiplied together to equal one.  They need to be reciprocate to make sense that way.  Not a-reciprocate.  If even one fraction is an little a-reciprocal to the other it will cease to be able to produce anything of the category of 1.

    If we remember that we are all numerators and denominators in some ways.  We will look for reciprocal potential in others that can click with our own.  Relationships in which our personal numerator versus denominator situation is compared with others in order to find the opportunity to be reciprocal.

    

The Moment of the New Reciprocity

    The Moment of the New Reciprocity was its inspiration; an Political and Economical theory that reaches across all disciplines in search of New Reciprocity.  Psychological data about a-reciprocity and reciprocity would be integrated into its Economic Profile.  And Political data about other disciplines, such as Anthropology, would be collected.  That when all disciplines of the subject of New Reciprocity were the realization of the sharing of New Reciprocity.  An virtual paradigm.  And that it could be economically sanctioned on an post-demographic consumerist era decade.  There were so many different disciplines among them that they estimated it was among the largest of collections of disciplines.  And that if all of them be considered; the general trend of post-demographic consumerism.  Would be to allow people to roleplay New Reciprocity in the consumerist market environment.  As new reciprocal theorists who may or may not as well be roleplaying fantasy characters.  (Can an fantasy of new reciprocal theorists exist in an world where Politicians are active in fantasy stories?).  Who need not be ridiculous because they represent Fantasy.  And when we think about it in its definition of an deep and great desire.  Who would put up trouble with them?

    Especially Magic Users; like woah! watch out!  They can put you in their spells for hours.  Until you learn your lesson.

    And if New Reciprocity could be cross-discipline; though not poetically representing the symbol of Christianity.  Just multi-varied and various.  Political interactions in which New Reciprocity (Can be shared with Christiannans as well.  As an fantasy character.) would have an market stimulus value.  And Politicians would be able to invest in the consumerist economy to increase the overall value of the economy by collecting both Good and Evil new reciprocal transactions; which could be awarded financially or morally.  In order to increase this kind of behavior and businesses' overall standards.

    Fantasy religion characters who do not conform to any of the criticisms leveled against multiple major religions.  Such as their inability to distinguish between religions in general and Major Religions.  Which were ridiculous.  And an Fantasy.

    But if there was an Fantasy involved to it; that any one major religion had an fantasy about how they should interact with one another it should be between the eight major religions.  And they agreed they could be snobby about it because they were right.

    Les origines.

    There were Eight Major World Religions under the ideal political and religious undertaking of the new world.  They gathered and were peaceful to one another.  And they didn't care necessarily that someone was an different religion than they were.  And that since all Eight Major Religions had proven themselves.  By doing this.  We could all name them off the top of our heads.  Just like that.  As though it was magic.

    Judaism.  Obviously.  Christianity.  The Christianna.  Islam.  Buddhism.  Hinduism.  Aboriginal Spaces.  Taoism.

    All of the people that actually are religious would be able to figure this out.  They knew religion didn't include anyone forcing another person to be a-reciprocal in an certain way.  And this was how they had forced their opinion on religion.  That it was a-reciprocal to them.  Which of course Religion protected that reciprocity of not being forced to be a-reciprocal to anybody.  And all of these Eight Major Religions protected each other on that matter.  In order to confirm that reciprocity was the standard.  And that should any a-reciprocal Capitalist mechanism benefit the a-reciprocate it would be their character definition of what an Evil Fantasy character could do.

    And that since it had lead back to this point from an consideration of the Eight World Major Religions; I realized that the major fantasy here was that we would all get along according to some kind of Agenda of the Eight that had been put into definition and print.  And I said, that if they could accomplish that much Culture; why they could landscape what religion actually means anymore.  To provide an more lush vegetation.

    An actual Capitalistic claim that it had no a-reciprocity.

    And if such an theory could be constructed about how this was possible 8 different times.

    Much commerce and discussion would advance from that behavior.

    Because I had redefined what Religion may mean; by using religion.  You can't argue with that logic!  That it couldn't mean anymore that there was no overarching definition of religion that cannot be compared to an capital value because it serves the poor.  And it wasn't gay enough.  And it wasn't aware of its reciprocal command ability.  To be either a-reciprocate or not.  Religion now meant an human behavior that is subject to human knowledge and not the other kind of commodity, you know the bad stuff.  The we'll do someone in crowd.

    And none of the other religions were responsible for me knowing this.

    I had my own story of an particular type which explained my religion.  It didn't matter that other people considered themselves part of other religions when an Christiannan began telling her story.

    It was Religion; and so it supported all of them, the Major Religions, as it was supposed to work in the instinct and psyche.  That they have an place that would be.  Part of the Brain.  Expressible to Science.  And responsible for much pleasure and happiness.  Not that any one Religion would have its own part of the brain; as if that would be scientifically possible!  But just that the part of the brain for Major Religion was common to all eight of them.

    And they were necessarily going to solve the a-reciprocate issue fully.

    For they knew when religions acted and cooperated like they cared for one another; that was what true religion was about.  At its basic mechanism in the brain.  Even though it was an difference in behavior.  And that it needed to be stated outright as an reciprocal command.  Because reciprocal commands were an religious power granted.  Which they rejected.  By Religion.  If it's working and functioning correctly.

    Why should anyone have hazard to a-reciprocate this nonsense?

    But that itself was the behavior in the brain responsible for repressing its instinct.

    And all reciprocity stood as abhorrent to any Religion, who was accosted with its logic.  As being the true a-reciprocal value.  That one should have an religion.

    But since everyone knew religion was about reciprocal value.

    They were just known as Good people who investigated some people's instinct to a-reciprocate with them on an open market in plain sight of day.  Religion was the subject of interrogating the a-reciprocal in order to figure out why they were a-reciprocal because if they didn't then would they really be being reciprocal like their religion said they were supposed to be?  Because that's human nature . . .

    And this is as far as the Fantasy goes in the sum Political awareness of fantasy politics because real religion doesn't have that power.

Why 8 Major Religions are Needed

    If 8 Major Religions simultaneously ordered that we had the necessary research to confirm that we are eight different religions and are gay.  All of us.  And it is not an abomination to this Earth, which God had invested in; and that all religion have this basic just such gay so.  As well as being capable of creating and delivering reciprocal commands.  Which are directed toward anti-religion being a-reciprocal itself.

    If such an change of such Large and important Merit were to grace this Earth; it would be that all Major Religions accept the gay heritage.  And we move on to other things to discuss which are scientific like the actual reciprocal commodity; an product of reciprocity in the brain which can be measured by science.  All Religion would be responsible for reporting merely having recognized it.  Without the aid of Science.  But we are to remember our heritage in which everything is never without the aid of science as an community now.

    And that whether their positions as Religions be reported as reciprocal would have to do with the Politics, in which these 8 Major Religions had already reported they were gay-affirming.  But that any lesser religions may have haven't.  By signing it into law.  As an legal truth.

    And that the true economic power of Major Religion was far more advanced than anybody claiming to be part of their Religion when really they were just pretending in order to give them an bad reputation.  (On them like rust).  The difference between real religion and fakers had to be seen so that finally these World Religions could wear their awarded reputable clothing and reputation.  As benevolent and so stock full of virtues which are each separate and valuable in their own like individual points in an crown that are decorated with little gold nodules; commodity being different than every other stock of virtues which any religion could wear.  Real religion had to be the reciprocal command that it was Real religions.  Based on virtue and morality.  To an Public who was characteristically acclimatized to the order made by that religion; that all religion be considered real religion if it was gay and ever-reaching.  And that this could be an order too.  Made to that Public.  To Restore them to the true virtues of their own religion.  At an differentiation with the Christianna who had been ordered to be an Real religion.  If religions could make reciprocal commands together in order to be true Real religions.  (An reciprocal command being an demand that you give to someone).  And that this was the necessary component of the commerce between them that they share demands that they would give each other.  Then the Christianna, my own religion, may start.  By demanding that all religions immediately switch to an common expression about religion.  That it is gay.  And that it be marveled at for being able to give reciprocal commands on an post-demographic market economy based on distinctions of character that are conclusive to real fantasy politic characters.  They use their powers with one another to give and receive reciprocal commands; which are the basic components of an religion that they be able to give and receive commands.  And since Religion can be based on fantasy reciprocity like this; it can be fairly safe to share your moral compass with others in it.

    All religion, under the new paradigm, would be an endeavor of the human to be gay.  Which he or she doesn't have to be because he or she already is.  But that's what religion is.  That's what being gay is.  It has to be even more if he was already gay.  That's how gay it is.  Using reciprocal commands to express gay fantasy characters in the open market is an powerful expression of Community and Understanding.  But they can't be like 'Get Bent' or 'Go F*** yourself' they need to be more elaborate than that.  Religions need to produce ways for people to be gay elaborately or with other qualities in society.  That's what true religion is.  How am I going to use reciprocal commands based on theological truths and power as an fantasy character to impress so-and-so; whom am I courting?  And who I am courting.  Gay reciprocal fantasy characters, therefore, can be religious.  And express themselves religiously, which they are free to do.  The fantasy roleplaying powers of religion are so extensive in the Napster generation.  We can heal or give company.  Or change the political fate of the Earth forever.  With the power that is granted to us because of our social beliefs; the power to say that not all religious characters are healers.  And that many several other character and personality types benefit from an primarily religious character healing them and conversing with them in fantasy.

    The tanks and the DPS—an slow note here as I describe to what DPS is in case you don't know.  It stands for damage per second and is used as an common slang for all character types that are primarily into dealing damage, as opposed to tanking or healing.  "The DPS" thus is the common name given to all roleplaying characters who are of the type of dealing the most damage.  Which itself has an roleplaying economic value in North America.  Especially since the DPS is often associated with the thief or ninja archetype.

    If religious fantasy archetypes are free to be tanks, DPS, or healers, imagine the diversity of the fantasy fiction type of which would characterize politics in the coming century?

    Which Religions would be better at supporting their healers and why?

    How could tanks (Warriors) identify with an Major Religion and be smart enough to know it?  (Weren't Warriors dumb by nature?).

    What would the DPS represent, if everybody is busy being in an Major Religion, where there is no real harm or damage done?

    What would be the feminist norms of typically male-stream or female-stream or genderfluid-stream behavior?

    An Book about Reciprocity, though, necessarily goes back to the subject of Political norms and Standards of Behavior.  In an multi-secular environment that is not necessarily reciprocal to any one of the major religions admittedly.  The book about politics will be about politics.  And the book about religion will be about religion.

    Fantasy character archetypes that are religious need to be defended by the roleplaying fantasy politics community at large because we need to affirm them in their new definition of religion.  One which fits the 21st Century.  That they are responsible for those powers which at first had only seem'd to be part of an fantasy or an dream.  If fantasy characters can do the representation of religion right so that it appears to act as an benefit or buff system doing what it's supposed to do.  Connecting people.  And that being in the Politics side of things, or the political realm, didn't necessarily mean that the religion card would not be played.  But it was safe to say that sometimes, it wasn't.  And everybody was fine with that.

    

Do you want an New Reciprocity?

    It's the question to ask when you want to slip back into your roleplay characters.  Are you going to ask another person for an New Reciprocity to do so?  An signal that fantasy roleplaying is accepted, politically.  That any religion involved will be informational.

    An signal that you want to start an New Reciprocity play.  Even if it is only fictional.

    Can I have an New Reciprocity?  Means you are asking someone to give you their New Reciprocity (that part about their psychology which is newly reciprocate to you).  Do you want an New Reciprocity?  Means you are suggesting that something about the character of your rapport with one another can be newly reciprocal.  The brain feeds off of reciprocity like an energy.  You return to being reciprocal with one another at an staged level; you can be an fantasy character if you wish to be or you can be an character from another genre.

    If people started to do this; asking one another for New Reciprocity.  Then maybe it would be simple enough to catch on that we're really all about roleplaying characters.  In the Market Economy.  Where actions have an certain value.  And that itself is political.  New Reciprocity always advances the plot line toward sharing New Reciprocity and this is how it derives its economic value.  If you ask for an New Reciprocity; and both parties understand what New Reciprocity meant.  Then people would be able to begin new reciprocities to forge their relationships into cast iron guild.  Strong enough and Smart enough to begin roleplaying characters on an Fantasy market.

    (Like they are already starting to do).

    If that helped the commerce flow, according the New Reciprocal economic rule (to create one thing at an time philosophically and as an whole economy) would you do it?

    Everyone has roleplay value because they already know how to play an role.

    We're not changing anything we're just pointing out that character value has more market value than one might think.  As Fantasy characters, we are free to express fantasy sexuality in public.  It's not real sex.  It's just that as fantasy characters it made sense to ask one another for an New Reciprocity from time to time on this subject.  It being one of the most important subjects.  It was needed in order to travel the fantasy politics of the present day.  As an radio fly politic; to be cool comfort was in and being certain types of characters helped comfort people.

    New Reciprocity meant allowing one another to slip into our favorite roleplay character.  Whether it was fantasy truth or not.  It was in our genetics.

    I want an New Reciprocity meant accepting that we were both human; but we could act other creations and that we want to roleplay fantasy all the time.

    It was an starting point from which fantasy character relationships with one another were explicit as fantasy character relationships.  New Reciprocity meant trusting the human instinct to be Fantasy.  By using reciprocal commands subtly or with Great Power among roleplay characters.

    Kindness actually has an Commodity and Design.

    One day it will be worth more to have a-reciprocal points on your consumer price check card.  Because the value of the a-reciprocal prince.  Himself will be worth more than any reciprocal entity.  Nothing.  The value of nothing.  Every nothing that exists.  Every place there isn't something.  Which is inestimable as an whole entity.

    

If A-Reciprocity and Reciprocity Need To Be Decided In the context of an book

    At the centre of my New Reciprocity perhaps is this difference between them and how they play out in all of the Sectors.  If New Reciprocity is as much about the difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity.  As it is the art and design of making reciprocal commands that are part of an fictional role play experience and yet somewhat more realistic than alternative politics.  It has an economic principle because it factors into the decision-making surrounding a-reciprocate and reciprocate commodities.  Commands of which have actual monetary value.  And that the ultimate end of an book describing the New Reciprocity will be, logically, about New reciprocity and not a-reciprocity.  An Theory and Political Design of bringing one another New Reciprocity as respective representative bureaucracy or Politicians or Activists for the actual value of New Reciprocity.  An Reciprocal Command Value.  Reciprocal Commands or Orders, therefore, may have an monetary value.  Which is traded in value.  By becoming of an established Fantasy character archetype.  Whose own virtual reality experiences are your own.  And that by becoming these characters, who can model the Fantasy together, they gain actual political power which can be used to make powerful decisions.  The Philosophy of New Reciprocity is so simple that you can learn it all at once.  Fantasy reciprocal commands are themselves commands to fictionalize someone or something.  Useful in Politics.  Valuable on the Marketplace.  And anyone using an new reciprocal command can be recognized as an fantasy cosplay actor or an new reciprocal theorist.

    If people had an chance to choose their fantasy character out loud in the political arena, why would it be political?

    The simplest way to Remember the New Reciprocity is to think of an stage as it were occupied between two characters; and the number 11 has come to signify them because they, like those digits, are each of the value of 1 beside each other.  And that somehow this logic enabled them to work together to recognize what they are.  Of great value.  Intelligent enough that they could learn to do together; to produce one final product.  How will you change your behavior to be able to create one thing at an time with them?  Like the best of us?  And will that involve a-reciprocity in any way; when it appears to be morally natural to reciprocate.  But everyone and everything‽  Isn't that the very definition of insanity?

    "If I can't be reciprocal," argues an politician, "with everything; then I'm truly not human.  For what wheels and wonders are our spirits of time, not an whisp fading but something reciprocal.  Every single time."

    "But if I can't be a-reciprocal," says another politician.  (The Debate has begun), "to anything I want to be.  And I can't be environmentally selective about what I am and am not reciprocal to.  Then how am I supposed to have enough time to bring New Reciprocity to other people!  I need to shut people out of my life in the way that I want to."

    "And so New Reciprocity as an theory isn't reciprocal to everything?"

    "Yes it is.  As an theory.  It has time for everything.  But maybe we could refer to non-reciprocate nature.  In comparison with a-reciprocate or reciprocate; and Create ourselves an kind of spectrum between a-reciprocal language and behavior, and most reciprocal language and behavior.  Where one not being reciprocate in every nature may not need be a-reciprocate, specifically.  Against reciprocity.  But can exist in an neutral zone together with them both.  Which is itself it's own kind of defining space because if being non-reciprocal doesn't mean being a-reciprocal.  Specifically.  Then there those types of reciprocities which are designed for the non-reciprocate and there are those types of reciprocities which are designed for the a-reciprocate public."

    "Then maybe reciprocal commands can be measured on an scale from a-reciprocal commands to reciprocal commands.  Passing through the intermediate phase of non-reciprocal commands.  A-Reciprocal Command is that which is said to work against reciprocity, bends your reciprocity to be broken by nature; an spitting, venomous comment this is for to say it is in both essence human and nature and As The Primary Claim against the a-reciprocity.  The nature of which we speak of no longer includes the human.  Who As The Primary Claim have since yet been unannounced.  To be non-reciprocal.  And that true reciprocity would mean As The Primary Claim is taken up as an subject of conversation; in which a-reciprocity just equals another reciprocity."

    "How can a-reciprocity destroy the middle between human and nature?  When really we need a-reciprocate nature because we just don't have enough energy for everything.  That's what a-reciprocity is for.  Naturally.  It pays to be discriminate."

    "So you're actually going to claim that trying to be reciprocate with everything (like God) is impossible with the amount of brain energy we have because there is too much to be reciprocal to?"

    "And so being a-reciprocal or not is at the purview of whoever wants to associate with God."

    "And so you're saying God in nature is reciprocal.  But that we humans creating a-reciprocal characters such as ourselves.  We manage to be doing wrong by him or her.  By extinguishing the purpose of our Creator.  True Reciprocity."

    "Maybe humans need to be a-reciprocal and that's just our human condition sometimes.  That's because of or why we're not God."

    "But why would humans ever at all need to be a-reciprocal when they have an God who is reciprocal reality and reciprocal to everything.  Because that's why everything is there.  It couldn't be there without God.  For God to own.  Not in flimsy market research terms of humans.  To own like he or she was responsible for how it developed.  Things exist because they are reciprocal to God."

    "Then things don't exist because they are a-reciprocal to humans."

    "It's exactly the sort of a-reciprocal logic that God will surely have fated us to do away with us for.  We are reciprocate.  We are born reciprocate."

    "But how can you make that claim; that the journey into adulthood is one of learning how other people are a-reciprocal with themselves like an good adult and you should be too.  Like this action would solve the problem.  If anyone can actually claim to have not been made a-reciprocate at one point or another.  And that had lived an full life an reciprocate son.  What kinds of nasty behaviors would he get into trying to be Jesus in an world full of a-reciprocal stereotypes; so sensitive in fact that even saying in an world full of a-reciprocal stereotypes needed to be specified as an command or not.  For if there is an New Reciprocity we will want to think maybe commands or word elements of demands are woven in subtly.  And that describing something actually means explaining what you want to do with it."

    "The Author just wants you to acknowledge is political office given him by God.  Why did I ever need to resolve myself to think I was born reciprocate; when I knew it was such my childhood trauma that I knew some of my peers had chosen the a-reciprocate path with me.  And I was so cast down upon it took me years even to figure out in basic grammar what had happened.  I was being treated a-reciprocally.  For the cause and purposes of teaching me to be an adult."

    "And this is why we drink‽"

    "That we don't know yet whether we are born reciprocate (we are).  And that provides the necessary motive for alcoholism."

    "But if we state we are somewhere between being a-reciprocal or not; then we may say we are being non-reciprocal.  But not a-reciprocal."

    "And that a-reciprocate nature mean?"

    "The kind of person who would go na on everyone.  Whom is responsible for the creepiness of society, that it ever says na to some people.  Like exactly an society would not do.  Because that's not what society is.  By its definition.  People cannot na one another.  That is amoral to look at people as though they were an object for you just to judge and then throw away like an individual wetwipe.  Without giving any reciprocity that they will judge you back.  And that is fair.  And that in basic political terms it came down to one Question.  Who would design to be a-reciprocal to me?  The answer is haunting me because the question is asked so innocently.  That we ask ourselves this.  Who would design to be a-reciprocal to me?  And why.  And why could an child not understand this?"

    Reciprocate Nature Proves the vitalism of identifying against people who were to treat one another as an na.  An object without personality, focus, determination, and reciprocate subjectivity.  (Awareness of your own awareness of their own awareness being aware of your awareness being aware of theirs).

    It is the goal of humanism to restore that subjectivity to its proper treatment as an subject among subjects.

    I'm out of breath from running away from my a-reciprocal demons.

    Who are a-reciprocate to me for completely the wrong reason.

    And I don't deserve it.  And no one does.

    Not even if it's worth chump points on an consumer price card.

    Is there an Psychological basis for a-reciprocity; and why does it seem ironic that the answer is yes?

    Why would anyone need an psychology unless it was to defend from something everything that is a-reciprocal to the subject of consciousness, which is humanist and post-humanist fantasy in effort?

    Why would anyone want an psychology unless it didn't?

    And so the purpose of Psychology must be the study of the human soul in between circumstances that are a-reciprocate or reciprocate of this kind.  In the middle of everything as though time inanimate.

    The whole study of Psychology could be based on measuring the reciprocity; giving it different words like different angles that we view things with we.  Reciprocate.  Reciprocally.  Reciprocalize.  And the amount of reciprocity produced in the brain in comparison with a-reciprocity endure(d); would mean that foreseeably they would be able to measure how much a-reciprocity or reciprocity was available to the characters in that junction of time which exhibits an scene; an transitional narrative phase in which evil and good are considered both motives for behavior.  And that the individual would be defined as an explicit inner working of the brain in customizable fashion according to the a-reciprocate and reciprocate conditions from which they come.  In order to be better judges and judge them based on superior principles.  If an measurement of amount of reciprocity versus amount of a-reciprocity (in one brain tissue) based on Historical events related to their environment.  Then people would enter an more empathic state as an whole civilization.  People actually have to deal with and navigate a-reciprocity every day.  And it might not even be an natural substance of brain product whether virtual or only fictional or not.  If an Reciprocal Product can be measured.  Then it would reorganize the entire status of thinking which we are trying to Master that relates to the empathy drive; we can better relate with one another as an species on the basis that we can measure a-reciprocal feelings and test them; as well as reciprocate character.  And that should an set of data happen to be involved we would probably find that a-reciprocal and reciprocal are both needed, in order to be reciprocal with one another.  Which in fact they were not.

    Which was it?  The reciprocate spectrum spans a-reciprocity, non-reciprocity, and reciprocity.   In this view.  Anyone who expresses anything in this context that is a-reciprocal might in fact be being reciprocal without knowing it by an reversal of their character.  Which cannot be learned as an species and must be part of its instinct.   Or was it true that a-reciprocity, which is a-reciprocal.  Was a-reciprocal.  And reciprocity, which wasn't a-reciprocal.  Was reciprocal.  Even though these two character archetypes operated in the same space.  How could a-reciprocity operate without being a-reciprocal?  How could reciprocity stop being a-reciprocal if it already wasn't?  How could two character archetypes exist in the same brain?  And if they did, wasn't that the basis of Psychology?

    

Sense and Understanding

    That anyone would oppose what I have written The spirit and the sense in which it was said.  Must be identified first.  I will not allow myself to argue with someone who couldn't even be considerate enough to consider exactly it and get the hang of it.  For all that it stands for and what it is.  Because if they had done so they would learn it all for their power what it is.  And because it is so simple.  I will stand to argue with points identifying with it as exactly what it is.  An political and economic philosophical theory that has deep roots and tall branches in several disciplines.  And that an political theory would be able to make sense because that's what political theories are supposed to do.  Not only that, but to increase its own value with the type of language it classifies itself as.  By their reciprocal value (this itself can be an reciprocal command).  If there is an reciprocal value to an reciprocal command and it can be identified in abstract even virtual logic the New Reciprocity is the psychology and politics of that reciprocity.  An basic human function.  Intelligence may be based on whom is most reciprocal.  Or smart enough to use the a-reciprocal to further their political, reciprocal game.  And being reciprocal to several different figures and types at the same time is normal for an average human.  But there are characteristics left to define, under the category of the Reciprocal Product.  That basic chemical mechanical unit of reciprocity's effect on the brain.  An product which results when reciprocity is added to the system.

    People are a-reciprocal to one another all the time; it doesn't need to be defined in terms of abuse.

    But if the Reciprocal Product (in the brain) of being reciprocal to one another is more highly economically valuable, then a-reciprocity is settling for the less value.

    At least at that point you're settling for any value and sense at all.

    My completion of writing an new reciprocal approach to the four general Sectors of society necessarily includes an brief review and summary of basic points of understanding.  So that we may move on from the subject of the Public sphere and perhaps understand the New Reciprocity for its Private sphere triggers.  An whole completion of this subject as an topic for invention and inquiry.  Will surmise the last few chapters of this book.  To the point of precision.  Which is the Chapter I hope to end on for dramatic effect.

    

Primary Sector:

    We had entered the discussion of the sectors earnestly from the post-Hegelian theme/layout and planning of the first section of chapters to connect an defense of the environment as our Primary Sector.  Bringing about the hypothetical connection between a-reciprocity and the environmental crisis.  I began narrating the trial between Purple and Brown in which the definition of reciprocity and a-reciprocity would be brought up as an fantasy subject.  The point was that the Primary Sector was guarded by ents.  And we could roleplay these characters indefinitely to represent the environment and the theme of being able to lash out against the powers of industry and its inherent evil being any type of fantasy character.  Which itself would be political and as an use of resources, the fantasy of being able to be any type of fantasy character.  Lives on.  The real outcome of logic from the fantasy creation is an mediation of what are resources and time; appropriately.  Together.  This is what gives fantasy its rationale; its aesthetic green crushed-velvet power.  It is always an Fantasy that we have all of the resources and time available.  It is always an Fantasy that we don't have any resources or time available.  It is an Fantasy that the marks of the Artist will not be written in his behavior and in exchange of his Philosophy; which is present and ever-ready needed to progress.  The Fantasy character when performed bears the real-time negotiation of the subject of fantasy in Pink in its negotiation of the subject from muscle memory; everything the character has learned and has been trained to do in order to focus this behavior.  This dynamic.  Will come out in the Performance.  Itself verified by the resources used to communicate its time.  It was brought to question how his resources, exactly, had been used.  If he had used an chapter on the Secondary Sector to further his argument about how one thing exactly is made.

Secondary Sector:

    If the continuation of this fantasy of creating one thing at an time extends to my narration of the Secondary Sector, then it is its own product in an way.  I narrate the details of how the Secondary Sector takes resources and refines them for further manufacture.  But there is an problem in how the sectors are labeled.  Why is the Secondary Sector, which is theoretically held to be closer to the centre of society, more a-reciprocal than the Primary Sector, which is closest to Nature?  And if the Third and Quaternary sectors, which are also more a-reciprocal the further you approach the centre of civilization are a-reciprocal in this way of increasing logic.  Then wouldn't that mark the whole Sectors system, which proceeds an narration of how to create one thing at an time with one another as reciprocal Capitalists, new reciprocal theorists, as a-reciprocal.  And thereby debunk all of our environmental crisis arguments as being caused by in an flaw of reciprocity a-reciprocity.  We are reciprocate with the environment.  Because we need to be.  Because we need to be.  And that my narration of this a-reciprocate tendency, which stems from nature itself, is just an example of Nature being a-reciprocal to an human.  But that doesn't need to mean that an human is a-reciprocate to nature.  And if Angels exist in Nature; Satan is one of them.  Not for being a-reciprocate exactly.  Not for being reciprocate exactly either.  Maybe the Principle of Satan was neither.  And that I had been able to extend the fantasy to such proportions in an scheme wherein the people populating those sectors were responsible for their own reciprocity or a-reciprocity with nature.  Was an moral question.  Justified my reason for arguing so.  How could people decide without the most informed arguments at their disposal?  What did my argument have to do with an post-Hegelian advancement of its principle, the full narration of it?  From Brown to Purple?

Tertiary Sector:

    My writing about the Tertriary Sector became an in-depth and detailed approach getting at what the politics of New Reciprocity would mean in Public, where the interactions between businesses and customers is part way influenced by their fantasy reciprocal and a-reciprocal interactions with one another.  The importance of my political theory as an force of opposition against my religion became apparent for the reader of the ability to trust me more.  I wanted them to know I wasn't an crazy religious fantastic and that my ideas actually did make sense.  In an Political way.  As well as an religious way.  And if that happened to be an religious way that made sense to me as an Christiannan, that was my business.  The Market sector is envisioned as the place for reciprocate and a-reciprocate exchange, an system in which both reciprocity and a-reciprocity have an known economic market value.  The narration developed into an contest to define a-reciprocity and reciprocity in both Religious and Political contexts.  I brought up the subject of a-reciprocity and reciprocity both as factors in an general economy that could be given an real (because it already is) or artificial value; people fulfilling the requirements for acting Good or Evil are both awarded points on their membership card because it is done (their real non-fictional behaviors) fictionally.  And since that fiction has its own capital value on an Capitalist Market Economy, this allowed me to develop several theories about how it could be played out in conversation.  Creating characters whose descriptions would represent their own versions of reality (art and science behind their investigation of it).  Preserving the distinction that I hadn't decided yet whether I agreed a-reciprocity was real or not, and that still to this moment I sought more definitions and more examples of behaviors to help the reader decide.  I was presently of the opinion that a-reciprocity and reciprocity are probably both acceptable behaviors and that we need to facilitate their use in characters throughout the economy.  I had also brought up the notion that if a-reciprocity and reciprocity could both be valued on an consumerist market enterprise economy of Capitalism, reciprocity would clearly outvalue a-reciprocity (though under the right conditions some of these a-reciprocity queens could rise in an significant and known value for being a-reciprocate in their character) contributing to the overall tendency of customers to be reciprocal subjects.  It would get them more customer value points on their membership cards than being a-reciprocal.  But the ones who could perform a-reciprocity the right way.  That theirs was the value of that fictional evil so-needed on the general economy.  And that people who could perform evil in this Good way were highly valued in the economy for their humour and style.

Quaternary Sector:

    In this chapter I claim the proper role of the Quaternary sector is to return the marketplace to its reciprocal conditions and I bring up the subject of an post–a-reciprocity environment.  Good and Evil can both be either reciprocate or a-reciprocate because reciprocity or not is not the deciding factor between whether one is Good or Evil and this is why, perhaps, there is an commodity, an economy between them; which justifies either cause.  Whether fantasy ever includes a-reciprocate characters (because it is impossible that fantasy would be about the a-reciprocate).  That's not what fantasy is.  Became the focal point of my narration in the tradition of creating one thing at an time.  One figure complex enough to give your imagination an whirl one thing at an time.  What I was going to decide was the essential difference between reciprocity and a-reciprocity in an fantasy genre.  And why if politics could take place in an fantasy genre then I would have more and better information about power and its uses.  I meandered toward the conclusion that, in an fantasy genre, both Good and Evil have value because that's how the narrative progresses, { but being able to convince, finally, Evil that it was made to be good } which allowed the creator and allows the reader to enjoy the best of both worlds, (they could still play evil characters fictionally, and wouldn't that be an scare!); and that an tendency to use more or less a-reciprocity and reciprocity in one's character, in an fantasy genre, had nothing to do with them being evil or not in total (the Gestalt total of the sum of all its minds).  Both Evil and Good characters could use reciprocity and a-reciprocity on an open market value demand economy.  In which perpetuating an fantasy had its own capital value.  It broke out into an argument about whether it is possible for an human to be reciprocal to everything; and that if that is their Nature, then why would anyone ever need to be a-reciprocal?  I suggested a-reciprocity was necessary in order to conserve brain energy.  It costs mental energy to be reciprocal with anything.  That's what reciprocity is.  Though introverts might feel it is the other way around; it costs more mental energy to be a-reciprocate (and to constantly keep cathexes under the repressed status where they couldn't hurt anyone).  And so there can be no Superior status; one in which, by being reciprocal to everyone and everybody, you could not be.  It peaked at If an reciprocal product (an neuro-chemical or mechanical product) could be identified by the Psychological Sciences then what types of it were there and what was its known economic value on an Capitalist Market Economy?  In comparison with the a-reciprocate and its known products and values.

What does it mean to have New Reciprocity with each other?

    The New Reciprocity remains an machine with many parts.  There is an Economic theory about creating one thing at an time with one another.  There is an Mathematical and Metaphorical theory about how "fractions" multiply together to equal 1.  And what this would mean as an relationship between two people in the workplace.  There are many types of Reciprocal Command theories involved as well.  For example, what is an reciprocal command and how can it be used or presented in fantasy so that the conversation becomes about both fantasy characters becoming reciprocal to one another in political New Reciprocity which is feminist, gay feminist, and straight feminist.  What are Categories of reciprocal command and how are they used in different settings, say, an shoe store versus an convenience store?  Reciprocal Command Theory, based on the Reciprocal Principle, hazards that anything descript of anything else can be taken as either an demand or an order.  This itself can be read as an order though too.  And there are different levels of observation from the seat in consciousness that watches how other people are demanding or ordering us compared to how we are demanding and ordering them, somewhat subconsciously perhaps to behave versus how much we like it.  Everything that can be said can be read into as an order this way.  (As per the continuing analysis of the New Reciprocity reciprocal body).  (There are economics ways to share New Reciprocity).  (There are reciprocal commands that are valued in Fantasy high above any type of object for trade just for being the reciprocal commands that they are from whom (the specific person) they are from).

    If reciprocal commands are considered Economical because mathematically (metaphorically) they lead to the product of 1 thing at an time.  (An efficient force).  (Participants are self-selective of which productions they want to be part of).  Between two forces (fractions) whose numerators and denominators can be multiplied to equal 1.  And if it becomes an normalizing exchange in the economy for persons to act this way.  Out in Public.  At Work.  Or Wherever.  The development of fantasy or non-fantasy characters around the exchange of reciprocal commands, (which are the most telling of character traits).  With help define the parameters of the fantasy.  The fantasy in which both fantasy roleplaying characters are the fantasy of one another reciprocally because that is how they interact to receive the most benefit for their commodity.  When acted out in front of public, and/or audiences, they may gain critical acclaim, diplomacy, or hype; which are true powers of several types.  It's about customization.  To some extent.  Which fantasy character would I play for which particular aesthetic I am interested in?  Of which species?  Or, what would I accessorize with?

    Critical acclaim, diplomacy, and hype, respectively.

    Reciprocal commands will be used to promote the efficient working of the system of the economy in order to advance at least one thing at an time; and this philosophy will work in our favour because as post-demographic consumerists we have access to an art base which will commodify and customize the object of it for you in any way you want.  An reciprocal command economy in which reciprocal commands result in specific product types.  Or business attributions.  Demand is met with the full extent of the powers of the post-demographic consumerist generation to customize an moment.  Of any kind.  For anyone.  Anywhere.

    And that Fantasy somewhat softens them.  These Reciprocal Commands.  So that we know we're still talking about kindness and pleasure, promoting one another's wellness of reciprocity sexually.  Even if that means have nothing to do with it directly.

    New Reciprocity is an great mediator between the heavens, in the workplace, because reciprocal commands are sometimes read as an feminist issue (mansplaining (the man is giving reciprocal orders because he is mansplaining that men give reciprocal orders because that's what men are)).  And it adds an measure of fiction to an otherwise fully fantastic situation in which orders are given and accepted like water.  (Obviously, it needed fictionalization because that wasn't completely true).  But sharing the fantasy in the workplace, that no matter whom you're with you can all work together to create one of something, anything, together.  Even if it is just an frame of mind.  It is still productive.

    How we newly reciprocalize with one another in all Sectors of the Economy as new reciprocal theorists will be of particular concern.  Also compared to a-reciprocal and reciprocal standards of behavior.

    Experiencing New Reciprocity together is inherently an social cause because it expands our conversation from not sharing reciprocal commands with one another based on position and status, to sharing them with one another all of the time.  Meaning we can order one another around, fantastically, because half of it is fiction and we want the best of both worlds.

    This is why it is Political.

    If fantasy characters begin to make reciprocal commands to one another in the workplace, then how will that continue to qualify as an workplace‽  But the truth is being fantasy characters is much harder and more rewarding than not being them.  Possibly because certain types are genetic.

    We give orders to our bosses, fictionally.  —To break upon an sense of humour.—  We make subtle artificial demands with one another to know that we are all on the same page.  That we each deserve to have our demands heard.  No matter our character or personality type.  We create an fantasy reciprocity of appeal in which we can both act out our fantasy characters without experiencing them as delusions.

    

"You Are Gay Because of A-reciprocity" as the deciding headline and heightened artifact of title of my whole life.

        Perhaps this is the way to describe the fear that robbed me of my adolescence, an fear in my community that being gay really was maybe caused by a-reciprocity.  The first a-reciprocity, maybe.  It is an theme that was apparent in the bible religion.  Original Sin could have been the first a-reciprocity.  And since gay people existed, they must have got that way because of this sin.  This is how homophobic my community really was.  But they couldn't help it because, to them, it was caused by this a-reciprocity.  An perversion of the procreation myth, a-reciprocity is to blame for Jesus's death.  And all gay people.  Even though most of them knew reciprocity was an familiar track they could all take.  It was, as an primarily Christian community Overly Dramatic (who could have guessed?) and everyone took an second take.  How many were there, these recollections of stories of Legend and Religion together that would point to it being an central part of religion to consider when the first a-reciprocity started?  Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.  Cain an Able are the first two sons of Adam and Eve, one of whom commits the first murder on the other.  And this was kept as an narrative because it was an record of how the first a-reciprocity started; as an basis for their whole religious order, Christianity.  Which gives credence to the possibility that Religion is really about the makeup of an order or organization which rejects a-reciprocity completely.  And/or it stands that religion is essentially about a-reciprocity, then.  Keeping it out.  And all of it must be absurd and cursory because you can't keep it out completely.  That's what we are genetically, in our brains, to be thinking, feeling, reciprocate or a-reciprocate subjects.  But if Religions had adapted to this sophistication of being able to react to specific instances of reciprocity and a-reciprocity in the community with their own mix or tonic concoction of magic reciprocity and a-reciprocity.  Then it proved to be more complex an theology: one which would actually state explicitly whether it was against a-reciprocity or not; with such studied specificity; and what it meant as an Religion to be an community welcoming to a-reciprocity or reciprocity alike.  Because its inconsistent makeup (based on/further advancing all major religions on the Planet Earth (No wonder its makeup is inconsistent)) needed to adapt to that reality.  Of naming what it was against in psychological jargon.  The Christianna already had an answer for that because it was possibly one of the most advanced religions ever created.  Predicted that it could be proven scientifically religion really was an instinctual calling in the brain related to the sharing of reciprocity, and the breach of a-reciprocity in society, in an complicated and drama fashion in which a-reciprocity may be an part expressed publicly.  As long as reciprocity sets the norm.  But if reciprocity and a-reciprocity are said to both be part of the outward environment of the chvrch, an abode in which there is only reciprocity.  Political Leadership designated that although people were a-reciprocate in society, they had an religious right and freedom to be reciprocal with everyone else in whatever way they want.  And the end of the religious portion of this writing became apparent.

    Was it politically okay for me to be only reciprocal.  Or had I been hijacked since birth, brought up and taught never to be a-reciprocal in an Christian way.  Which was traumatizing for me because I couldn't use it to protect myself when it should have been my right; and added to my confirmation bias against being a-reciprocate at all.  I was just afraid to be a-reciprocate because people are afraid to be a-reciprocate when they are no good at it.  And I had never been good at it.  I didn't even try.  Even though I wanted to protect myself; use it as my defense.  My Christian upbringing meant that I protected myself with kindness and never my fists.  Even if my own safety was threatened.  Which was the true and natural status of the human species of planet Earth.  Which most people knew and understood.  Because they shared it in Rap and Culture all of the time.  A-reciprocity.  What's the big deal?  And all religion that had tended to promote reciprocity bias against being a-reciprocal had tended to be an repressive subject as an community?

    What, specifically, could prove either answer?  Or was there an third answer which could be proven?

    A-reciprocity as an definition at this point of the book doesn't need to be in full detail yet.  But basically we're theorizing the fact that, at least in some arenas, it is an important part of culture.  We also do not need to land on an specific definition for reciprocity neither.  If a-reciprocity is an Cultural performance, then how is it worth possibly more than reciprocity, in certain situations?

    And if we step back from the fantasy for an moment, what are the real circumstances there?

    An reciprocity in which an full reciprocal command theory would be articulated to you.

    An reciprocity.  In which you gain the ability to make reciprocities at will.  To own them.  Share them (that's what they are).  Design them.  Perform them, if you wish.  If I could teach peoples' minds to know reciprocity by instinct; then they could use it in the capacity to advance their relationship with the creator.  Or one another.  Or Angels, professionally.  Reciprocity was the most basic fact of life and it existed everywhere in the known galaxy because that's what the known galaxy is.  Therefore I can be reciprocal with an object (reality) but what I'm mostly better at is being reciprocal with an subject (reality); reality is not an object for the observer to dissect but an subject for the analyst to reciprocate.  And when you start talking about the Soul's reciprocation.  Oh, jeepers!  This is the true power of the human spirit, to be reciprocate with God and all else!

    

What I had decided to do about deciding between reciprocity and a-reciprocity

    I had naturally settled on the conclusion that both are useful.  But that Glen may have an point about either one of them having an economic capital value.  In which reciprocity would be favored because it was more valuable.  And an situation in which reciprocity could not be found was avoidable.  In order to test it; so that I could be sure.  I had devised an experiment in which many people wrote about their experiences with a-reciprocity and reciprocity.  And an psychological assessment was determined, for the general public, about how much a-reciprocity there was that was hard on their nervous systems and self-esteem and self-image compared to where they could find reciprocal outlets, in personal enterprise or art of music or writing, and other values where they were allowed to play fantasy or non-fantasy roleplaying characters in an a-reciprocally and reciprocally primed environment.  In which that was the normalizing standard that people were either reciprocal or a-reciprocal with one another.  That was the subject of this setting.

    But wasn't this taking it an step too far?  If I had already determined a-reciprocity was an awkward little tremour in the normal commerce of reciprocity in the normal exchange environment.  Wasn't I concluding, too harshly, that a-reciprocity had an priority or hierarchal rank psychologically when it hadn't been determined, under normal circumstances, whether the brain could be made to be a-reciprocal to anything.  I intuitively had an sense that reciprocity was the clear winner in this fashion but that since a-reciprocity continued on in an kind of quasi-relevant status both sides of the argument were winning.  (An synthesis).  And that was economically enhancing for all participants.  And I would inevitably go on and on about how we could play this back and forth between them indefinitely.  Or was it supported by science that a-reciprocity was an normal function of the brain, and that anyone who had repressed the will or the urge to be a-reciprocal had in fact damaged themselves psychologically in some ways?  But, the Author again urged you, the definitions of a-reciprocity and reciprocity were slippery.  We had maybe stark little pictures of what they were on our minds and in our imagination.  But not enough to characterize an whole unit of definition.  An event in which one character is a-reciprocal and another one is reciprocal especially.  And all of our further conclusions as an civilization will depend on what people decide is allowably reciprocal or a-reciprocal in particular and in specific situations.

    The conclusion was that I didn't have to choose between them.  I could be reciprocal and a-reciprocal at different levels all at once, in various ways, to specific people.  And others not.  As was my right and parameter as an human.  But did I need the double negative?

    I could be either one of them.  And that was fine.  They both had an actual, commodified value under the New Reciprocity.

    Religion was the use of reciprocalization (that is supposed to be universally understood as such not to be applied to an victim to whom it may actually be their oppression) in order to end a-reciprocity completely, an agenda that was always extremist.  A-reciprocity is just an universal behavior of the species.  And it has value everywhere people have sense in them.

    Religion was anti-instinct.  The instinct was to be a-reciprocal with anyone I choose.  Not to be completely reciprocal with everyone in every situation.  That was my problem.  And he or she would gain many points of criticism against himself for this.  Behavior.  Which was self-repressive.  An self which waited in extreme excitement to a-reciprocate anyone or anything.

    But wasn't it just the responsibility of the choice of the individual whether to be a-reciprocal or not; and either path could lead to further knowledge of God.  Even if it (the fact of never having been a-reciprocal) had all been reciprocal.  The most powerful and potent social behavior.  If the individual had always been the reciprocity that the individual chose, this was not necessarily an point against them.  But also people that had been both (most of the general population) were fine in that respect also.  And people who had been a-reciprocate all their lives we just considered whether they were crazy again.

    But if the definition of Religion could be updated to include it's sophistication about dealing with reciprocity and a-reciprocity, an point which would be made clear.  Then maybe the true definition of religion was that it was an community navigating reciprocal and a-reciprocal conditions together.  And not to be predetermined about a-reciprocate and reciprocate activity in an fundamentalist and orthodox way.  The true definition of religion, as an lens in society, may need to be cleaned and adjusted.  Not as an attitude of being always against a-reciprocity in every case, but constantly considering how we can be reciprocal and a-reciprocal to one another so that everyone gets what they need.  Religion, as it may turn out one day in the future, is actually an science of how much an community's own reciprocity as an reciprocal or a-reciprocal figure can influence other groups of people or individuals.  Being a-reciprocal or not, in certain ways, was part of how that group devised to influence another group or individual.  And it bore having psychological investigation into whether religion could be as developed and sophisticated as being an science about community standards and their effects.  Religion, finally, after all of this was said and done and updated, was said to be the aspiration itself that religion one day would be an science.  We waited with expectation to find out how Science and Religion would both react differently to reciprocity and a-reciprocity, respectively.  Because we knew they would.

    If people were reciprocal to Anna, they might understand why my religious insight has an value for them.  It's all about avoiding the fate worse than death; that's what she suffered.  And may I say if I have to be a-reciprocate or reciprocate whenever I can to avoid the fate worse than death then I will.

    Another voice argued, But being a-reciprocate is it's own type of fate worse than death.  Never be a-reciprocate.

    There were differing opinions within the same mind.  Big Deal.

    And Politics, if it is not about religion, it is about New Reciprocity.  Fantasy roleplay is about the exchange of reciprocal commands, { reciprocal commands are reciprocal because when you make them to somebody you are making those commands to their awareness of being aware of your awareness which is aware of theirs being aware of your own } because fantasy is never about a-reciprocity.  Commands are fantastic because when they are reciprocal and welcoming we enjoy them.  You're not talking to an means to an end, but an end in themselves (Following Kant); in other words you're not just using somebody like an object for your methodology and satisfaction.  You aren't using them at all in fact.  You're roleplaying with them.  Using reciprocal commands.

    Religion is the reaction to a-reciprocity.

    Politics is the avoidance of it.

Go to Next Chapter