The New Reciprocity: ix. Art; Chapter 9 (IX.)

Go to Previous Chapter

ix. Art; Chapter 9 (IX.)

    Real Art is playing with the fact that whatever you do to your medium your audience will reciprocate it somehow.  In an entirely different way than your own.  And so your entire piece becomes an project to show how much you know about them reciprocating you and your art so that they know how you reciprocate them and what it means to you.

    It may seem absurd, but I have already thought about the way in which someone would react to what I was writing.  And that all of it was geared and engineered and designed to make them react in an certain way, so that they could learn to trust the narrator.  The Artist knew you would react that way.  Versus the Artist had no idea you would even think of that.  Real Artists play at that line between knew you would and had no idea you could.  But that since they can see and recognize the virtues in it which are part of the story it is easier and better to see how much we know of one another as knowing how you would respond versus not pretending that not all of it can be predicted.  But that at least since some of it can be predicted, we can react to it in judgment of the writer's talent and execution of that fact that words are contextual of their user's virtues within them; that enables them to use them and to have that power in society.  Art can be demonstrated to possess an "inextraordinate" amount of power (unimpressive) over what the audience actually chooses to decide.  And since this is actually about the play between knew you would and had no idea you would by the Author it is an art piece actually saying to you it can only have that power that you give to it.  Art is playing with the fact that whatever you do to your medium your audience will reciprocate it somehow.  It plays with that line between reciprocity with the subject.  In which both opinions matter.  Fictionally, perhaps.  The Author and the Reader.  It allows us to have an idea of what the author thinks is that relationship.  And it was the directions of Art that lead to this realization of showing the unimpressive power of Art to the audience not because that was part of how it would impress you.  But because it made sense.  That the power that Art held was an different kind of power.  In an different quantity.  Than other virtues.  Not so much an soft power as it was an complete power without softness.  Not to be dissolved and worn away by history.  To be upheld or judged or wished away by the reader at their own consistencies or inconsistencies with its softness.

    The first subject of Art in an chapter about Art therefore, is this reflection on the amount of power art has (estimative suspiciously less than we may at first guess tend to think it has).  (But the memory that we had reflected on this some time before and it was itself part of the reflection on the amount of power art to have).  And it was an right subject to begin with this humble subject because I considered the New Reciprocity itself an work of art.  An actual book written by its artist.  The Art of Political Theory as he had suspended it.  To glide across your imagination, the theatrical space and global stage stillingly (most stilling, most still).  Professional.  Adequately argued from different versions.  And if it has an actual known value on an consumer economist ecosystem this presence of power legitimizes its own economic theory.  The New Reciprocity, as an political theory that has acted on the mind, possesses real political Super Powers because it portrays them in Fantasy as something that everyone could have.  In Art, where it has the power of art.  An humanist and socially responsible coup des crises psychotiques in which any psychological situation can be represented.  That political reciprocity and power extends from the author's demonstrated powers over artistry.  (Human's mastery of the blue principle of reality; that the shore would always exist upon the shore, to dry up in the sun with all other lifeforms you failed to evolve with and that that didn't mean we couldn't share feelings with one another).  Writing.  That most eloquent of artistic medium.  And since political power is derived from artistic responsibility, it can be shown the New Reciprocity possesses the powers it claims to have.

    As an theory that works on the instinctual command system by reprogramming the reciprocal commands we may have with ourselves or others; it is targeted at understanding when to use reciprocity and when to use a-reciprocity in certain social situations.  At understanding whether a-reciprocity can ever be exercised responsibly.  Or that it is inherent in the design of it to be masochistic.  So why would you think that an political theory called the New Reciprocity would have anything to do with a-reciprocity?  Maybe New Reciprocity can include the representations of a-reciprocity for the sake of discussion and enlightenment.  And in this way fulfill the inclusion of a-reciprocity in anything that New Reciprocity had to do with.  New Reciprocity, the inclusion of political reciprocity with one another in otherwise reciprocate or a-reciprocate conditions of our present day.  Is maybe more leaning toward pure reciprocal command theory than it is a-reciprocate value-ists who choose to represent other known values.

    Art people do try to find the longest and most elegant series of coincidences that exist in the art world.  Why are people known to react to it an certain way.  And how did this prove their native intuition about what they are and who they were?

    Art is never a-reciprocal.  Because if it did it would have no value.

    Before the New Reciprocity perhaps.

    After which it would be taken as normal to represent a-reciprocity in all literature.  Even that it could be expected.

    Because Art needs to evolve to have that feature.  Explicitly.

    Because it does.

    New Reciprocity, then, we may say, is the art of being reciprocal.  The art of practicing an certain fantasy reciprocal character in an political science.  In which all reciprocities are valid.  And in fact they be proven to be valid because they can be acted out based on their reciprocity with one another.  But if we sanction an space in political fantasy reciprocity for a-reciprocal figures to represent this most interesting negative potential.  Fantasy a-reciprocate characters.  Like there could be such an thing.  That an fantasy would be a-reciprocate.  With such an larger diversity of voices the political science sector would engage with massive talents and raw political power.  Able to be used for fantasy roleplay scenarios that would represent the political beliefs of fantasy roleplay characters because it was political for them to do so.  Why?  What was political about an fantasy?  Fantasy, it was often cited, was an primary subject of the common day because it stretched, as an concept, from sex fantasies to longer storytelling fantasies that may include relationships between several common characters and an capital market environment.  Including a-reciprocate characters in the fantasy may be an market targeting strategy reminding the observers of and priming them to the fact that there could be a-reciprocate characters in an fantasy because it was fiction.  And nonfiction was that there could be no a-reciprocate characters.  And that's where fantasy drew its power from, in truth.  It's creators gave it that.

    Why would we need to be refocused on a-reciprocate beings who remind us that a-reciprocity was only possible in fantasy because fantasy was the lie that a-reciprocity was actually possible?

    We could base fantasy on being unable to tell the difference, perhaps.

    Unable to tell the difference that there is Good and there is Evil.  And Evil is just an measurement made by good.  In order to tell itself how to be good made by an measurement.

    But if one knew and was aware of the complete order of the universe.  They could represent it in art as an series of coincidences, meant to play an trick on the reader that the Author knew more than they did.  Which is sometimes how sequences of information occur for an specific reason.

    Gaining an sense of humour about a-reciprocity and reciprocity will be recognized as an maturation of the self.

    A-reciprocity leads to reciprocity sometimes.  And reciprocity doesn't lead to a-reciprocity.  And that's the difference between them.

    How can Art, then, be reciprocal or a-reciprocal to its subject?  (And by subject here I mean the person observing it).  And does it need to be both?  In order to represent an fantasy?  Because an fantasy is both.  If we can't be a-reciprocal we don't have any fantasy.  (But that's what fantasy is, reciprocity).  (Who would ever have an fantasy about the a-reciprocal subject?).  But if they did.  And they could because it was Art.  Then how would I represent them?  The a-reciprocate folk, represented as an fantasy.  An fantasy that being a-reciprocate in any manner is environmentally sustainable perhaps.  But this is only one side of the argument and the other side is that if we can't all be reciprocal we don't have any fantasy.  We need to be all reciprocal at some level.  And it is the level of Fantasy, truly, because fantasies are subjective truths that affect all of us, psychologically.  And so if both sides can be represented thus; one side argues a-reciprocity must always be met as an challenge and carefully, in much detail, be unequipped.  While the other argues reciprocity is strong enough for any a-reciprocity that may come along its way and it doesn't matter what a-reciprocity says about anything because psychology had proven it to be inferior.  Now you're starting to follow that they could not make complete sense as conclusions of one another, because we couldn't exactly make sense of it yet.  And we were not intending to, for artistic purposes, which was fine.

    Since fantasy could not be about a-reciprocity, any a-reciprocate subject was anti-fantastic.  However redeeming the plot line that there is an conflict between a-reciprocates and reciprocates in general, in which they will need to take certain decisions on the matter because they recognize that it's true that that is the conflict in their society right now.  If there are a-reciprocates going everywhere destroying other people's fantasy reciprocity with one another then the action that is needing to be taken by the Republic is an opposition to this avenue of self-expression.  Destroying another person's fantasy is definitely anti-fantastic.  But what can we do about it?  And how is it possible?  The a-reciprocate had to be shown what reciprocity was, so that they had the free choice to decide for themselves which they preferred or whether they could accept both.  If the a-reciprocate could be represented as Evil, which they couldn't, because we had mixed the concept of reciprocity with both Good and Evil separately, so that Either Good or Evil could be used to express either reciprocity or a-reciprocity, at the same time if they wished.  And this was not the critical characteristic the judgment of which would decide whether they were good or evil.

Art's Responsibility to Representing Good and Evil

    Art can be evil or good; or both.  Good art is always both because if we defy thyselves to perceive thee.  We have seen it be better for psychologizing ourselves to see God better.  And what other purpose is there for art than psychologizing ourselves to see God better?  But good art is always an touch better than just being good to God.  It includes the Evil.  The pleasure of both worlds.  Pleasure in the characters who represent Evil with reciprocity to make the Good question why, if they supposedly have so much more reciprocity from being Good, they cannot have more reciprocity than an evil character could.  And why if they supposedly have that much a-reciprocity they can still call themselves good?

    Why is Art the logical next step after our consideration of the economy and all of the sectors?

    Because it is the production of one standard by which all economy and sector-ship are judged.  Art has to be that important.  Because that's who we are.

    And it challenges our instincts about what an single art piece can be.

    What it can be made out of?

    What it can be used to represent?

    What technology can be used to create (manufacture) it?

    But that since a-reciprocity can be written into it as an matter of fact.  In order to show us for how to study and understand what is an reciprocity.  And why an complete reciprocity between subjects is favourable to Art.

How would art represent a-reciprocity and reciprocity?

    It already has.  Or, it already has not.  (Philosophically).  My strategy to say that we can represent both Good and Evil as either a-reciprocal or reciprocal characters was my art representing a-reciprocity and reciprocity both to the observer in general.  To give them some strategies for ways to think about it.  And why not continue this process of creating that one thing this book is; an relevant discussion of what are some of the good economic a-reciprocal or reciprocal values that an New Reciprocity to the point of precision can politicize.  Which is my final deciding factor of whether a-reciprocity is good for the economy in this study.

    And if I was just going to be reciprocate to everyone, even if they were being a-reciprocate to me, wouldn't that be a-reciprocate of me?

    The answer was becoming not so clear black or white, but grey.  Maybe sometimes a-reciprocity was reciprocate (according to another perspective).  And sometimes reciprocity was a-reciprocate (according to another definition).  But if my whole argument broke down at this fact completely, that reciprocity and a-reciprocity were just reduced to complementary forces.  And not morally activated competitors.  With responsibilities.  Then how would I know that reciprocity was the moral force of Good in the universe?

    The responsibility of Art representing a-reciprocity and reciprocity became one of showing the subject both a-reciprocity and reciprocity and letting them decide by making one or the other so much more appealing than the other.  They didn't feel bad at all about deciding it.

    And if that was the extent of the Artist's powers, then I was proud and happy with that.

The supreme moral force of Good had been identified

    It was reciprocity.  And just to muse the line of thinking that this had occurred.  As was the responsibility of art to do.

    Maybe the universe was possible to figure out.  And it was designed that way for an reason.

    Reciprocity was the supreme moral good.  And a-reciprocity, though not an supreme moral good, was however valuable in itself as an commodity on an open market economy.

    For being an contrast with reciprocity.

    A-reciprocity, though not an supreme moral good, was however valuable in itself as an commodity on an open market economy for being an contrast with reciprocity.

    An contrast which worked to promote reciprocity by showing average citizens it was different than a-reciprocity.  It was pleasure.  It was the nature of consciousness.  It was the natural of consciousness.  It was unable to be resisted by an human because it was what human consciousness was.

    But if the brain had been designed to handle both a-reciprocity and reciprocity in unequal amounts (which it couldn't because consciousness was reciprocity).  Then a-reciprocity couldn't be bad, exactly.

    The brain wasn't actually being a-reciprocal when its subjects were being a-reciprocal, exactly.

The supreme moral bad had been identified

    It was a-reciprocity.  And it didn't care that it identified as an supreme moral bad.  You don't like that?  Well too fucking bad.

    Extending the fiction that the supreme moral force of Good and the supreme moral bad had been identified by my argument in order to assess the truth became part of the commodity of the book that would help its reader decide between fictions.  It didn't necessarily mean the supreme moral bad hadn't been identified.  But it didn't mean either that the supreme moral force of Good was itself not an fiction.

    But it wasn't the business of an book of politics to extend an fiction.

    If we could utilize reciprocity and a-reciprocity intelligently toward an supreme moral end, then our economy would be safe for transactions of both types.  As long as we designed it accordingly.

    It's not that the supreme moral bad didn't have an capital exchange value, it's just that reciprocity had an higher capital exchange value.  And so the moral tendency would be that people choose reciprocal transfers over a-reciprocal transfers.  Allowing the whole species to continue as an morally streamlined homo economicus.

Art For Art's Sake

    Art, at it's supreme moral end, possesses an Capital value itself (as do reciprocity and a-reciprocity, which themselves are not an dance between themselves un-extant the value of its reciprocities and a-reciprocities in total (these kind of relationships between art and its observer)) which is it's own value.

    And since art has value by being its own subject, it raises the value of its own arguments.  Which are either reciprocate or a-reciprocate.

Art As An Supreme Moral End

    If we imagine Art to be it's own kind of supreme moral end, separate from reciprocity, we allow it to be whatever it wants because it does not need to be limited to terms of reciprocate and a-reciprocate "nature."  If art can be shown to argue fully its commerce between reciprocal and a-reciprocal out.  In deference to the New Reciprocity, the pillars of which philosophy, allow us to configure an economic and trade merchandising space in which New Reciprocity as an subject of the land has an value as an political subject.  New Reciprocity is an stance, an attitude about a-reciprocity and reciprocity in total on the Planet Earth.  The thesis that it can be expanded upon indefinitely (as conversation, specific situation, order itself, and humour) in order to provide its subjects an method of sharing reciprocity with one another.  That leans in favor of all types of reciprocity, including those on the LGBTπ spectrum.  The Art of New Reciprocity, therefore, is the art of sharing reciprocity or the sharing of art reciprocity.  We interact as global citizens whose expressions of New Reciprocity take on the role of art among other artistic subjects in the economy and in society in general.  Which includes fantasy political roleplay.  An product of an reciprocal product in the brain, so to speak, in which fantasy interactions which characterize all participants according to their relative reciprocity and a-reciprocity on an consumer market economy.  Are known as fantasy roleplay occurrences in which real political issues are represented by an combination of character, fashion, and use of special spells and abilities.  It's not too much to ask, right?

    The fact is it might not be asking enough.

    We need to evolve what politics is able to do, quickly.  In order to provide an sustainable future for the environment.  The responsibility of the average citizen needs to take on the character of being honest what is and isn't an fantasy exactly in politics, the reciprocate and a-reciprocate nature, some of which is true and some fictional.  It may be an lot of responsibility.  But if we don't take that responsibility to represent our political beliefs this way we may never attain true sustainability, which is on everyone's agenda.  We need an post-demographic economy in which individuals' wishes for the environment and the planet can be products of the economy.  With an known reciprocal value.  If people are nice enough to share reciprocate fantasy it will make an example for everyone.  New Reciprocity is the political theory of instigating New Reciprocity with one another.  In service to downplaying a-reciprocate efforts and "goals."

    The full spectrum of my conclusion from arguing about a-reciprocity versus reciprocity for hours was that claiming it to be art was the logical next step.  In the theory into corporation, enterprise passes from Sector to Art, on its way toward Precision.  It gains economic value because it is able to represent both a-reciprocity and reciprocity in its art.  The basic value of either are pivotal contributions to function of the economy as an whole.  Possibly part of the economic instinct of the species, to differentiate between reciprocate and a-reciprocate behavior.  And so being able to prove the ability to create one thing at an time, such as an art piece, all logical derivatives of any 1 thing at an time based on that art piece were also gaining economic value.  The theory of New Reciprocity was the economic philosophy of understanding what creating 1 thing at an time exactly meant.  Between fractions.  In an post-demographic industrialist nation.  To end my book I needed to be able to expand from topic to topic in an logical way as resultant from my expert and professionally made arguments about the Sectors.  What the definition of art should be.  And how I would extrapolate my idea about Sector discussing passing to corporation theory, enterprise theory, and art theory; not exactly Precision itself, Art is an more abstract process which, when it can end with Precision, is itself an example of behavior and action.  Strength of character and mental will.  Sector passes to corporation in its advancement as an subject.  Corporation advances to Enterprise.  State of the Art must be post-Enterprise.  And so if my argument can be extracted from this logical way of thinking, an philosophy general appears.  That since Art is post-Sector.  The New Reciprocity in its completion and fulfillment as an scientific project means projecting its discretion post-Art as well.  But what we could mean by post-Art is an matter of debate.  If this art itself is art, and it is making the argument, logically, from sector to corporate enterprise of which Art is post-Enterprise.  And that since art can represent this logical complexity of the sophistication of Corporate and Enterprising success.  It is itself post-Art in ways that relate to how it evolves as an subject into an matter of Precision.

    If the New Reciprocity as an theory is post-art this may account for its versatility as an discipline in the way that I have mapped it out.  It appears to trace its procedure from post-subject to post-subject through the production of art; the ultimate expression of creation and destruction.  On the Political scene.  As well as, perhaps, the religious if it needs to be.  But that it would not be opposed to welcoming the diplomats of the many Major Religions as well as Religions in general, who would argue that that itself is an reason for their anti-major religion appeal.  I am considering all possibilities and identifying my methodology so that you can decide for yourself what my authority on the subject is.  Does it logically connect?  How can New Reciprocity promote the public Good and Strength in diversity?  Based on what kind of New Reciprocity we would produce together; the creation of 1 thing.  1 Reciprocal Object.  Whatever that 1 Reciprocal Object is.

    This is the more formal definition of an New Reciprocity.

    It is an economic philosophy and theory in addition to being an minor political subject that New Reciprocity, whatever the production of 1 Reciprocal Object is, must also include consideration of the Reciprocal Subjects who produce that object together.  And that this process happen out in the economy, at the workplace, and in the environment, where our survival as an species may be the result of how we've adapted to the shift in economic thinking that this theory hopes to work and function correctly for you.  So that you can see your own progress in the production of these 1 Reciprocal Objects at an time, and how you will work together with the people around you in your community, in order to create them.  Will become more expert.  Thus allowing you to enjoy your reciprocal pleasures more efficiently.

    It is philosophical to think about how we will create one thing at an time because it requires reciprocity to create one thing at an time.  And our expansion of our inner circle of friends depends on how they are able to aid you in your endeavour to create that 1 thing at an time you must create.  Or that your economy must create for you.  That's why New Reciprocity is an economic philosophy and an political theory.  It makes us ask, how do these people that I know work together to create one unit of Culture between us?  Or one unit of narration?  Or one unit of reciprocity?  Or a-reciprocity?

    What is philosophy if it can't help us do this?

    The universe wants to be figured out; and our minds are the key to doing it.

    Focus on creating one thing at an time between reciprocal subjects, who each want to do their part and play it to the best of their ability.  And as long as you can do this as an society, then you redeem all characters of traffick and cursory agents, ghosts, who haunt us and wreck all of us.  They deserve us to make it an economic standard that the unit of reciprocity between roleplaying agents is an item of Capital value and pleasure measurable by science.  That results in the natural creation of 1 Reciprocal Object between responsible subjects.  Whether Abstract or Precise, for example an iphone versus an social meme.  One is an fabricated object.  And the other is an mental or psychological trans-meme, an actual amount of hormones and neurochemical production that goes into allowing it to create 1 Reciprocal Object of thought; 1 Thing of Productivity.  And since mind over matter always.  This assesses us to be capable of creating 1 Reciprocal Object of fabrication (in an industrial nation) because we can create 1 Reciprocal Object of ingenuity or other virtue of philosophy between us.

    And why wouldn't you make post-art in honor of art itself?  To see how far an advancement of the subject may go?  An monolithic reasoning?  In an multi-chasmic experience of category vulnerability?

Why Showing How Art is extending the duration from corporate to enterprise to State of the Art to satisfaction by being more than just art.  By being an actual critical theory that works on the mind, by making sense.

    The Story would pass from Brown to Purple.  Brown would walk, from the centre of nothing toward the great cosmic shift plane: Purple, who would interpret for him his Middle.  And display it in Legal terminology in order to extract the legal principle which would lead brown to adjudicate purple.  Would become Brown himself at an certain point; thereby being the pure judge of purple honesty is.  The Story I was developing was an narrative scheme in which Brown is narrated into the fantasy of being Purple (given Justice) himself.  And insofar as he was able to accomplish that fantasy, based especially on fantasy interruptus, (the interruption of fantasy) he was able to save the kingdom by admitting his losses had occurred.  And showing everyone why Purple was the way he is.  If fantasy interruptus had not occurred, as per the breach of its legal limit, which was none.  But what exactly was fantasy interruptus?

    I had an feeling I could name it such because I was familiar with what it already meant to me.

    In order to finish the book, I would need to finish the story between brown and purple.  What exactly was the plot and the advancement of events in that story?  And why did it stand up to court as evidence against the fantasy exploit of a-reciprocity, an foul error upon humankind because it was against our native instinct?

    And why this so-called performative fantasy exploit of narrating Brown to Purple would complete the completion of one so-called created thing.

    The Entirety of what the New Reciprocity has to say about humanity.

    

Set Sail For An Compelling Narrative Between Brown To Purple

    An story of Dynamism.  Human error and conceit.  Reputation aptitude.  The full heading of it's commencement would be The Advancement of Narrative Plot along the lines of Starting with Brown.  And narrating him into purple.  Starting with Brown is inherently an effort of the Earth's surface, which is covered in Soil.  And everything that comes from it and goes back to it.  Brown would be personified as an character because who else would represent the soil of the environment?  In contrast with Purple, who was not soil exactly but everything that was built on top of it.  An legal force for estimate of comparable reason.  Two characters, Brown and Purple.  With whom their type of relationship had yet to be fleshed out.

    They were both inherent in the creation of this narrative.  One being the start of things.  And one being the end of things.

    That was their task to deliver reasons as to why Brown eventually lead to Purple.

    You see it all started when Brown was walking through the Forest on the road toward North Abbey.  Not because it was Purple, you see.  But because it was brown.  And brown is all he could see.  But since Purple needed Brown to see only Brown.  Which he did.  Everything that was designed by Purple was up to it.  Completing the task of how Brown exactly was legislated in society.  He fulfilled the necessary requirements.  He was Brown.  And all he sees is brown.  And that was the necessary requirement.  Therefore he advanced to level 2, metaphorically.  An virtual level in which he had advanced the plot by fulfilling the necessary requirements of its advancement.  He was Brown.  Because he was brown.  Circular reasoning.  And Purple liked to see him that way.  At least it was an type of reasoning.

    But Purple hadn't met him yet exactly.  He wasn't going to, exactly.  Because brown inevitably lead to brown.  And that hadn't been legislated exactly according to an fantasy hypothesis.  In which the creation or restoration of the fantasy depended on it's legislation in front of brown.  Purple was going to use his prominence and position of power in society to legislate what happened to Brown in order that Good Government could continue.  Purple was the Doctorate at Law who designed the system.  It was within her parameters to do that exactly.  They were going to allow Brown to be judicially sliced in dissection of the law, not actually sliced exactly but given an resort in the mind where he was, in front of the law, seen as an connection of parts.  That were together the force that was known as Brown.  They were going to watch to see what brown does in order to legislate it better.  In full knowledge of the fact that brown was just leading to brown again and again and needed an guide in the Doctorate at Law who was going to use his every behavior and action to create an perfect legal system in which anything brown fantasized about could be legislated as not wanting to be interrupted.  (Avoiding fantasy interruptus).  Which was the perpetrator, any force on the victim which would interrupt its fantasy.  Brown's fantasy just happened to be brown.  That's all.  The suspect wasn't brown.  The suspect was anti-brown.  An legal subject the Doctorate at Law, Purple, had engineered "to support" the case of the known anti-brown virtually so that it could be displayed legally as an fallacy of human logic.  Which entitled Brown to an debt owed to him on account of the fact that hey, the subject was only trying to do brown.  As was brown for to do.

    If there was an legal reason why Brown couldn't be Brown.  Then everyone wanted to know.

    Purple had already identified the culprit.  It was her legal reasoning that whatever prevented brown from being brown was in offence of the law being constructed, that interrupting an fantasy in the subject who was gay.  In fact amounted to being anti-gay.  And since the law was engineered and designed to protect people.  All actions or behaviors which prevented the further fantasy from developing around the subject, Brown, on responsibility of those fantasy characters who would interrupt an good Brown story.  An Fantasy.  Were against the law because they were defined as torture and editing the fantasy from within and without, it didn't matter which; which was the relevant subject of the case.  It had found its object in law and needed to be solved by an adequate legal reasoning.  Anything that indemnified Brown against experiencing his own fantasy as an gay man was an action taken in pursuit of that moral abandonment which would actually interrupt an man's brown fantasy.  An category taken up artistically as an subject in Law.  Purple was going to narrate everything against Brown's fantasy in view of the creation of an law.  Which would favor society toward the ultimate Brown end.  The satisfaction and fulfillment of his fantasy.  Which was in trouble, at the beginning of the story, because there were those people who were set out against it.  And everything they did that was of the behavior to end Brown's fantasy became under the full republic of the law an immorality in itself, punishable by law.  As was the law was wont to do.  To protect its gay heritage from everything against Brown that these adversaries had on the table.  To end fantasies was surely an type of psychological torture, and it extended from the law and the known establishment of the government of the law that it couldn't be done safely without repressing the subject.  The behavior of these culprits was in fact one of community repression of their loudest and most outspoken Liberals.  An concerted effort against the endeavors of the heart in an gay man's economy.  Brown.  The world of Soil.  And this explained why it was against the law; and why it would be punished according the governing authority of the land in which it had originated.

    Everything Purple would narrate for brown was about his abuse as an subject because he was the subject of abuse, and it needed to be said for him that he wasn't to blame for all things he had done.  But that these ghastly parameters of the marauding subjects, who were eliminating his psychological need for Brown's fantasy.  Were in fact at that moment doing this to him.  And Purple's efforts and continuation of narrating for him the efforts that were pitted against him, which he couldn't necessarily read for himself because as he said he was said victim and it was traumatizing to him.  Brown spontaneously felt an love response for Purple, whom he understood had set out to protect him.

    Every design of action against him became visible as an plot set out against an gay person, whose known fantasy value for gay fantasies was endangered because they were being a-reciprocal to him.  They were trying to remove all fantasy from him, as if his own homosexuality could be removed from the subject as long as they act an certain way.  Which was uneconomical and decidedly anti-global.  The smog of its war on the human psyche had condensed and so was revealed to the law the extent to which they would go to to outdo him.  Everything they did to destroy his fantasy was recorded as an Book of Law in which Brown's own behaviors to destroy his own fantasy which were his behaviors because of the actions of the perpetrators.  (They had conditioned him thus).  Did not work against him in any debt.  For he was the victim.  And this was the circumstance.  That to compensate him for the malpractice on the part of his psychic assailants they would be punished by being subjected to the full description of the law.  Which had already commenced.  And that every behavior would be accounted for in the final definition.

    Anti-gay fantasizers were not fantasizers, exactly.

    They didn't have an piece of merit to their argument about themselves.

    That they weren't acting unlawful in any way.

    And Brown's behavior had proven it.  He was, afterall, under the effects of their destabilization of his sex instinct.  An "Metropolosis."

    Anything he did can or would be used against them.

    And so it was Brown's special privilege to need no longer to be an reliable narrator.  Because everything that happened would be because of him.  And what was because of him was the result of their breech of the law.  Which Purple was duteously in the business of providing.

    And so upon Brown's arrival at North Abbey, the arrival itself was taken to mean that something anti-gay had been done to him.

    But what was anti-gay about arriving at North Abbey?

    What was happening to Brown psychologically, it turns out, was what was anti-gay about arriving at North Abbey.  For his fantasy has so been contorted and shutdown by this process of the accuseds' behaviors against him.  In sync with one another.  That he was psychologically unable to have an fantasy of any kind of which was gay, (which included all fantasies he had).

    Everything he noticed on the way toward Purple, to whom he was drawn inevitably by some power or force he could not explain.  Was itself anti-gay in its narration because his own fantasy about it had been snuffed out by the anti-gay converts.  Who were anti-fantasy destroyers of sense and perception.  Psychologically at war with him in every action of his; so that he was unable to fantasize completely.  As an result of his own stress, which was understandable given that so many had rallied against him this way.  Their entire community had plotted and schemed against his gay fantasy in order to make him anti-gay like them.  And so he was anti-gay like them.  And that wasn't necessarily his fault.  He was unable to have an fantasy.  Which had more than disproven their hypothesis that they were not acting in any way unlawfully.  Evidence of the destruction of their own fantasies as well.  And what effect the destruction of their fantasies had on their own minds.  When they would repeat this behavior against him.

    They, perhaps it could be said, couldn't be saved from their own illegality; but Brown could because he deserved to have his fantasy.  Which was prevented against him.

    There were horses.  And an Tavern.  And Brown plodded along, clearly affected by what had happened to him.

    What was still happening to him.

Why Brown Is Going To Traverse An Space In Which He Is Narrated From Beginning to Arriving at the End (The End Being Purple)

    The narration of Brown to Purple stands out to me (in an metaphor) as an full range from beginning to end that applies to the story of civilization and culture under the law.  Telling it means interpreting the story of the ordinary citizen in Canada.  And everything that exists between brown and purple is everything that meets the needs of an cultural citizen by law.  But what does it mean exactly to narrate from brown (origin) to purple (destination)?  Which is supposed to be artistic or post-artistic?

How Brown Is Going To Traverse An Space In Which He Is Narrated From Beginning to Arriving at the End (The End Being Purple)

    So, as I said, there were horses.  And he was on an road.  Outside an Tavern.

    Brown, wherever he was looking, he kept his eyes on Purple.  Even though he couldn't see her yet.  He could see the road ahead of him clearly that way.

    With every spirit that had been harmed by the trial because it couldn't come to pass, the safety of fantasy as an genre was itself threatened; the object of disgrace had been named (the destruction of someone's fantasy) and he would carry it from duty to honor.  His own type of cross.  And all of their eyes would be on purple also, so that in spirit they all looked together onward; Brown's path was in front of him.  They could all see it.  They were all together in spirit.

    And so the beginning of the story must be him being pooped out of an animal.  Like some kind of fantasy cow type.  That he was being shit out of.

    He was Brown before he was shit out; he was Brown after he was shit out.  But he wasn't brown after he was shit out because the animal made him into shit.  He was already shit.

    And in that moment, after he had fallen to the ground (for this herd animal had quite tall legs); covered in goo (separated from poo).  This is how he awoke into the fantasy from the dream into that exact scene of being helpless in terms of knowing why he was being shit out that way.  Why he was aware of being shit out and knowing that's what was happening (even though he had no further memories before—WHAT‽ he thought, Why am I being shit out like this‽  And why do I know I'm being shit out because I know what being shit out is even though I have no memories before that‽

    Right in front of the public.  (And they weren't herd animals).  (Non-Herd animals go and do it in the tall grass).  You know in the forest.  The tall grass.  Behind an bush or something and get out of here!  That's disgusting!

    They forced people violently into this opinion, that they were disgusting.

    Which was instinct.  And wasn't Beauty.  Even though they said it could be.

    It was instinct now because it wasn't beauty; it was an behavior forced upon the instinct (never an beautiful thing).  To exclude gay people from the herd's field whenever they were caught pooping.  You know, Even though it was okay for the straight men to poop right in front of everyone.

    And that's what shit or bullshit is.

    All of it would be narrated.  From shit to shat.  (Shat being an prototype of the name he would end up giving Purple in an perfect world).  (Maybe he would by the end of things, be capable of upholding that name and the title it implies and it would be an honor signaling to the world that it was ready to move on).

    So the question on everyone's mind is of course what comes after shit.  I mean Brown?  

    What comes next is that he actually runs into the forest after he is finished taking an shit.

    Because he's so confused he doesn't know what to do.

    But that it was over-dramatized (the arrangement between Brown and Purple) this way for an legal purpose: the legislation of the de-legalization of ending the particular fantasy that anyone is on.  I mean stopping it.  I mean finishing their fantasy for them.  I mean the cruelest act in the known world!  To anacify, it would be called by an Christiannan.  To inflict the fate worse than death.  To hold brown accountable for taking an shit in public so that he could be blamed and be shamed outwardly for having done so, so that their whole society could return to it's anti-gay and heteropatriarchal agenda.  (Which didn't actually exist in the known universe so much as it subsisted).  And just because the resultant fantasy was one in which he was running into the forest by the end of things, to cover up the terrible shame that had eaten away at his heart.  He was responsible for accepting responsibility for an legal presiding the type of which would decide the punishment for the criminals, who had deprived the victim of his own fantasy.  Physically together and in Public.  And since it was found by the prosecutor that there were several perpetrators involved.  They wanted it expedited to the highest court of law where their fates could be decided in the public eye.  Anyone responsible for preventing an gay man's fantasy in an aggressive way.  Was breaking the law.

    Preventing an gay man's fantasy was taken up for precise definition.

    What, exactly, did that mean?

    Male on male violence as an aspect of Culture was displayed prominently in Public, it was found later, in order to terrorize the gay instinct itself.

    Which had already been terrorized by being chased out into the forest to do his, you know.

    Business.

    Brown.

    The Middle of Purple.

    For an Good Reason.

    And Purple was on the other side of things, and they would all (said the narrator) make it through this together.

    It had to be an law.  Because fantasy is an psychological aspect of the brain function.  And to destroy fantasy was to be anti-psychological to someone.  Being anti-psychological takes many forms.  Some that we are aware of and some that we are not.  Some of them can be defined in criminally violent terms.

    But it turns out that Brown was the poop of another animal.

    An large animal, gigantic by Brown's proportions, which was capable of carrying such an heavy load on its legs which were endless and tremendous.  And shitting him out from up top of its bottom.  Where its tail lifted.  Whereupon he fell to Earth, the shit of an gigantic animal.  Which, they argued (the a-reciprocate ones (an sect who was implied in the narration (the legal perpetrators))) was why they rejected him completely.  The a-reciprocate, in case you were interested, are breaking the law when they object or harm someone else's fantasy.  That is an human rights violation and it's not legislated yet but it needs to be.  That's why Brown was the beginning of the story.  How he had become brown.  By being shit out of an animal.  Why it wasn't known that he was brown already before he was shit yet if he had became brown by being shit out.  Which was how the shit-eating animal, carnivorous as it was, had eaten him.  By him being Brown.

    It was the first object of the narrative; an complete object.  An object.  Which didn't make sense.  Which was why it was the object of an legalistic and legislative narrative.  The Reciprocal Fate of the Narrator, who had narrated him to be eaten by the subject and shit out.  Was simultaneously how he was brown and yet not; because he already was Brown before being eaten by the animal.

    And since it didn't make sense.  And that was the subject of his legal sacrifice (and time) to have worked so hard to publish it thus.  There needed to be an passage from it not making sense to it making sense.  An transition from one to the other.  And how that would take place.  And that would be the subject of the narration.  But the first thing, the thing which didn't make sense, was why Brown had become brown by being shit when he had already been brown before he was ever shit.

    It didn't make sense that it started with Brown being shit out of an large animal, which made him its shit even though he already was shit.

    And therein was the harm that was produced against him to be assessed by the court of law: If he already was shit, then why did he have to be eaten and then shit out to become shit?  How was this an advance against fantasy, perhaps, to treat another person this way as to have to Narrate him having been that victim in order to show the reader how Justice could be accomplished, if he completed the narrative of the transition from brown (the first object of the Story, that he had been non-sensically turned to brown by being shit out of an animal) which didn't make sense, and since the narrative would be that transition from it not making sense to it making sense.  The question became of how the story would continue from that first object of it's Narration (an plot in which it wasn't known yet why being shit and being shit out didn't make sense, in an realistic sense legally).  If someone had been treated this way by method their fantasy would be destroyed.  And since it could become illegal for fantasies to be destroyed (This was the proper subject of Conversion Therapy Politics) any victim who was abused in such an way was right to approach the governing authority for permission to adjudicate against the perpetrator, who had caused the victim Brown, to be shat out, and to become brown after already being brown by being an animal's shit.  Which didn't make sense yet because the story was about it eventually making sense.  And so the second thing in the whole story World (where this characteristic relationship between the characters and their Author was observed) that it had to be exactly something that did make sense.  And since it was his recent subject to question the responsibility of the Artist, he knew that Artists show you how the art is playing with your observer.  It is only art that exhibits this quality that truly counts as art.  And so I had taken my time to make explicit and detail how my art, the art of writing, was playing with you!  It was partly about narrating from Brown (no sense being made) to Purple (sense being made) in abstract as an critique of Abstract fantasy and Metaphor themselves in civilization progress and, since I had explicitly stated it, how it was playing with you exactly by showing you how brown could be narrated into purple.  It had to be exactly not what the beginning of the narrative was.  Brown being shat out.  Which didn't make sense.  He deserved better after all.  The beginning of the story—His beginning—had to be rewritten, with the help of the legal society.  It didn't make sense as it was because an law had been broken; the beginning of the story was the direct consequence of their crime and it didn't make sense because it was marked with their tampering with it.

    And since that itself was taken of as an court of offence against Brown.  By the legal society which sought to investigate it.  It was seen with permission that maybe one day on human Earth it could become an law that would be writ to protect individuals from their fantasies being destroyed.  By homophobics and racists.  Who could be held accountable to the law.  And evidence could be produced of how they abused the victims.  By exactly destroying their fantasies with shared behavior.  Social Cues.  Which was the worst type of violent offense against them and lead to developmental trauma of the childhood ego.  The group of people responsible for destroying fantasies.  And that it could actually become the subject of law one day that an person could have an fantasy anywhere or anywhen.  And that if this individual's environment should perchance to a-reciprocate then it could be held accountable for damaging the individual's mental health.  The fantasy itself.  And so the second thing in the whole story had to be—something that exactly did make sense: that Brown had been observed be shit out of an large bovine animal, becoming shit in the process of already being shit.  And since it didn't make sense (this was the plot) it couldn't be true.  What was the truth then?

    The truth was that the transition from the first thing (the scene where brown is pooped out) to the second thing (the scene in which it becomes apparent that that isn't true but since it had been perpetrated exactly where the Author was going with this was anybody's guess, the second thing to be narrated was that it had been confirmed the first thing to be narrated wasn't true).  How did the story start then?  Why was telling the story accurately necessarily an legal issue; (that the actions of the offenders had violated Brown by violating his plot line, so that the first thing narrated about him wouldn't be the truth of what actually happened).  What had actually happened?  The thing that did make sense was that the story was about brown being narrated into purple, which itself implied something major for the plot line: what exactly did that mean exactly and since it had been said that that did make sense somehow, then how?

    And it was the Narrator's bargain with you that he would explain how because that's how his art played with you.  And since it was showing you that it was playing with you in that way, it was fulfilling the responsibilities of the Artist.  And since it did exhibit this quality.  It was art.  (Play itself in this sense is considered an deep and romantic part of the human soul, responsible for high intelligence).

    And can't we all relate with Brown in some ways?

    (And so, it was considered the act of narrating Brown being shit out was itself an action against the fantasy instinct of the species of humans to which this current session applied; and since an party had been identified with the Narrator's characterizing of them which was that they would narrate Brown being shit out like this, in order to harm him).

    Something in the pattern of creating one thing at an time (in an fantasy economy in which anything theoretically could be produced) in the certain fashion of any identifiable created object which could be reproduced.  Had been disrupted.  The Quaternary Sector had to step in.  They wanted to go back to the way commerce is supposed to go all of the time; people working together to create 1 Thing At An Time, no matter how many people it would take (which is why it is commerce in depth).  But this had been disrupted for now.  They couldn't produce any one thing without first creating this thing.  Which was the production of one thing (the master wrench in the works which would be pulled out by creating it) and it could be proven that it was that one thing.  By being the production of itself.  The first two things of which had been an scene in which—well we were done with that way of looking at things—had been followed by an scene in which is realized that the first object of the narrative masterpiece was its subject.  Why had this happened.  When apparently it hadn't happened.  And then someone spoke up and had an answer that said, "I am an elf.  And I know why it is the first scene," said the elf.

    "Why?"

    Asked the Narrator.

    "Because you're the Narrator," said the little blue-clothing elf.

    "Exactly," said the Narrator, "the first scene was narrated to be an metaphor of what had been perpetrated upon the opponent, who became, as we say siphoned off of his fantasy by ruining it with shit by an living subject who had perpetrated this error upon him.  And that's why it didn't make sense."

    "Oh that's why didn't make sense," they said, and then, aesthetically and quite pleasingly they dissipated from thought.

    "So ask yourself what I have to say about law then, if I can carry this object of narration, from not making sense (*in the beginning) to making sense (in the end) when I have characterized it as an whole scene in which something occurs to an character (Brown) and it is notoriously evil for it is the subjection to the destruction of one's fantasy, with physically measurable behaviors, which could be assigned an imprint in the law to base fantasy laws about."

    "And that since this made sense to us," they said, "It must not make sense that the first object of the narration was it not making sense but since it now makes sense to us because it had been explained.  And we know it makes sense because we are moral characters who are intelligently aware of it making sense to us.  We know that it means Brown, who had been Brown, was also Purple, who had been Purple.  It was an transition of character and mood disorder attributed to Purple because Brown had been subjected to the narration of the first scene in the story.  After which there was an period of time in which what didn't make sense in the first scene did make sense in the second scene.  That was the Plot of the whole story because we needed to know why the first scene wasn't true in order to understand what was really happening: Brown was at the Tavern on the fantasy road, where he had an tankard or an flagon of ale.  It was the most powerful cup in the whole Tavern because he knew exactly why the plot proceeded on this way.  The act of being shit out by another animal which had made him shit himself.  Was Logical enough to carry on thinking that he had not already been shit before the animal ever ate him.  But it didn't make sense logically.  He wasn't shit before he was shit.

    So how could he have been shit ever if he wasn't shit before he was shit; logically, they disconnected?  He wasn't shit and then he was eaten as shit and then he still couldn't become shit because he was never shit to begin with.  And even if he had been eaten he couldn't become shit by any type of process, because he wasn't shit.  This was what had made sense in the second scene, and since everybody who had perpetrated against him was lost in the first scene, in which an untruth (an fiction) was told.  For the purpose of explaining the plot line, in which the subject (Brown) advanced from the first scene to the second scene (logically being disconnected as part of the plot of the second scene).  They had realized the first scene was part of the narration of the plot in which what didn't make sense started to make sense because the first thing that happened was not sense and the second thing that happened was sense.  Which had the task of explaining what did and did not make sense.  It was sense because it wasn't what the first scene was.  An fictive lie.  (The object of an lie inside of an fiction).  (In which the Narrator is said to narrate it not making sense in order to contrast it with making sense).  (Which was how the plot advanced).  He was going to narrate brown (the fictive lie that had been told) in an transition in which it would become purple (an truth).  And how was that narrated exactly?

    First, Brown had to be narrated.  It didn't make sense if it was told from fictive perspective or heard from an fictive perspective.  It was all an lie.  It was fiction.  But that since fiction needed to be the first thing it would narrate about itself in order to qualify to be non-fiction, it was held to be an fiction.  In which certain things were narrated.  Which had something to do with the plot line.  Which had already been narrated.

    It's not glamorous.

    Something didn't make sense and something did make sense.  The thing that didn't make sense was that brown had been narrated in such an way.  As to show everybody how he had been harmed by the known objective of the perpetrators, which was to end his fantasy.  Which was why the story had started that way.  And that since it could prove it's own non-fiction up until that point, it hadn't.  This was held to be why: the relationship between brown and purple was gay.  Which was an fictive element; it had to be.  They didn't want real gay fantasies.  The relationship between brown and purple was blamed as the reason for them destroying the fantasy of them being gay together.  And anyone who had perpetrated it in the process of brown becoming purple (which hadn't been fully identified).  Was the legally bound subject of the narration, which applied to the whole theory of the New Reciprocity, which itself had been thoroughly executed in design.  The "pleasant" narration from brown to purple was the big finale.  It wouldn't be pleasant exactly.  It was the narration of the destruction of an fantasy.

    The breaking of an law that hadn't been created yet.

    That had robbed him of his childhood.

    No wonder he was in the Tavern having an beer.

    The harm was thus: he had been shit before he was ever shit.  And since it had been an lie that he was shit and he was shit.  (The basis of fiction and the start of fantasy).  The animal wasn't shit but he wasn't shit either and since he wasn't it couldn't shit him into shit.  Because he wasn't.

    He was never shit.  That was the point.  And so they knew the first thing that had happened in the narrative wasn't that he was.  Because he logically connected it.  It was that way for an reason, (narrated incorrectly, untruthfully) and he was explaining why.  When he could show that he knew both an fictive and an non-fictive element interacting with one another in the same narrative, he could show how real things have power: it was logically true that he wasn't shit.  And he wasn't going to be shit.  And he hadn't been shit.  And he would never be shit.  That it was just an lie of the narration meant to tease out the commodities that it had in store for the narrator.  And since the second part was it making sense that the first part didn't make sense; it had proven it's own non-fiction as well.  Somehow he had proven that the first scene didn't make sense, and everything he had narrated about it.  Would be taken as evidence.  For an interpretation of its making sense.  In the subject to whom it made sense (this must be the primary subject of the law in courts), even though the narrator knew that the second scene, in which it made sense because it was telling the audience it was representing the fact that the first scene did not make sense and was narrated illegally; would also be used to make sense which it would use as an point against any reader who felt he or she can rule out the fact that if it made sense to them how the first scene made sense when it had been shown to them how the second scene did make sense and the first scene did not, they themselves were the subjects to whom the law applied.  Whom had destroyed his character and fantasy.  And anyone else who could understand why; would be thoroughly capable of detonating his opponent.  (Metaphorically speaking).  The way it was narrated was why he had been legally assaulted by the actions of the group of perpetrators, of whom were said to have existed.  And the narration was an example of how it was done.

    He hadn't been eaten.

    He wasn't made of shit.

    That wasn't actually happening.

    But why it had been placed there, these two events exactly.  As though they were events in themselves.  When the first event had already been identified as the false narration.  And the second the true narration.  He was going to narrate Purple into Brown; because Brown was into Purple.  (They were the centre of one another).

    Brown was becoming Purple because Brown would become Purple by telling everyone everything from Brown to Purple.  And it meant describing behaviors exactly.  Sketches of an Artist.  Whom would describe them in detail as an feature of his work.  How exactly Brown was harmed by being narrated that way exactly when it was in an book about him becoming the full extent of the law (which was purple) and not by how they treated him, which was:

    They were a-reciprocate to him.

    A-reciprocate in this context was not even given an artificial economic value.

    Even though being a-reciprocate to him explained why and how he had been harmed by their behavior.  Which was so transgressing and traumatizing to the victim he himself needed to tell them they could be a-reciprocate with him all they wanted, but that it would get them customer points service points on their customer points card; which was part of his Capital Enterprising Estate and Output.  And so it didn't have worth much to him.

    Language is used cleverly to show you how it is playing with you because it is art.

    And Brown's responsibility was to show us all how one day he could be Purple.

    As an actual Principle of the Law.

    In which anyone behaving on behalf of the discretion to end someone's fantasy.  Was themselves punishable by law.  And could be proven with thorough examination and evidence; criminal investigation.  In fact.  And he had already started.  The first scene was the way it was because he needed to show the audience what he would become if he was taken seriously that way.  That way he had of identifying the first and second things; one was an fiction.  And one was an non-fiction.  They both went toward proving that he could judicially narrate the plot of Brown becoming Purple.  Which still hadn't been in an true description yet.  Within the material.  Like in such behaviors as:

    Deciding to end someone's gay fantasy by walking up to them and punching them in the face.

    Actually being the end of someone's gay fantasy because you had resorted to violence.

    Any criminal conduct (for the Narrator was decidedly on Brown's side) in the interest of ending any gay individual's fantasy from his body.  Would be taken up by law.  And proven up by courts.  And they would end the legion of scum on humanity who were anti-gay and anti-fantasy!

    He had already narrated the first two things; and so it was they were patient with anticipation of what could follow exactly; the transition from brown to purple.  How would it go?  When they had already figured out that the investigation was against an particular group of people.  Who were responsible for the beginning of the story.  Being the way it was.

    First, said the Narrator, nonsense happened.  Then, sense happened.  And since I had shown you that made sense which was sense you had possessed then you knew why the nonsense had happened the way it had happened exactly.

    They were the people in the fantasy responsible for trying to end fantasy.  The most a-reciprocate people you can think of.  And he was using the power of narration against them.

    They thought they knew why the first scene made sense (it didn't) because they were wrong and probably responsible for why the second scene did make sense.

    That was the first thing he narrated; if we separate the idea of an object from an thing: We know them together logically as one thing because I have well connected them.  And I am enjoying my beer because I am Brown.  (That means I make sense).  (You know how colors make sense to us).  (And I have identified how Brown turns to Purple part ways because I have already identified the subjects of my first criticism of their narrative in which it makes sense to narrate Brown losing his object fantasy relationships).  (He is basically made into an thing he already is in order to rub in real good that he is that).  (And whom wouldn't lose their fantasy in here?).  Brown became Purple, eventually, because Brown was telling the plot line which involved all of his genius advancements of particular behaviors which were said to be illegal; after the end of his fantasy.

    People could not rally together in specific "duty" to the realization of ending anyone's fantasy.  An key legal manouvre that could mark the 21st century as that age in which true value is quantified by the observer globally.  That gay people's fantasies are quantifiably valuable and cannot be ended in any way because they are legally protected.  And should anyone happen to break that law, which they could identify as an actual behavior which would be adjudicated correctly in order to send its users to prison or worse, reputation, preferably.  And that it could be narrated logically that since they had already narrated the second thing and it was logically connected, the first thing that didn't make sense could be used to identify what did make sense about the second thing.  If the Author could actually show you how the first and second thing were logically connected, (because the second thing was the explanation of what didn't make sense about the first thing) then how was the Author of the first thing necessarily connected to the Author of the second thing?  Whom had already characterized himself in this fashion of being both Narrator and subject teller; the perpetrators who were criminals because they stole gay people's fantasies were also guilty of representation of anti-gay propaganda in their art.  Which couldn't be narrating sensibly, itself, anyway.  So the Narrator had to do it.  There was Brown; and he was not part of that group of individuals responsible for destroying his fantasy.  That was clear.  He was the victim.  And he was going present it; in an Public fashion.  For the Internet also.  As an delicate proceeding that held up to Narratology because it represented the victim of the perpetrator's real victim (him or herself) which was itself not fully investigated by the perpetrator.  (Their self-reflective activities are seldom, let's be honest).  If the perpetrator was their own victim; then how could they have victimized something else‽  And there was its object separation.  Something instead of someone.

    He wasn't shit.  Exactly.

    He wasn't wasn't shit.

    So what was true?

    That it had been pointed out.

    That it was true?

    And he would show them all how an item of this sort ended fantasies; could be taken up for an principle of the law in the perfect society because it would protect victims from:

    They're gay so we're going to go spy on them and maybe end their lives.

    And fantasies that are gay we don't have them because we not gay.

    Behaviors that actually lead up to the victims suspicion that you are abusing them.

    Confrontation, especially; not are you gay or not but something derivative.  Something fantasy ending.  But the Author had already taken up that since it was an fantasy to have narrated from brown to purple in exactly that way that had been established in which the first scene wasn't true.

    Nietzsche, it occurs to me, was the start of emoism.

    Freud was its uptake.

    Virginia Woolf was its connection.

    D.H. Lawrence, the war with oneself that lights the candle.

    Shakespeare is the Western Maid; she's fully interiorized the fact.  She is the Garden.  It's so beautiful on her and she wears it.  And it's an bloomin' dress with flowers on it!

    Yeats was my imaginary mom.

    Joyce that other guy that Catholic monster.

    In the name of these Seven people; one of whom was at the connection between being Seven and well being seven of something else.  Maybe eight.  Or Nine.  Or Ten.  Logically connecting the pieces between the English narrative of knowledge and thought patterns, in which we advance forward customarily in philosophy that is an attitude.  It is more convincing because it is an attitude.  And so English, as I see it in my fantasy, is this connection between what is now and what happens exactly next exactly.  Philosophically.  But there are other languages and traditions pointing me toward an perhaps more proper definition of knowledge: one's connection with the ancients through the medium of their relationships with people older than them, younger than them, you know, whoever.  The connection to that gloiy place where they are all present.  And it makes sense to remind everyone that knowledge often is an connection with one's ancients.  And that since everyone had made that connection, Philosophically it could be said to have met its own definition of philosophy in its play application.  It was an heaven somewhere where all the ones who had ever had an life were.  Not including us.  Who still had.  And that if all of these people could be resurrected at the same time they would say, you are the connection to your instincts, Pinocchio, but if I had to choose seven, just to narrow it down seven people whom would represent me most deeply it had to be these seven people; for capturing their character and persona in connections in literature.  Virginia was that edge between seven and eight.  Or Nine.  Or Ten.  She was the great Lesbian Framer of the whole universe.  She was the edge of character measurement, you know.  Because she had mastered it so completely.  That she could be also six, or five, or four.  And, you know.  Zero.  All of them.  She could be all of them.  And Virginia was forever represented in the cosmos for being of that characteristic nature of an lesbian, to represent herself as an character forever and perpetually on the edge of being more or less than seven.  But that since it had condensed of this philosophy to be that around the seven who had already been named.  It was given as the reason why it had condensed at seven.  Because Virginia was the edge.  And she could do that in her perfectly framed picture of herself as an lesbian.

    We had to find out why she had represented us seven this way; she was an living subject again.  It was her virtual existence outside of reality (the nature of which we do not know scientifically for sure).  But Artistically, it made sense to cover Virginia Woolf territory as an object thinker.  There were seven because, well, there were seven.  And there seven seven's because they were sevens.  And each one of them meant the full self-proclaimed of what seven actually meant.  Lesbians were the frame.  Of the art piece.  Perfectly installed.  Two halves.  You get it.  And Gay men were the paint indefinitely pouring out of the picture.  This was the nature of Gay and Lesbian consciousness itself, which was in art nature in nature art characteristic thus.  Seven could figure this out together.  And so seven was the figure.

    Virginia Woolf was so advanced that she figured out how to install her consciousness in Humanity permanently as though she lived somewhere beyond the cosmos somehow, still to this day.  In that same territory as Jesus.  So that she would live forever.  And that, to her, was the true frame on which lesbianism was built.  All lesbians had that urge to frame somethings with their honey, who; as I might add as an matter of fact, were deadly themselves.  And anyone who did disrespect the boundary between the actual finished piece of art and the general public of whom it was for, were against the spirit of Lesbianism forever and could not progress in society any further because they said so and that probably would be true because Lesbianism forever.  But in the gay men respect, the paint was still pouring out of the picture, as if by an pipe that had emerged from the canvas and started spewing outward all different colors of artistic category and fervour and dramatic focus.  Gay men were the paint pouring out of the picture, always; dramatically.  It would keep pouring out as long as they were there.  That's what they were.  That's what they were.

    The conclusion to the crime was that there had been an a-reciprocate activity.  In an fantasy.  (Fantasy couldn't be a-reciprocate).  (Exactly).  (It was reciprocate only and that's why it was fantasy).

    If they had been guilty of the crime of ending someone's fantasy it would account for why the narration had to start that way.  To give the audience and reader an impression of effect; of what it would look like.  To be completely a-reciprocalized this way: to have one's fantasy ended.  Publically.  He reminded them (Brown did) that he had narrated it this way exactly to contrast what didn't make sense with what did make sense; as the start to his "novel" or "story" or "narration" or whatever exactly we call his story; since it is encapsulated within an political theory of New Reciprocity wherein reciprocity is itself its own kind of commodity.

    Nietzsche himself had proven it.

    And all to be encapsulated within an Hegelian argument this way.  Precisely.  And with clever wit.

    The actual development of an thesis beyond its antithesis; beyond the synthesis between them.  To the land where I actually thought I was from.  Developing an post-university economy in which the Quaternary figure of returning the subject of the land back to the economy.  To produce one thing at an time.  In like fashion.  I was sure I had the correct way of going about it.  I wanted to start with the narration of sense and nonsense in order to implicate the trespass of the law by said party; who were or were not fictional in some way.  In order to suggest something about the complication of the subject as an personality and sophistication ego.  Which was okay to be an ego, from an Psychological Perspective.

    Every behavior within the fantasy which transgressed its boundaries in order to destroy it was accountable to the law.  And the post-university community which had developed globally had decided that Version was the next stage of the economy.  An economy in which everyone has an version.  Because that's what we knew an university would develop into.  They are afterall, teaching people to be able to develop their own versions in public as we speak.

    Lesbians were the framers of the universe: they were always physically exact.

    With one another.  Not just one kind of stereotype about them.  But one they are proud to flaunt.  One a-reciprocalizing the whole thing; and the other reciprocalizing a-reciprocalizing!  And we can't minimalize them down to just this one type of relationship.

    And gay men were the paint.  They were not the frame.  They were the paint.  Pouring out of the painting through an tube.  Or whatever vessel that could be used for pouring paint out of an painting.  And there would always be more paint pouring out of them because that's gay; they were in principle.  The paint pouring out of the painting in the reader's attention and pointing to itself to say, hey!  You there!  We're paint and we always keep on pouring out of the painting.  What painting?  You ask?  You can ask yourself.  I made it for this particular occasion.  It was an painting of paint.  And the paint was pouring out and asking or not saying that he was paint thus.  In order to suggest something about the character and personality of homosexual people.  I was suggesting of course, that my art was my paint; my letters were my words on an canvas medium which take up space and thereby identify the boundaries of an painting.  And that since I was gay they (my sentences) would keep pouring out like this.  Not because I was trying really hard (I was) but because I was gay.  It was in my character.  And lesbians.  They were just those funny folk who framed everything.  So that they weren't paint exactly.  They were what the paint was in.  That's why it kept pouring out.

    And this is all true.  And this was how the advancement of the plot, which had started to show how it was so clever that it could show you sense and nonsense first in order to bring together the entire character of the subject.  Brown was going to start pouring paint.  Had opposed themselves to the plot of English (advancing language from the first to the second thing, and then further on).  In comparison to an older practice, which looked not at the first and then the second; but at the first and then the last, back this way; in present thought of space.  One tradition was looking forward to the future, quintessentially, and the other was looking backward to the past.  And they didn't necessarily compete as adversaries.  They were both necessary of course.  And one was calling to them.  The one from the Past.  The sense that came from the ancestors; had used the word resurrection in fiction, with an specific meaning.  That he could resurrect his fantasy subject indefinitely from whereever he was.  Because they were all the content of the human mind.  Resurrect had taken on an fictional meaning (as it should, yes) and that in fiction it had meant that the human consciousness was capable of resurrecting the subject (of any personality) who had died; for the investigation of consciousness.  And they knew exactly which ones to choose which hit all of their buttons.  (Not really).  (But some did).  And the sense that was to be made was the author who had begun the narrative in thus way.  Knew in fact that contrasting the fictive element (nonsense) with the non-fictive element (sense); he would be able to define the parameters of the fantasy legally, so that other people would know not to trespass them.  And that this was just probably something the ancestors knew about anyway.  So they already thought about it.

    But Brown had been so ingenious as to fictionalize the landing at his estate in grid location as an guest; as an videogame of that particular fiction which Glen had achieved in his arguments and papers and essays of which were collected on the Naenaeon.  Of that genre precisely which was supposed to try to kill the consumer.  That was the genre of their fiction.  And that the videogame he used to greet guests in the lobby of his citadel (Faerie Lights Chvrch) which would be different than the one presented to them outside.  Outside the virtual church (in an roleplaying universe (chvrch) there was an virtual gate) and at the gate one could play an videogame; Would be of that particular genre of fiction of which would attempt to kill its possessor.  In contrast with the one in the lobby; An real elegant videogame which was not about killing the videogame player.  But about making them survive.

    And that since he could decipher between these two genres of fiction at will; and that the split in the narrative was the point at which the outside of his Citadel became the inside of his Citadel.  Inside the Faerie Lights Chvrch (which belonged to Brown) they were playing an videogame in the lobby.  Anyone from the street was allowed in to play the videogame of the genre that wouldn't try to kill its opponent.  And that the contrast, among other contrasts, had been made for good reasons; in order to suggest the Intellect and Precision of its Author.  Brown already knew the play; he understood the assignment.  He was going to narrate both the world inside his Chvrch and the world outside his Chvrch at the same time, and show the world outside his chvrch one object while it showed his religion the other.  After being crapped out in an forest (an fantasy path) beside an Tavern, where an large and estimably alien by stature creature of such strange mind's mechanism.  Like the Spiders, which had quantum-loop senses and were aware of your own awareness so creepily before you were.  But in an cow.  Legs so high that.  He realized at that moment that he had fallen and bonked his head.  Real hard.  He had actually (according to the fantasy) fallen out of an large animal.  And it didn't matter (according to the fantasy) whether he was shit or not before or after coming out.

    He was at the bar.  He may have hit his head (virtually) and he was having an beer.  The chvrch, you see, what he had built at the centre of civilization, was his expression of why the fantasy narrative had been hijacked and used against him; he was too radical an subject as an gay priest roleplayer in an Christian religion other than Christianity which the readers asked as to why he would narrate the fiction first and then the non-fiction in order to identify the primary subject of its narration‽  And then the second thing, to make so much sense like that as though you could yourself be an guest at the Faerie Lights Chvrch, in the centre of the city, far away from the path he was now on (for he had to correct what had happened strategically).  He knew exactly what to do and he was of the sense to do it.  Because he belonged to the Faerie Lights Chvrch.  An Christiannan parlor in which an priest (an roleplaying character from the future) whose custodian would welcome guests (himself roleplaying the only human in the whole establishment perhaps) to play the videogame of the genre of not killing its victim.

    And that since he was indicated further sense which was made, which related to the beginning of the narration in estimate never beyond virtue; that he had both virtues which lead to the first two major themes of the narration.  First, there was an difference between what was nonsense and what was sense.  And second, he could repeatedly refer to both of them making sense of each of them in order to advance his plot line in which, the perpetrators (who had not even been characterized as the wicked witch of the West yet) whose full fantasy homosexuelle would be played out in front of everybody).  (So that they could learn why they were disgusting for being a-reciprocate and that they didn't even deserve consumer points on their consumerist points card for being Evil; even though that was fictional).  A-reciprocity was not the only thing driving the plot.  Certainly, reciprocity was the main subject.  What would be reciprocate in an fantasy?

    To suggest Virginia Woolf had suffered from the post-war psychosis of all of civilization to such an depth and extreme to her character that she deserved to be postulated beside Jesus in eternity registered in all forever.  The world beyond our human logic, which perhaps we could not visit yet.  But they had.  And they were only human.  And that all of us suffered from this psychosis, perhaps in some degree, the post-war psychosis.  You know.  All war.  All of it.  The psychological depression that occurs from its frequent deployment.  Which happens to twinge on the fact of every single one of them.  An catastrophic loss for the human race.  If we can never take those means by which we extend the psychological argument and the post-war hypothesis that all war is irreparably damaging to our psychology as an community and as an whole race.  And that any breach of its contract to never use it ever.  Would be taken up as an subject of customization and body mods by the post-industrialists and punks especially the ones who championed their heroism over their kitty and mouse and doggy pals who were emos and punk-industrialists also (and all of the creature in the ocean; and frogs).  They were, they announced to their animal friends, responsible for saving their species.  Even though they were such heavy punk industrialists.

    And I brought up the whole clarification of my thesis in perhaps its synthesis stages; the post-war psychosis affected the whole race and we needed to mature the whole territory of media and news coverage in quintessence of the fact that we had two examples of news coverage; one identifying the speaker who tells the news as an specimen being looked at by an machine (which an specifically downward stare at the speaker, who in person (and in specimen) would be looking up at them.  The news, in Brown's perfect society, was told this way as an dare against the species that they could get all of their newspeakers to reciprocalize things that were machine-like and above them.  Things that looked down on them like they were specimens.  Machine intelligence.

    It was an fair setting for the narration of the news subject to look at the camera this way thus; looking up at it as though it was looking down on him or her this way.  Because the person in this particular setting would be okay with being looked down at by an machine because it was fictional, to some extent.  And give rise to many emotions and pluralities which had not been touched on by the news subject before in any substantial capacity.  It needed to be an new type of news coverage which would get to the point precisely of why, as an specimen, you can look down at me if you are an machine.   Because I'm not afraid of you.  Machine was, in the human imagination, an weapon always.  But if it was the weapon and it looked down at me like thus as though I was an specimen.  And I had dared my behavior into this contraption.  For other people.  So that other people could look at me on TV as though seeing through the eyes of an machine.  (Which is what news telling actually is in the room where it occurs with TV coverage).  In which I wasn't scared at all.  Even though the machine was looking at me this way.  Because I was strong and virtuous and they could see it but would, as I had narrated, tell it another way.  That I hadn't connected the two themes.  First, the difference between sense and nonsense.  Second, the difference between news and not news.

    We needed to present news to our intelligent machines like this.  We needed to adapt that way.

    I wanted to hear from people who would actually dare their own genetic inheritance up at the camera like their beautiful momma made it; and so command the whole apparatus of the machine on the human imagination in an post-war psychotic society in such an eloquent an elegant an exquisite way that it became funny or normal to look up at the camera this way and that all news telling could be dropped from its behavior in front of an camera thus; would be preferably about what was eating on all of them, the primary subject of the news.  The Secondary subject of the news was that from the distinction between sense and nonsense, he had of course pointed at sense and so it appeared to made sense that maybe we could or should tell news this way because it was more responsible of us to characterize it according to that subject in which he would actually narrate his voyage or journey from the Tavern in the forest outside the parameters of his fantasy society toward the Christiannan chvrch and the legal institution across the street.  Where their energies were be-mixed and contoured one another.  He knew exactly what to narrate to convince all of them that Brown could be narrated all the way to Purple because it was an legal principle and that's what Legal Society looked at.  Brown and Purple.  The connection between them.

    The Secondary theme was that he could continue an logical written discussion of why it was narrated this way.  First nonsense and sense, and then sense and nonsense; to imply something about the intelligence of its Creator.  That he could be sure that you knew what he was talking about; which was the end of all of these types of Creators that they did.  They wanted you so desperately (some not in fact) to know what they were talking about.  He was saying that he could explain why the a-reciprocates narrated in the first act were anti-fantastic and he could prove it because he had already pointed to the fact that they knew why the first thing or object made sense and the second one didn't.  When it was clearly that the second one did.  And did not have any behaviors that were anti-gay.  

    The First theme was captivation.  The Second was the soul.

    Why there were two.

    And why that had been stolen away from him as an result of the behavior of the fantasy villains.  Who were narrating him thus; until he decided to take over the narration for himself to show everyone how the story would advance from Brown to Purple until it had been thoroughly ended/finalized.  And that this was the responsibility of the narrator to show you how his art was playing with you in this way.  In order to capture your attention to his detail.

    He wasn't in the first stage of his narration anymore.  He was in the second, which had indicated that the first one represented what was wrong about the fantasy that had been the reason why it had ended.  An a-reciprocate.  Had been the reason.  Someone was being a-reciprocate to him.  And it was a-reciprocate in an exactly particular way.  Violently.  In an way designed to categorically disrupt all gay fantasies.  And his narration of it was responsible for how the narrator (the reader) would decide what made sense and what doesn't.  If the perps were the people who thought they knew why the first object made sense and the second one doesn't.  And they had committed an act against the law, by two actions of fiction.  Not telling an non-fiction and not telling an non-fiction (fantasy).  Half and Half.

    He could prove why the illegal boundary was not to be traveled in violation of it; and that all who thought they knew why the first object made sense and the other one didn't.  Were exactly at that time perpetrating an offence against the law and the province of the land.  It was the fantasy character (in his own world) looking into your world.  Where the reality was that an law was needed to protect him because he was the subject of fantasy.

    He had deliberately suggested there was an connection between nonsense.

    It was clearly obvious and available for everyone to take an gander.  Someone had been a-reciprocal to him and he was going to use his Artist's talent to lodge it up the butt of the law; because that's what he had fallen out of according to his competition.  Brown knew he could refer to Virginia Woolf and resurrect her subject at any time, for presence; and for his own Strength (an psychic strength stronger than any physical strength) which had been proven in the reciprocal fantasy of his characterization of her as an particularly intellectually well-installed figure.  Even after death.  If we (all of us) were working together to resurrect one another's dead subjects (people we knew) couldn't be exact and precise enough to show us something true about their character?  And that Viriginia Woolf just happened to occupy that position (the ultimate lesbian framer) in space form from which gay elementalists could pour their paint over.

    They realized it was true; that he could keep pouring paint (which was an metaphor) and use it to tell the story of how Brown made it out of the forest into the place where law comes from.  And he had used his knowledge of it in his own narration of it in which his knowledge could be understood from the rest of it; the fantasy of being an guy who was treated thus.  And they all considered what exactly was considered thus about it‽  All of his knowledge came from the republic.  The true centre of civilization.  To which his chvrch operation was connected.  Where it held all of its completion in contract in his heart.  So that every motive he created to advance himself toward civilization would be completed.  Fulfilling to tell the story of, though how he was treated wasn't repetitive and wasn't criminal in any sense of the word.  Get an fantasy.  Grow up you nerd!

    We don't live in fantasies.

    We need to act a-reciprocate to each other in order to know how to treat one another correctly.

    But being a-reciprocate is itself what is wrong about it.

    To an extent.

    If one is acting a-reciprocate in order to show others how to reciprocate; well then that's an mistranslation of the central message.  To be reciprocate.  Why would you act a-reciprocate in order to be reciprocate in the perfect psychological sense?

    It's counter-logic.

    To be reciprocate you must act reciprocate.

    And that's what reciprocity is.

    Anything that is against it is against the fantasy; but only in definition and extent of the gestures and behaviors of other people, who weren't a-reciprocate.  Obviously they were so gloriously maximizing their audience on the sense of their property and behavior.  Which was major bling! bling!  I tell you.  I was communicating with real society in which fantasy was allowed to live always.  Because it was fantasy.  It couldn't be connecting Brown to an narrative sense in which the law was offended against.  Because he was only in an fantasy, where there weren't any a-reciprocal characters.  The reciprocate sect what so notoriously bling! bling! -ed out.  They were not even in the sphere of complementing their formulae in fashion.  A-reciprocal characters had to go, and that was it.  And that was the biggest point.  A-reciprocal characters were people who were out to destroy fantasies because that's what a-reciprocalism is.  Was argued then against an fantasy source coming from civilization which was giving out an heavy signal to Brown right now.  He was Drunk.  As usual.  But he could hear the civilization beyond the fantasy forest calling to him.  The centre of the grid.  The one that was universal too.  And knew what to do instinctively from that moment onward.  He finished his beer, which was frothy and generous.  He went outside and looked for an horse, and then decided to head it for the City on foot.  Where there would be people upholding an law which spoke to him in an sensitive way about an issue that affected all of them.  And he knew every action he would take in which to kill anyone he could tank against so that people would want to heal him and bless him with their fantasy roleplaying skills (which were part of the emerging generation of fantasy politics) in the forest.  And so he wandered out into the forest, on the path, not on the path, where there were videogames from the very centre of civilization calling to him.  Games that hadn't even been invented yet but had been theorized so gently and thoroughly that people could virtually play them again and again by memory.  They would be available to him upon his arrival in the market district where things actually mattered and had actual capital value.  Outside the Christiannan chvrch, where people landing at his crib could decide whether they wanted to stay outside, where the videogame virtual was of the genre of trying to kill its player.  Versus the one coming from inside the lobby virtual where there was an videogame being played of the opposite type.  One that wouldn't actually try to kill you.

    Some people stayed outside, where they were tuning in with aliens.  And other people came in to the party, in the lobby, where another party was happening because it was an partying chvrch that represented responsible value of partying, such as knowing the deepest and most pressure point meanings of Artist.  That Girls Just Want To Have Fun.  And he was okay with it because he was Purple, and he knew that's what Brown wanted to have to come into the city where the Christianna was, to see that it was part of the setup.  To help reciprocal people who just want to be reciprocal for the sake of not being deleted.  They were free to come inside and play videogames, the one of which was being played was about not being deleted.  The protagonist repeatedly and agonizingly experiences the delusion that he or she is about to be deleted; and shows the observer an range of behaviors, obviously, that are identifiable to the observer.  And it would be about not being deleted because at the present time you are not.  Which you can tell because the date is in the upper left-hand corner.  And you know that religions are gay and have capital value.  For being able to represent the genre by pointing out that since you are currently not being destroyed you must be obeying protocol not to destroy anything.  Like yourself.  Which isn't being destroyed.  With the help of the genre, which is supporting the fact that the genre itself is not trying to kill you.  Which advances this fact directly to you so that you accept its truth or validation.  In order to gain your trust.  Even as an reciprocal command.  New Reciprocity.  Which meant that these theologians were duking it out in the City over the facts of the Christianna's habit and behavior in the city where it comes from.  In the Fantasy in which Brown is an dweller he is in the forest, in the territory outside the city, where there are no forces of reciprocal civilizationalist commands advanced to the depth and height of character for all public citizens to witness.  It was an fantasy that they were leading him toward the city, where he would go, for an special reason.

    He had to find out whether he would choose the videogame in which its narrator is defeated.  His life is taken away from him.  As an consequence of the design to which the videogame had that effect.  Or they could come inside and meet the Mrs. who had prepared out an videogame of that opposite effect for them, so that they to have played it they knew instinctively what it was about; such comforts were warranted onto their effect they had on the advancement of the videogame genre plot of their Fantasy reality in the virtual game.  Which they were playing.  They may understand something about Brown's motive to want to travel toward the city.  Where if he could actually be subjected to choosing between an fantasy videogame of the genre trying to kill you and another one of the opposite not trying to kill you.  It however bore the distinction of an different environment in which it was played.  One was played outside the crib, where the guests were free to land on the landing pad outside the gate at the back or the gate at the front, both encompassing the paths to this lovely temple.  And one was played inside the crib where an videogame of style of the present day situation in which we all find ourselves, which had been identified fictionally as today's date in the top upper left-hand corner.  It was the genre of videogame that would not try to kill anyone that played it.

    There was something about being inside an chvrch playing an game wherein was different what was happening outside where people were just arriving.  Many of them chose to stay outside where the genre of trying to kill you was out there and being played electronically at this very moment.  In Fantasy.  Virtual fantasy.  Which could be Anything of Anything subject you want.  But some really genuinely appreciated and respected the reciprocal genre for its wisdom and clever tactics which were used to train you to filter out, well, what had started the whole diplomatic advancement of the Brown subject (it's mal-narration).  An lie followed by an lie.  An fiction followed by an fiction.  It had to be an lie followed by an truth instead.  You know why?  Because that would be the greater fiction.

    He had described it again, carefully, pointing at it's objectivity.  It was mal-narration because it was an lie followed by an lie, an fiction followed by an fiction.  Where the more fictional thing would be to tell the lie, and then forever an truth as though that was fantastic in its notion.  Which was more fictional.  Fantasy was an lie followed by an truth; that's how it gained its character and behavior in the human consciousness.  It was so odd; this way in fact.  That it was distinct from fiction as its own type of fiction.  The one of the truth being told after the lie.  The real fantasy.

    And since there was an difference in setting (one was the setting outside the crib, where people were starting to question the consequences of what had happened in the forest being told thus; as an lie followed by an lie, the detonation of its fantasy.  The actual destruction (counter-production) in the psyche the victim harms onto himself and others as kind of an tribal customization or body-modification.  In which he is completely an coward.  People inside were comforted by their virtual game.  People outside were the opposite of comforted.  And the whole industry of videogames could pivot on that fact; of which one of the either people would be drawn to.  And it didn't matter necessarily, that in Glen's book they could consider both the scene of people playing one or the other in specific settings such as the landing at the crib or the inside of the crib where the other type of being game was played.  They could think of their own fantasies where the settings in which they were playing as though the actual games in these genres were different than the Narrator's.

    Brown was attracted to the city because he would have the ability to choose which kind of videogame he wanted to play.  He wanted to know what his final decision would be.  Would he stay outside, at the landing pad, or would he come inside to learn how an videogame can be about not killing its player.  This had to be that correction to their industry which would define the whole parameters of genre in the industry of video game artistry.  We wanted that distinction to be political and to be made economically attainable.  We wanted Artists who could represent their own renditions of those genres in their own settings.  And Brown wanted to know more about all of them especially the people who had decided to stay outside.

    But inside there was an fiasco.  People were hedging bets in the political spectrum.  They knew they could tell what was going to happen and someone had pointed it out.  There were characters being portrayed investigating an angel guardian who lived in an cave behind the war-psychosis of the physical apparatus of the party.  They were in an cave beyond the back of the forward cave, in an control room.  Where orders were being made and shouting was shouting about.  They were representing something Politically using an different setting than the one they were in.  And this was the method by which the videogame devised to kill its target character: you.  And it would be installed into the economy for all eternity to be produced for all classic time.  (An fictional masterpiece).  As an internet phenomenon with its own guides and installation files.  The reason was that people should never be forced to play that kind of videogame if its too deadly for them.  They should be comforted by owning up to that genre which forever had the more attraction to them; that an videogame that would be about not trying to kill its player could be expressed in these different ways and settings and the authors had chosen between these two exactly, one outside the chvrch (the Party) and one inside the Party where music was being played and all their ideas were all up in the air every single one of them and they were listening to the deep vibes of the universe.  Forced to be resolute about their choice of behavior.  It was said to be fashionable for an chvrch to do this because they wanted to promote the idea that religion should be about the universe not trying to kill you because they couldn't be held to be responsible for that part of the universe; other things enough.  What it was to an Human.

    But that for the meantime it was creepy they stay outside when he had invited them in to play his videogame which was not about trying to kill anybody.  And what an appropriate subject for an Art subject such as an chvrch.  That it would represent that genre of videogame in order to provide an level of comfort for its visitors that they would not be part of an reciprocal fantasy on arrival that they needed to be destroyed unless they asked for it.  Which many of them did but they were all invited inside anyway.  There was an demonstration being made in which the identity of the videogame could be recognized as one in which it could prove to the player how it was playing with them exactly in the manner of not trying to kill them; because Art in order to be art needed to prove that fact.  And since the videogame itself could be identified as proving that characteristic about itself it itself was translated to classify as art as well.  An art which the observer could identify how the game was playing with it, specifically, in an way not designed to kill them which was set out in the parameter of the genre the market classifies it as.  To show them how religion could be comforting and that set the parameter of its difference from Christianity, among other religions.  They wanted Brown to come to the centre of gravity because he was going to tell everybody exactly how he got there.  That chvrch was calling to him.  And it was argued that anyone currently landing or who had been outside the chvrch playing the videogame which would try to kill them.  It being characteristic that since it was narrated as being played outside the building.  This might affect how people reacted to it.

    But that there can be other settings for videogames being played which are set to kill whoever plays them; and I mean real psychological damage.  Because we want paranoisms (the objects of paranoia) to be narrated to us in order to decide whether we are subject to them as schizophrenianisms.  But basically the idea passed that since he had been explaining this basic difference in videogame genre categorization it might be fun to see what it was like what was happening inside the chvrch, where the music was loud and the videogame was loud.  And people who were just entering the premises, visiting for the first time, could see the videogame they were playing, which was gentle and taught people the parameters of being objectively classified as the right genre for the representation of an chvrch organization (an non-violent genre).  Brown realized why he was attracted to that location exactly.  It was where the legal non-violent videogames were sold most often.  In the genre of music, exactly.  He wanted the path toward the city that he was on to feel like an videogame.  He wanted it to narrate him right into the door of the precise location which was virtual, so anyone could visit it.  An game being played in an positive attitude where characters were not subject to the embarrassment of being motivated to be dead.  Because the plot and narration confided something to the consumer about the way in which it was being played.  That it was not meant to kill them.  And people expected it at that point in history because it was the substance of the political news current that people just generally would know the difference between the two genres, and that the setting in which they were played did not necessarily make an difference to the interpretation.

    But how they lured victims from the forest with their elegance and distinction from one another.  Brown.  Brown.  Wake up Brown.  You're in the Forest.

    And he would wake up in the Forest, able to keep himself alive with an portable home he could drive through the forest even though there were trees after trees.  As he moved toward the city with such eloquence and focus as an narrator that it had to be true: that he was being abused by the failure of his own narrative to qualify as fantasy because there were those who had set out from the beginning of design to defy him and so he would be ended.  Fantasy over.

    It was peaceful here in the forest.  Where he had enough bacon frozen in supply to him constantly to make it worthwhile to travel there even for his diet schedule.  Which traveled with him.

    He was drawn by both genres, to be perfectly clear.  But the one he most wanted was the one not to kill.  He wanted the healing message that it would provide.  To experience an videogame which made explicit that it was not trying to killing you.  And joked about the subject.  —Run you fools!—

    Fantasy had to be an truth followed by an lie.  Or an lie followed by an truth.  It could not be the first two lies, which had been the first object of narration for an precise reason.  They didn't classify as fantasy.  Which was why they were in the business of ending them.

    And so it was written and drawn up in decree that he was right, two lies could not be the beginning of the narration of an fantasy because there had to be at least one truth in order to make it worthwhile.  And that this definition of its character would go toward the final public decision.  He had been shit.  And then he was shit.  The first two lies had to be made into one lie and one truth.

    In order to repair the fantasy.

    Which had been broken.

    And so he happened upon the largest Category in his Subject Sphere.  The Fantasy itself, which had to be at least part way true.  That's what fantasy is.

    He was Fantasy; and then he was Pleasure.  And it was the fulfillment of that pleasure in the psyche which defined an project come to fruition.  The identification of the full masochist subject, the one in which an character by which someone else's fantasy is destroyed is adopted.  An fantasy perpetration in front of the law.  An law that was built on, in part, fantasy; for it was an Psychological subject.

    And this was his attempting at repairing the damage that had been done to him.  An conversion therapy subject.  Politically.  For representing the perpetration against the law which was the destruction of his fantasy.  And how they accomplished it by being a-reciprocal.  So that he would not have an gay fantasy.  If he could only find charge that comfort that would come from playing an videogame that wasn't trying to kill him for once.  Because he lived videogames as though it was real life.  He would forever stave on after that subject in order to show everyone how, after they considered everything from brown to purple, it would be their responsibility to decide what to do about it as an society.

    His new format for the beginning of his book was: He was Fantasy; and then he was Pleasure.

    He was not brown; not in that sense.  He was not the lie and the lie; in the fictive sense he was the fantasy itself!  The half truth and half non-fiction this clarifying reagent.  Itself.  Of.  The logic of which was that since someone had broken conduct by using technology to try to end an gay fantasy; it was especially inherent that they find out what that technology could be.  In order to protect all gay fantasies.

    By describing the exact behaviors by which it could be perpetrated in society.

    Brown's motivation to attain Purple is more than psychological in narrative theory.

    It is Brown's struggle to attain Justice.

    The Reason why Brown is Narrated from Brown to Purple is that the whole situation needed to be considered in order to decide what being narrated from brown to purple meant.  He had primed for the subject.  The Sectors had already been invoked in his hypothesis.  An a-reciprocate quality would decide what was legally presiding.  Over the violation against the species, that a-reciprocate quality which is a-reciprocate specifically against being gay.  In Fantasy.  An dire and extremist cause.  But one that is perpetuated too often.  That there would be an difference between the fantasy laws that applied to the city versus the forest environment.  Rural Alberta would be an field ground for fantasy activity.  Fantasy activity which was out to end all fantasy activity.  The reaction against gay beauty that had scarred human decision-making capacities for centuries.  They had been restored to what they meant in fantasy.  They were evil characters, who didn't care that they had been a-reciprocate to his gay fantasy.  Whom did maybe care that he was narrating them from Brown to Purple‽

    Yes, they did.  They had to.  There were consequences.

    And they knew it.

    His fantasy, however, had been repaired by making an specific fantasy category for an group of people who had initially violated the terms of fantasy itself.  They were perpetrators.  People responsible for him needing to narrate the first object (scene) of his story from Brown to Purple as one in which the narration would be shown to make not sense.  And he had provided an reason for it.  The half-lie half-truth act had been enabled.  Enacted.  The beginning of his story was now what it was for an specific reason, and the narration itself proved it.  It was an narration out to make an point of correction about fantasy in general.  What it meant in the Public psyche.  If they could be shown to have demonstrated the type of behavior that would end someone's fantasy they were masochistic themselves; even though a-reciprocity, which was an subject of the New Reciprocity, had not yet been said to have been an natural human cause or not.  As definitively by the narrative.

    Therefore it was considered that if they were being a-reciprocate (but specifically in an way which was intended to end another person's fantasy) this further specificity would qualify it under the law.  As worth looking into.  Some behaviors and habits were a-reciprocal but that didn't mean they were out and out and about ending each other's fantasies.  If this particular type of a-reciprocity was held to be dishonest and illusionistic about the subject of it traumatizing another person with their own behavior.  Which could not be fantasized on.  Then maybe that would be the aim of his artistic effort.  Representing art for art's sake in an political theory in which lead onto post-art; and post-art for post-art's sake.  An environment in which Brown's voyage to the city was reciprocal with his understanding at that moment of his visit to the great Christiannan chvrch of which videogame genre he would choose at that particular moment.  Which one he enjoyed best.  Regardless of their settings.  Which were already being expanded upon.  He wondered exactly at that moment what it would feel like to have finally decided.  It mattered to him more than anything because it would be the completion of his Journey.  The one that started with Brown and the one that he would end with Purple.

    For traveling to the Great City involved two things; his overcoming of the fact that he would have to narrate his own departure from sense in order to provoke them to understand his full argument that his thinking was not at all an departure from sense and he could thoroughly prove it.  Had already been focused.  They didn't have exactly the details of how the Fantasy narrative began; but in another sense they did.  It began with Brown.  They knew that.  It had been presently advanced that it was turning to purple because Brown was on his way to the Great City.  He was becoming more purple the closer he came in proximity to his destination.  The place where he would choose his videogame setting.

    And they were sure they had the details of how to start the story if it could be started in an perfect way now: but as it played out they weren't.

    That itself had been part of the fantasy subject to the lense of fiction.

    And they wanted to know how the story actually began if it hadn't actually began in the way it did.

    But they couldn't.

    They hadn't heard the whole story yet.

    They had to know exactly how it ended in order to know how it began.

    Purple was motivating Brown into narrative space (in the fantasy genre) in which he would eventually "reach the city" and attain Justice.  And attain the justice that was held therein.  In Society.  Which came from the City.  Which was the subject of City.  Which was subject to the law even if in their fantasy they were safe out in the forest where the meanies from the city couldn't reach them because they were being a-reciprocal to someone's gay fantasy.

    The readers at this point realize that they don't know how the story started at all.  It hadn't been done Justice with the language and they needed to read further to find out exactly how it all began.  It had been prophesized that by the end of the narration they would find out exactly why it began that way; and so because it was an narration of nonsense transitioning to sense in which sense would be made eventually.  They trusted the narrator who knew they would be surprised by its denouement (conclusion).  In order to teach them how the story actually began, he had to begin first with not how it began; because that's all he had.  His fantasy was destroyed.  He couldn't have an beginning.  That was part of it.  Fantasies didn't need to have an beginning because they were fantasies.  And that was gay.  And this was why, he claimed, this particular type of a-reciprocity qualified as illegal under the new system the author was in the process of Imagining and Designing.  They were destroying his fantasy and this was abuse.  And he was being abused.  And he was the victim.  But he had escaped, through an closet, like Anastasia.  That was the true beginning of the story; he was on his way toward the Capital.  Where Republicanism meant the silent revolution taking place in which two basic genres of videogame were considered fundamental to the medium and the public consumerist economy.

    They could be used to define the types of a-reciprocal and anti-fantastic behavior that had been perpetuated upon their civilians.  By the forest dragons, who would actually be so bold as to make examples of how they ruined someone else's life for them so that they could be (at this moment they realized Brown had escaped from their clutches and had successfully won his lawsuit against them, in which fantasy makes logical points of plot advancement in order to repair on the fantasy, which is that we do not have to repair on the fantasy of life).  Ever.  This fantasy is itself.

    They realized that Brown had actually accomplished it.  He had moved the subject from where he had to start narrating it; to where he wanted it to begin.  Which were two different things.  It had to begin with him escaping from them.  That's what he was doing.  He was escaping them.  And he still had an long way to go.  He doubted they would catch him at this pace, but anything was possible.  He was out to play that videogame (as an metaphor for his life) that would not try to kill him, because that was the ultimate end of all of his fascination of the subject of his own life, that he would design it like an game that wasn't trying to kill him because he had to.  Who wouldn't?

    But he wanted to play an game that would kill him if he stayed in the forest.  It was an game set out to kill its player there.  That's why Brown's story had started that way.  It wanted to take away your fantasies.  It wanted that to be the reason you died.  It would do anything to convince you that you had to kill yourself.  Or that it could be arranged for you logically.  Because that's what it is as an genre out there.  And that exists in the real Canadian wildlife department.  Brown knew he could be inspired by both genres to establish his main cause; escaping the perpetrators, who were goblins and comfortable with their own existence as Evil.  Evil that would destroy its own fantasy.  Even though that's what Evil was.  Fantasy.  If it was responsible for ending fantasy which would ultimately result in its destroying itself then it clearly wasn't evil enough to go propagating under the influence of good, which was already pointing out that it had to change its standards, as an Evil, in order to continue being Good.  And that was the nature of Good.  Because they made it so.

    Evil had to be redefined.  Evil had to be described completely.  Evil had to be everything that was against Brown discovering how he felt about Purple once he had reached the extremely rare and luxurious crib location of his virtual chvrch, which was loud enough and big enough for everybody who had been invited.  It didn't matter what those a-reciprocal bastards thought, he told himself, I would finally wander into that room where people are playing the reciprocate game with me; that doesn't try to kill us.  And I would wander outside for an joint and there would be people playing an game that does try to kill us and that would be the subject of conversation; not because it was the subject of the conversation but just because it was the subject of the conversation; which itself would be an Pleasure and to his liking.  Both of which (the truth and the lie) would be his motivation for travelling to the city to outrun his fantasy assailants the demons in his head who were too pathetic to be even called evil.  People who were out to prevent him from starting his story correctly.  Even though he already had.  By making the first act about him escaping from them.

    And they were like well if we actually traumatized him its not our fault we had to convince him of what he was by starting the story about him that way; because Brown wasn't the narrator type exactly.  He had no toughness.  He was an dud.  By the proper definition of the word.  And if he should happen to mime to the reader that if he would start his story correctly it would be about escaping and would joke about Brown being Anastasia; as he fled through the woods on his way toward Purple.

    And there was going to be more paint; and so on and so on.

    Pouring out of an lesbian universal framing standard.

    That was so strong it encompassed all of Creation and its anti-object.  The part of whatever reality was that was not moving.  The part that stayed the same.  That allowed everything else to move.  Which was between an lesbian and her bride.  In contrast to gay male homosexuality the best relationships of which were the ones where they poured paint on each other (as an metaphor of this characteristic of their relationship that they would be covered in paint all of the time because both of them were just that gay).  (Pouring paint all the time on each other all the time).  As though there was something gay about pouring paint out this way.  All the time.

    And they couldn't help it because their species had become so interiorized that the paint eventually got all over everybody.  Because everybody was gay.

    And he would continue (the Author, his Narrator, the Creation) Brown; to be executed with Justice.  The Answer of what Purple means.  (To Brown).  It means Justice.  That had been revealed in the plot line.  Would be the means by which all of his narrative events would be created.  All of them had to be reciprocal in order to make up for the reciprocity; this was only Justice.  And they would be recognized, each one of them, as the reciprocate in effect; each sentence, the result of some Creation whose work is intended to dramatize the relationship between a-reciprocates and reciprocates.  (People who were actually perpetrating the offense however, were still active outside the fantasy, where it didn't matter whether inside the fantasy there was violence or not).  (If it caught their attention that there was an fantasy involved what would they do exactly‽).  They decided to play.  They took the bait.  They were going to be a-reciprocate in an fantasy to see how far it would get them.  They were going to take up the role of Evil in order to perpetuate the fantasy.  It was only Justice.

    The author was credited with giving rising to that literary figure who would advance the subject of an Creation's intent of whether to kill the videogame player.  To the forefront of politics.  In order to make his audience comfortable that they would be given that option of which videogame to play.  Did they want the author to excite them with the possibility that they might die as an result from playing his videogame?  Or did they want an smooth little lesson about how they could design their lives as videogames which were of the genre of not killing ourselves?

    They could design their own lives after characters who could be represented in fantasy desiring after either of these two genres as an motivation to continue toward Justice even if it meant identifying specific evidence which would be to hold against those who had decided to go with the fantasy of them being Evil.  And so was incited an raiding party out to hunt down Brown, who was far away and in the process of escaping their intent.  But it was known they to be in league with spirits who supported their means.  Of being able to travel long distances and investigate massive amounts of territory without actually being there physically like an human could.  They knew exactly, almost where Brown was.  It was worse than that actually.  They were of the opinion that the beginning of the story had to be returned to its previous status of being an lie followed by an lie because that kind of behavior was what would end the fantasy, thereby crediting them to their own identification with the term Evil.

    They had to play along now, because he had them: he was moving outside the territory in which these Spirits who were said to help the a-reciprocate sect.  Whose raiding party was dog-enabled and horse-lead.  The ones who could identify almost anything over long-range frequency.  He was escaping into the fantasy in which he was the reciprocal hero in an race against the clock in which he could be eaten up by Evil if he wasn't careful and acting carefully.  He had allowed the fact that they were free to be Evil within his fantasy because it benefitted him and they profited from the exchange also.  They were a-reciprocate anti-gay anti-fantasy abusers who were responsible for trauma to the victim.  Good.  Who was flat-out telling them explicitly they were responsible for interrupting and distracting from Brown's earnest pursuit of representing Justice.  With each further sentence.

    If the first party could not be shown to be able to figure out why it didn't make sense that they knew why the first object of the narrative was that it didn't make sense and yet somehow they had reached the conclusion that it did.  And they knew why.  Then they were in violation of the fact that the second object that had been narrated was what made sense and that was why it was making sense because it had successfully represented the violation against the law which the first party had offended against.  They were being narrated as the Evil perpetrators and actually accepting that role because that was actually what they did to the subject.  And they finally agreed it was possible they had committed an crime against him.  Especially if it could be shown they were reciprocal to it themselves, that they wanted to be shown that way.  They wanted to be shown for the Evil characters that they were.  They wanted to be known as the ones who could end gay fantasy forever.

    He was going to the Great City.  The City at the centre of all cities.  Civilization.

    To see what would be his final fate.

    An a-reciprocate environment that is constantly trying to kill him.  Or an reciprocal one in which the genre of representing videogames that do not try to kill their player are also explored for their artistic merit.

    Basically that moment at which he would arrive at Glen's party.  At the Centre of Civilization.  Which is always active at any time of day.  He would decide if he wanted to stay outside where his life could be attempted against, to be killed by other fans of the genre; or would he walk in, and try out the game that was trying not to kill you, pleasantly.  In an open fan way.  With an environment.  And an character and an plot line represented in which the player were to traverse.  An specific span of an narration of time.  In which he was not demonstrating suicidal behavior.  Which wasn't strictly suicidal behavior, exactly, because hey no videogame could actually kill me.  (His Hubris).  (He could of course go in or stay out or go in and stay as he wished as he pleased).  (That was of the nature of this party he was invited to).  Which he hadn't reached yet because he was in the process of blending subtly into his environment so that they could not detect him by any Spirits which had set out to find his location.  They were afterall, spirits, and spirits weren't all-powerful.  None of them were.  Even God's.  And all of them knew this because they were this.

    And if he knew all of that about just some stupid spirits who had some supposed relationship with all of the a-reciprocalizers who were chasing after him right now by process of outward formation he had calculated that he had already reached the zone beyond by which they could expand into without losing proper inspection of the land between them; he was way, way the heck out there in the wilderness; somewhere on an heavily upwardly scaled landscape that from the top of which he expected to be able to see the next Great City or civilization over from where he had woken up in the Forest path and been subjected to the Tavern by the Great Narrator in the sky who had awarded him justly, for his battle had been hard-won.

    He had proven that, since these people were responsible for destroying someone's fantasy (and this was the truth part of the fantasy), they could search him all they wanted but he had stolen the battle plans and he knew he could outrun them.

    There was no way Brown was not going to reach the Great City.  The City where all good Republicanism comes from.  The idea that we can know what we're talking about with republicanism because that's what it is.  Is so futuristic and advanced it is highly desirable an commodity in great metropolitan areas.

    He had to know why he knew he would choose to enter the virtual chvrch and play the game that wasn't pitted out to defeat him.  He knew he would choose it because it was the middle of the reason for everything.

    Gentleness.

    Simulated as an virtual experience.

    An religion displaying gentleness.

    Like religion's supposed to.

    But would he actually choose to enter?

    After being chased out of the Forest like this; pursued by those who had lost him.

    And why did he need to wait until that moment at which he would arrive to find out‽

    He knew he would go in.  He knew he had to.

    That was the most blessed videogame category he could think of.  And perfectly appropriate for children.

    Children had to be trained to handle anti-life videogames.

    It was just an necessary precaution.

    He would have to go in, he realized, in order to play this videogame.  And that would be his final decision.

    He had to.  The story he had now began exactly on the border between fiction and an lie versus non-fiction and an satisfaction.  The Truth.  Perfectly balanced.  The subject of fantasy.  And they, his pursuers, his adversaries were willing to participate as Evil.  So that an fantasy could be perpetuated in which Evil would be destroyed.  And they were willing to do that to themselves, if that's what it came to.  By being willing to participate in the fantasy.

    The reason, of course, was blamed as being that they would always choose the videogame that would try to kill them because that was the limit of their character sophistication as such that they could not advance beyond its scope as an genre.  They were unadvanced because they couldn't choose an genre other than the-videogame-in-which-it-would-try-to-kill-them hobby.  It was an known un-advancement that if someone was of the type of character whom could not choose other than that out of greed they were morally off.  In some degree.  They were Evil after all.  And they were responsible for what had happened to Brown; to have been forced to start his narrative thus; the proper beginning of Brown yes until its Purple end.  He had to start it that way because of them.  And he meant to perpetrate an story against them in which it would be shown how they eventually lost as an society because they were out to destroy gay people's fantasies and consistently demonstrated the behavior.  Once he had reached the promised land of an virtual territory of the Christiannan chvrch, as the Warrior, he would be permitted to dance as they say.  To be free from persecutory violent behavior.  And that was when Brown really started identifying with himself as an Warrior.  An Warrior who wanted to dance.  While he was fleeing from the Evil; and their spirits, which were inter-species relationships.  He could use their own behavior against them now because he had already started to narrate an story correctly for once.  The one story that he had to be familiar with most of all.  It was the one about himself.

    If he couldn't prove to other people that he knew this one; but he knew precisely and exactly how could he prove anything to them?

    It was an story that started with Anastasia as himself.  He was slipping out of the Evil sect's grasp.  He had escaped through an trap door.  And he was still in an world in which Evil characters abound.  They could harm other people.  He had to do something quickly.

    But it was an homosexual fantasy and so he at that point in his life (he was eleven years old) he decided he would have to go into the closet.  (Even though he was out in the forest escaping the fantasy grasp of the fantastic a-reciprocal performers who had been reciprocal about the fact that they were going to play a-reciprocate in order to help him develop his plot line in which he would reach the city and his fantasy imagination perspective on Justice.  Which would be available to him there).  He was alone but he was terrorized.  He couldn't help repeating the trauma to himself even though he knew it would re-traumatize him.  He was out in the woods, perfectly on his way toward achieving social justice for his art.  And there was not one thing that was going to stop him from getting all of it out.  Because he was an Warrior.  And he had the Freedom of movement.  He could live anywhere he pleased.

    The start of the story, properly, was his escape.  He needed escape to get away from the a-reciprocate vibes which had been illegally perpetrated against his psychology.  During the entire time that they had his attention with their a-reciprocate fantasy which didn't even classify as fantasy because it had failed to perpetuate one without being accepting the fact that they were going to have to play the Evil characters in this fantasy in order to get away with it.

    But the start of the story, really, was his narration of the object of nonsense.

    Followed by the sense he had made out of it for himself.

    But if it was the escape that he needed at that moment.  This itself just proved the subject further.  He had been traumatized by these Evil a-reciprocates who had treated him in such an way as to destroy the presence of his own fantasy in his own psychology.  It was not an pleasant fate.

    But why did it matter exactly how it started depending on how the reader (the audience) had defined Brown; that it would be an Brown Anastasia escaping from the complex or castle.  And that it would be an narrative in which the beginning was approximately between brown and Brown escaping.  IT does have to escape after all.  That's what brown is.  And since it was obviously not about the bad guys escaping.  It was actually about the good guys escaping.  Into an world in which the bad guys wouldn't escape.  So that they could be punished to the full extent of the law.  In which they would be represented to the public and held accountable for every violation.  To be fully defined by the force of the law based on previous cases stare decisis.  Until everyone had stopped staring at him.  Because they finally knew what he was saying.  And that the Republicanism effect had been observed, again, to the industrialized society.  Brown was escaping from Purple (the a-reciprocalizers who destroyed fantasies); because their behavior had been identified as the Middle of the Justice because they were Evil and they were being reciprocate to this truth.  It was Evil to destroy someone's fantasy.  Enough said.

    And now they were the Middle of the story because Purple, logically, was the Middle of Brown.  Once Brown had reached an Middle point in the narrative, he would become Purple.  Which meant, he would attain that Justice to which he had set out to escape from the perpetrators to do.  By becoming his Fantasy.  An Law Graduate who knew most this difference between genres he had identified what it meant in law.  For it was possible to use the further genre of an videogame that was designed to attempt to kill its player, the narrator (the subject) who would interact with its story.  To perpetrate the offense in which one character's fantasy would have been a-reciprocate to (someone was being a-reciprocate to that fantasy).  (In order to destroy it).  And so it held special significance how exactly that game would be played based on the evidence; if it was designed therein of the parts they had assembled (in order to assemble as they will) the individual parts of Frankenstein.  They could use the genre to show everybody how a-reciprocate action lead to the destruction of fantasy.  They could use the genre to show how it was actually legally appropriate to legislate the material in the fashion that was decided, in part by the Author.  The specific ways in which the genre had been used to guide action against Brown, were legally appropriate material and were the pioneering vision of the genre to the human civilization on Planet Earth.

    Purple was Brown now because he had earned Purple's eyes.  They could see into his heart.  Where terror had ruled him.  And they knew they would do whatever it took to guide him back to that honesty about the Republic, by which he had been enabled so to describe his plight thus.  The beginning of his Story had traumatized him by ending his gay fantasy.  He had to narrate it strategically in order to prove his ambivalence and, Superiority over the subject if he wanted.  First he would show they the audience what had been done wrong; this a-reciprocity which had resulted in his fantasy destination which was, as all depressed people eventually say not at all that fantastic, because it had stripped him of the characteristic of being able to carry on an specific fantasy.  An pleasure that fulfilled him.  This was the abuse that was done to him.  It was the abuse itself that was the middle of the beginning of the story because proof of its existence provided the necessary means by which he had promoted the right to an law which would defend his rights, as an interiorized and criminally offended against subject who had been, for the most sensitive hearing of the word ritually tortured and abused.  Not to have an fantasy in which he was gay and the fulfilment of that fantasy would be his sex with another man.  Which they had to stop at all costs.

    Wait an minute.  What was Brown actually talking about?

    He was Purple now because he was using its law and justice in the right way that it was meant to be played with in order to advance its jurisdiction into the fantasy territory which hadn't been thoroughly psychologized yet.  He was Purple (Justice) because he was the agent of the perpetuation of justice by first being Brown.  By seeing into his heart.  They could see now what was offended against him because he had clearly focused it.  And since that included he himself as an force to be reckoned with whose representation of Purple, whose middle included the part about them torturing him, was in itself self compelling because he had been determined to define it down to the last nth.  How Purple meant representing the criminal offenders as people who would be a-reciprocal to an fantasy thus.  Who had caused Brown to lose his mental health.  It's like licking an fib and every time you lick it you are further disgusted.

    He had been represented as this animal's droppings as part of an fantasy move in which would they prevent further fantasizing by being exactly derivative of the fact that he was disgusting.  And they had to tell him and show him how he was disgusting in order to correct him as an gay because he was gay.  And that was why the fantasy came to an end.

    Purple was focusing sharper now exactly what Brown was doing: which was narrated criminally.  It was narrated as though he wasn't having an fantasy because it was the force of stopping the fantasy.  Brown's actions had lead to them correctly identifying the difference between brown and purple.  Which was subjective.  Brown had "a-reciprocalized themselves" in order to be the subject of the fantasy because he wanted to be an subject that would have fantasies.  Brown was the a-reciprocalization itself.  As an product and result of the treachery that was done to him.  And now it was starting to be purple because they could more clearly identify what was physically happening that was a-reciprocate and anti-fantasy about brown.  Ending someone's fantasy doesn't happen all the time all at once; nor does it always result as the result of someone attempting to do it.  It can be avoided.  If they taught Brown properly how to avoid it by escaping into the further extremities of the wilderness from which he would traverse out into the Great City.  With their own kind of Spirit magic, which sensed he was in trouble.  The Spirits of their persuasion, the Evil Spirits with whom they commune, had expanded their sensing into further territory and had estimated their chances of finding him within two days.  To be slightly higher than they had expected.  But he himself was looking in on this fact and knew it was in fact happening that way.  And so he kicked it into high gear and slid down the mountain toward Civilization, approaching fast his destination, the place where he would properly narrate his case against the a-reciprocates who were responsible for abusing and traumatizing him.  Everything he described about what they did to him would be heard out for its narrative value.  Including passages in which they were a-reciprocate and Evil and appeared knowledgeable of their own self-awareness that they were both a-reciprocate and Evil at the same time in the sense of being anti-fantasy and fascist.  They had taken direct behaviors and actions against Brown, who was reliving the horrors of his paranoisms, the actual objects of his paranoia which had taken up the extended cathexis in his mind.  Of actually being narrated as such as actual behaviors of Evil which had been inflicted to Brown.  That he could no longer detect, in an paranoid way, because they had desensitized him to the fact of the ending of his fantasy.  Which was again repeated again and again.  So that his fantasy would perpetually end no matter how many times it started up again.  And it was such an avoidable type of Evil because well people could report these instances of abuse.  In the tradition of Brown.  Who had reported his type of abuse as 'one in which he had been forced to be an lie beside another lie' instead of 'an fantasy in which half of the truth is narrated and half of the lie is narrated'; which didn't make logical sense completely because half of it was true.

    Anyone who self-identified with his trauma could understand why it would lead him to think he could articulate an legal principle that was relevant to fantasy and psychological opinion.  They knew how it felt to be deprived of an fantasy.  They knew what kind of territory he was into right about now.  He was in the most rugged terrain imaginable.  The actual space between the Evil and the Good in which he would either outrun his assailants or not in order to find out if he could actually choose between playing an videogame that tried to kill him versus not.  Every object of the paranoia (paranoisms) could be identified by the plot in this narrative, for it was safety in storytelling.  That they, parts of himself, could actually be objects physically themselves that were part of another persons cathexis, which is what they always are, really, because cathexis is such deep damage on the psyche consciousness it is (when an object is said to be repressed by the consciousness, it held to be part of the cathected object, that larger process which is responsible for repressing certain objects the subject is paranoid about).  Cathexis (Freud's term) means an object is fully repressed.  And the person whom is experiencing this is aware to an extent (this is my take), but cannot fully process all of its repressed subject.  Brown was experiencing this disassociation from his repression that one experiences when one is chased out of the forest by brigands who want to inflict on him an fate worse than death, the destruction of his psychic fantasy.

    If the writer could successfully narrate these objects and subjects or object-subjects (having the capacity, some of them, to be both subject and object at the same time).  He may successfully dislodge the cathexis and restore proper fantasy protocol to the subject of his storytelling.  The destruction of Evil and all of it's derivatives because it had broken the law.  Brown now had an paranoism (an object which he was paranoid about) which he had to identify because he was narrating Purple.  He was Purple.  He had to be Purple to show that he was Brown and then he was Purple.  That's how it had to be.  That's how it was.  The object he was paranoid about was whether he was able or capable of narrating purple exactly.  Which was so omnipotent and scientific; and beyond completely at all dealing with an subject who had been de-fantasized so to speak; chased out by the a-reciprocate Demon.  Could Brown do it?

    How many paranoisms could he identify?  What if he could bring up the bigger concept which linked them all together.  The fact that he was experiencing fantasy starters psychologically; at the same time he knew he was traumatized by the fantasy enders.  So he knew he had to be making progress.

    He was doing an perfect job reeling them in.

    He had them.  They were on the hook.

    They were people who would actually start an dog hunt out in the wilderness to find him.  Which wasn't anybody's fantasy.  And which they all knew was true as per exactly how the narrator had narrated it.  They had actually started an hunt.  And if they found him they might kill him in fact.  Or worse.  He deserved it.  They knew it was true.

    Even after they had "delusionalized" him for some odd hours.  Making him out to be only as complex as an lie beside another lie.  And not as complex as fantasy, which he had further defined as something other than an lie beside another law.  For it had to be fancy.  It had to be complex.  It had to be sophisticated.  It had to be Half this and Half that.  Evil and Good together in one story.  This was the ultimate fantasy.

    And they were into it.

    They were playing into the Evil role exactly.

    Because they wanted to bring about his destruction.

    There were many reciprocal paranoisms that he could identify in his own consciousness.  Was it true he suffered from that many paranoisms?  Brown actually did suffer from them because his own mind had been damaged by the objectivity which had ended his fantasies.  It couldn't identify with objects exactly because it had been made into one.  It.  Like an object.  One that couldn't fantasize.  And it went over and over in his mind again that he couldn't fantasize because he had been damaged but at some level he had begun to and he knew it because he was sexualizing it now.  His cathexes were extremely bad on the subject of sex.  Which was understandable.  If his fantasies had been repeatedly destroyed, ended, ceased, obliterated completely; then he would probably experience anxiety about the subject of sex.  Which to him at its deepest level had everything to do with fantasy.  If fantasy was not an fun place for him but in fact an obstacle to him because every time it would come up he would have it put out.  Right in front of everyone.

    And so he learned not to enjoy it.  And learned not to play with fantasy too much himself.

    So that he could survive this circumstance in which, at some point, he had decided that he needed to go into the closet.  He had left the Tavern when he was only eleven years old.  And was maturing into an old man who was aware of what they needed to go easy on him about.  That he had actually at some point decided to go into the closet because of the display that was before him, in which the gay fantasy in society is repeatedly made the objectionable offense against of being sadistically tortured out of the victim.  Who was then repaired to fit into society by having been taught how to be properly an adult.  Not an gay.  And every time he focused on it it brought up the memories for him, in which he had been traumatized at some point before he was eleven years old because he had always known that this was an feature of the economy.  Leading him to the difficult territory of being closeted.  In which he knew he was hiding something from them that they could not have unless they repaired their society not to repress him thus.  He was an difficult Knight and he had been an knight since he was an child.  That why they were still hunting him and trying to repress his fantasy, that his ultimate realization of Purple would be claimed in artistic writing the art of which he had developed for the purpose of being able to articulate his circumstance, in which he felt that he was being criminally offended against and nothing was being done about it.  Did it really matter what he chose, he wondered to himself?  Once he was on the doorstep of fame; the place where the videogame doesn't try to kill you.  That chvrch.  That internet virtual citadel.  Faerie Lights Chvrch.  The Naenaeon.  Did it actually matter that he had said anything about the relationship between brown and purple?  How one thing leads to another?

    Why they were criminally charged in his thinking (which was part of his Ego)?  For having done this to him?  And exactly how they described what had been done to him was ipso facto in the creation of its art; the art that was playing with them exactly to see whether they could recognize what behaviors fit into that category of being a-reciprocal in exactly thus an way to have been produced as an element of "culture" (supposedly)?  One that would end an person's fantasy.

    But, Brown reminded himself, this far in anything he thought about his own self-awareness or himself or his self-awareness of himself (none of which were disconnected) would help him reconnect with his fantasy which was, at present, being waged war against.  If they found him and ended it again.  He would surely break.  He was that fragile.  That he was just on the edge of psychosis, torn between experiencing his cathexis as nightmares and reminding himself that he could narrate them exactly and so receive this liberation from them.  What was not ending his fantasy, for the time being, was adding to it.  He was able to stop worrying about fantasizing for an while for he had escaped an long ways away from it.  The source of its abuse.  He was free to fantasize freely including to fantasize about confronting his cathexes, and defeating each one of them in combat.  By narrating out the very object of their existence; the paranoism of that type of which he was particularly afflicted.  An actual, physical object he was scared of.  Them.  All of those a-reciprocate bastards who had proven they could really act like objects, considering nothing around them, considering others so low as to have to end their fantasies which were an na subject to them as well.  They didn't care that they they were inflicting an fate worse than death on someone.  They didn't care if they were breaking the law.  They didn't care that they were Evil for fictional purposes.  They would take their weapons and strike at thee!

    Brown's condition was necessarily within the purview of the legalistic fantasy which he had set: it was the result of being treated this way; a-reciprocally.  In an Evil way that was against Good but necessary for the fantasy somehow.

    The Evil characters poured into his imagination; every time he was reciprocate they would be a-reciprocate.  That was how they stopped the fantasy.  That was how they turned him into an object.  So that he could stop being an subjective bitch whose fantasies needed to be fulfilled in order for him to sustain an puffed up Ego that equivalent of which would allow him not to be gay; it was his fault he was gay; they were against the fantasy.  And he needed to stop them.  All of them.  They would not, after all, escape.  They had to be convicted and brought to justice.

    For making his cathexis worse.  They had taken the object that he had fantasized about and used it to be its own defiance of the subject within him.  That's what he was paranoid about about himself.

    They were objects in his psyche that had been lodged there, hard-ways, so that they left an lasting impression; that he would inevitably be made to navigate between seeing them as occurrences that had been subjected to him versus being subjects that had been by occurrence objected to him.  He was starting to snap out of the lesser fantasy, in which the Evil characters destroyed the whole world in which fantasy no longer had any consequences.  Eventually.  They were starting to tune in on the Major Fantasy of him arriving at his destination on time to be decided on up out of his final fate which would be either that he would be indefinitely subjected to an videogame in which the videogame tries to kill you versus being indefinitely subjected to an videogame in which the videogame does not tries to kill you.  Because one of them, he was sure, would be his actual fate: to have only been subjected to videogame tries to kill you forever afterward which was violating and irrepressible.  If the subject to whom it was narrated could not decide themselves between what was apparent and what was there.  The ability of human consciousness to depend on both types of narrative sometimes.  It no longer seemed terrifying that anybody would be trapped in an non-choice environment in which they would be subjected to an videogame tries to kill you indefinitely.  (Which was an metaphor for the experience in which they lived their daily lives).  (All of reality was that it was trying to kill you indefinitely).  There was no escape from it.  (Realism).   They could see it both ways that people could narrate themselves into games in which they would be a-reciprocal with themselves and also games in which they would not be a-reciprocal with themselves.  (The difference between genres for both were valued as an community had proven they didn't need to worry about indefinitely being written into the wrong kind of fantasy because they could an choice take; they could stay outside on the landing pad where there were people smoking and being a-reciprocate because they were indulging in the fantasy of it.  An videogame that would be so beautiful that it would actually be reputed to have killed at least some of its players.  And that this itself had controversially been reported as true in Brown's vision of the dream.  People who entered the building (this virtual territory, as it had been described) which they could go into in thought with the help of the narrator.  Where people were actually playing the videogame (you know the gentle one the one that doesn't try to kill you).  He would definitely.  Definitely.  Go in.

    But what if he didn't.

    What if he reconstructed his reality so that this critical moment in which he would decide between staying out or going in was really about two choices; he had the choice to play the genre that would kill him or he had the choice the genre that wouldn't.  It didn't matter whether he stayed outside or had gone inside he had already interiorized both circumstances being the setting of that action and decided he could do it without the setting enough so that people could see it was variable.  We could extend our decision-making capacity beyond the actual circumstances of the fantasy in which he'd be staying out or going in.  And he knew the best type of bartender (The chemical bartender) was inside.  For the Christiannan Chvrch, as we say, is an Party crib.  And people needed to be pampered in the best bionic-with-tendencies knowledge of chemical effects and their purposes.  He could go back outside or he could come back inside as he liked.  As an toy.  That he would imagine for himself either scenario; the ones in which these two types of genre could be played according to the definition of the genre as the medium was meant to be represented.  Which was important to teach children.  That, at least, some videogames were trying to kill you.  They were designed to.  They had to be.  Videogames had to be advanced politically and morally to that status.  In order to show everyone what an human imagination in the industry could encompass.  We had to be made aware of the plots that were out to end ourselves; those philosophies (which cannot rightly be called philosophies) which want to be Evil because they cannot resist it.  They will destroy your fantasies because THEY WILL DESTROY YOU.  And if your death is the result of them having destroyed your fantasy completely in many different ways then good; that's what they were trying to do anyway.  But that at least when he had landed at the party; then he could decide what he would do.  He might stay outside for an while.  He might go in.  Try the beverage.  An chvrch with an party scenario.  One that could simultaneously narrate and articulate its own legal opinion.  In order to isolate the behavior of that activity which could end someone's fantasy repeatedly.  Not having an drink and enjoying the party.  In the process.

    He would definitely go in.  Who wouldn't want to see the final product.  Of an videogame project.  That had set out to define the genre; of the game that was not trying to kill you.  Which hadn't really been established as an thing yet.  But he would go in and order an drink; an virtual drink.  Which wouldn't be morally against his diet.  And think about all the ways in which an videogame can be designed in order not to be a-reciprocal.  But to reciprocalize the subject fully of the fact that they were playing an genre that didn't want to kill them because they didn't want to receive that kind of negativity at that particular time.  (You see as they associate the other genre with negativity they themselves are culprits to the sensitivity of it).  (It isn't an negative genre).  (That had only been an myth fantasized and popularized by the tabloids).  The genre of trying to kill your player was an expansive and important genre for the lessons it holds for humanity.  It teaches someones' (or an group of persons') perspective on what kind of simulation or virtual commodity could be fashioned for their enjoyment because it was on the subject of trying to kill them; that's what an real videogame does.  It develops an plot that is out to kill you.  And if you die and you have more lives you can keep going.  But eventually you'll die and run out of lives because that is what the game is trying to do to you so fantastically in fact that you actually do think about how it is responsible for killing you.  Which is what it is designed to make you think about in the public opinion and lack of regret.  Some games are just trying to kill you.  That's what kind of games they are.  That's what genre they are.

    And he would have the honor of choosing which genre he wanted to participate in at that particular moment.

    Of his arrival to the fantasy temple of his dreams, where the nice religious people lived.  Who had set out (in his imagination of the scenario) both types of videogame for his per se gauntlet fascination.  The truth of the fiction was that both types of fiction were available to the consumer.  But nothing could be better than an game that was actually to out to trying to kill you.  Could it?

    WAIT.  It could.  If the other one was more gentle.  It was definitely more gentle if it wasn't trying to kill you.  Wasn't gentle what we wanted?

    It turns out, not all the time.

    And maybe that was the selfish reason for it; but who wouldn't be against the old-fashioned definitions used for the term selfish, and worse in its use and purpose in being an word by people who have used it has been to shame the behavior of the self.  Who is always selfish.  Because that's what an self is!

    And if this was the selfish reason, then, for wanting not to be gentle for an while but just succumb to the total and undeniable self-satisfaction of an videogame narrative that would bring about your own destruction; exactly precisely.  Because that's what it had been designed to do.  Then I was an selfish predator for the unordinary.  I wanted all kinds of videogames of different ways of killing me.  I wanted them not only to show me how my character died, but how no one cared afterward.  So that I eventually would die myself because of the videogame industry.  Which was vowing its honesty and gay and talented.  These were the true Artists of humanity.  People who could produce an videogame in which the self is narrated to be dead or not.  And honestly I would have to try both of them, because of my curiosity, and I would be completely sure of my own immunity to being narrated dead.

    By an videogame.

    They could try anything they want.  I still.  Would not be dead.  But the other genre, maybe, if they made enough of them would actually be responsible for killing me in the end because they are so annoying.  Those little creeps who actually want you to live instead of die; like you weren't already doing that.  Like I know I'm not dying honey.  To be honest I just want to think about something trying to kill me for an while.  Let's play an videogame.

    Because those do narrate an videogame trying to help you not die.

    Even if it was annoying.  It was cute.  But it had to be sarcastic sometimes.

    Like, Are you not even trying?  You look like you are already dead?

    Well lucky you, I'm here to keep you alive.  Instead of me being the tamagotchi, you are the tamagotchi!  You need water!  Go hydrate yourself!  I'll pick up after you!  I like doing it!

    What an great videogame that would be.  It would even take you outside and play with you at regular intervals.  Yeah.  Everything would be easy.  And simple.  Because the videogame would tell me what to do so that I would not die.  I wonder if it would be anything like the actual videogame they play at the chvrch of the Christiannan which is said to be, in this narrative, an videogame which doesn't try to kill you.  Naturally, this is the religious thing to do.  We're going to design an videogame in which you aren't narrated dying; but narrated living.  And we take care of you.  Who are we?  We are your living reciprocities which need to cater and attend to.  Your vitals.  Your needs.  Your wants.  Your Fantasy.  Check.

    Girl!

    Go on dyin'.  It'll be alright.  I know what's wrong with it; there's no gas in it!

    If the videogame is not trying to kill you then you have to at least be above status than an tamagotchi; you had to be you were an real person.  The videogame would take care of everything.  No problem.  That's what it was designed to do.  The Creators wouldn't have an problem with making that at all.  And since it was more sophisticated than an tamagotchi because it was actually designed to take care of an human being.  By giving them suggestions for activities to do at certain times and sometimes gave them guided meditations into doing those activities which were gentle and rhythmic.  Said with an little authority because they were trying to legitimize their inclination to let the videogame take care of them, like it should.  It was an videogame that could be picked up and put down at will.  It was an videogame at the centre of all things.  It was an videogame of the Christiannan chvrch.  An environment in which, well, the people interested in the other genre could smoke outside of it.  There was no smoking on the premises otherwise.  The Creator thought it was an artistically rendered entryway meant to attract tourism; the thought of the lobby (The first room into which you would enter) being an place, in an chvrch, where someone could play an videogame that tried to help them live.  Was the reality of what being an religious person meant in the coming age.  If they could be shown as always being capable of demonstrating an reality principle in which an Creator narrates an passage of time in which an strategist is not subjected to its own design to kill said subject.  Proving its own religious attitude which was moral in effort.  But that they could smoke outside if they wanted to think about games which would try to kill you.

    It was perfect for the Lobby, don't you think?

    An videogame, that was publicly available to the public, whom would be the persons interested in that kind of genre as an religious effort with an moral attitude.  Games could be about not dying, after all, too.

    And what would an game be able to do about you not dying?

    Think about it.  If we expand the genre of videogames offered to the public in both of these categories, we would eventually happen upon gems of our time which were the most complicated and most sophisticated games of their category.  Games that would actually improve the lives of those that played them.  By reminding them.  By guiding them.  And by entertaining them.  And by educating.  And by doing things that would move them.

    He would definitely go inside.

    For an long, long time.

    When he got there.

    He was tired after all.  He was an Warrior.  He had come an long way.  But by following the sign of the Christianna (an reality based videogame not trying to kill by metaphor) he would succeed in his mission to become fully purple.  Just.  Purple.  Just Fully Purple.

    Which was of course the metaphor for his justice, which would be fully protected by the law.  It was fine that he was narrating brown to purple.  Everyone wanted to see if he could get there.  Even if it was gay and orgasmic and homoerotic.  Brown was identifying his cathected objects and confronting them to see if he could dislodge the final cathexis which had affected his whole system.  And he was able to fictionalize accurately and efficiently not to empathize for the subject because he was the subject.  But it wasn't homoerotic exactly.  In his final definition of it, the fantasy had been disturbed.  It was ended.  As in its available time had ended.  And the reason for this was said to be the evil force emanating from the fantasy world in which he would navigate his cathexis.  As though it was some story supporting his political theory.  Because it proved something about narration.  That it could point out for itself exactly when it began and when it ended.

    The only way he could logically connect his argument that he had to represent the first object of the story as an nonsense being made.  In order to show everyone how he could directly contrast it with adequate sense.  In order to make sense.  In order to make more sense.  Which made sense.  They had streamlined the effect which came from he-was-Brown and He-was-Anastasia-who-had-escaped-somehow from being killed for just having an fantasy about something.  Brown was way out of their reach still and he couldn't let them find him.  He couldn't.  He had slid down the mountain.  He had proclaimed: I have Already Crossed the river today.  I don't care that you haven't though.  What do you want from it?  Do you want to be taken to the other side of the River?  Where I am.  Your player of games.  Your narrator.

    Purple had already struck.  And it struck hard.  That's what Purple does.

    It would protect him insofar as he could continue coming up with conclusions about his own Justice.  Brown was somewhere between escaping and being rescued.  He was desperate.  His own mind was shutting down against him because it wanted to continue to repress the subject.  To continue to repress the subject of his fantasy.  Which included those people who were a-reciprocate to it and wanted to destroy him.  It was disgusting to him that his own fantasy included even those people, as though they could be compared in status fantasy-wise saying.  To his own status, which rose far up high above them.  Towering over them in fact; even though it was an character in flight in its total.  How could fantasy be one thing mixed with such another thing that was so desperate in its Evil-doing that it narrated itself killing Brown in order to prevent him from attaining the full aspiration of his fantasy.  That Brown's fantasy would be destroyed even again if it meant his death.  Even if it meant he would never narrate the part about him being afraid of his own object fantasy which was embedded deeply in the recollection of his mind.  So deeply this was his cathexis in fact that it was damaging him still, especially for the fact that nobody had interpreted how to react to it exactly yet.  He was trying to live out the fantasy of identifying his object cathexis in order to sublimate it in his mind as something other than an object, in order that it would be freed, disabused, un-traumatized from the incident.  But that meant he was trying to restore to cognizance what he was between repressing and being willfully cognizant about.  He was still being damaged as they would have it in the final narration because his cathexis was of the character to have not any character because that was his ultimate nightmare.  That the subject would become object.  This is the nightmare of dying, at its finality.  It is an death-drive experience to fantasize about the subject would become object.  But since he had crystallized that through fairy logic.  He was going to un-repress the object which was desiring so to reclaim its status as subject.  Subject that had never been repressed.  But was stupid enough to believe it hadn't.  Because it had.  It was his sore condition that he felt it right in his feminine side.  That's the fact of un-repressing the subject.  Once you see that he deliberately narrated his sense and logic into it in deliberate Grammar and contrast of the fact that you could recognize what was right about what he was saying because you could make narrative sense from it conscious yourself of an Logic which it implied.  There nightmares worse than dying.  And the nightmare threatening humanity at this moment?  The nightmare that the nightmares worse than dying would never end.  And humanity would inevitably be subjected repeatedly and indefinitely to nightmares worse than dying.  But they had to be freed from this Logic because Logically it wasn't Logic.  That was an fiction.  And they knew it because it had been logically presented how nonsense lead to the sense he would apply with justice.  That he at the moment made for.

    It was just another a-reciprocal non-fantasy that they would not find out how his sense was made because Brown would tell them everything.  Including how they didn't make sense.  Because they thought they knew why the first object he had narrated made sense.  Which it did not.  He had pointed out that it did not.  It did not make narratological sense to him that the first two things narrated would be an lie and another lie.  That was the pattern of all evil.  And nothing to do with the truest sense of fantasy which was more the truth equally the lie than the pattern of all evil.  In total, although fantasy could eclipse the vision of an Evil that would start an fantasy with an lie and then another lie as some kind of cruel torture that all stories were in their basics just lies.  And the whole art of telling them was an lie.  Brown was right.  He had to change the public awareness about fantasies and lies.  They weren't fantasies and lies exactly.  But fantasies that fulfilled themselves.  By eclipsing the sight of those who believed in the evil that didn't make sense.  It had to be eclipsed.  It had to.  It was their sight and they were evil.  Therefore their narrative of being an lie followed by another lie always, at the start of fantasy was taken up in competition against the narrative of fantasy always being an truth followed by an lie.  An world of truth which balanced according to how much lie there is, and not how much truth.  Yea right.

    Clearly he was in possession of the greater subject, which subjected all the lying about lying to its own standard of being better than the lie and the lie pattern.  The subject of not lying and then lying could better stabilize the truth because it had narrated Evil into its own matrix in which it would be defeated as the fulfillment of the Creator's Narrative.  Which was more reciprocal to the truth because it had correctly balanced the subject of Fantasy.  So that would be framed both senses of the word fantasy in one picture and further add credence to its status as an psychological aspect of human consciousness which was old news.  Evil continued its pattern.  And the Forces of Good showed us instead, how its pattern wasn't even half lying which wasn't any fun now, if you come to think about it, to think about the true meaning of injustice.  Which was like lying.  If you know what I mean.  And of course there's an truth-telling aspect to it as well.  The lie and lie pattern just doesn't get me going correctly.  It's not like any fantasy that I have.  It is Evil.  And I will destroy it.  I, Brown, will destroy it completely.

    If Evil could be shown not to be making sense like it wasn't, at the start of things, in which he had relied on direct translation of the subject.  They were narrated not to have made sense.  And then it was shown that they could be shown to have not made sense because they were a-reciprocal somehow to the fact that they could not in fact prove the first object of the narration had made sense.

    They hadn't made sense in the first object because they hadn't made sense in the second object.

    The second object proved that they hadn't made sense because it stated that they hadn't made sense, of which they were of.  The opinion that they did in fact make sense and they could prove it.  Which they couldn't.  Brown knew they couldn't.  He was of the superior fact.  That he could articulate exactly why the first fact about the narrative had proven it was about the nonsense that had been made by the rioting party, which was still about ending Brown's fantasy.  Because it was the first object he had narrated for an specific reason, that he needed to prove its fallacy in order to drive the narrative because his plot was the one in which Evil would be uninvented, to be more exact.  The driving action of the plot would motivate its characters to react to Evil and its uses as an power to end the fantasy realm forever.  But the defiance of this fact by the story's ending was always the triumph of Good over Evil.  The Force of Good that would never end someone's fantasy just because they were gay.  Evil was shown to be inestimate of the true power of the force.  Which could be demonstrated and proven to being demonstrated because of its ability to create more complex characters of social reciprocity than the forces of Evil, which were not.  Good won because it allowed evil to finish.  To stop being an lie followed by another lie.  And get up and grow and grow new shoes.  Everything was both lie and fact of truth.  In this Fantasy world; and that's how the fantasy continued, exactly.

    Fantasies were more complex characters than being only lies.  They were only truths.  They had to be.  Even if they themselves were both lie and truth at the same time.  Because that narrated the truth better than not doing it.  If Good could always measure to use exactly one unit of Evil; (but of course what could one unit of evil mean?  The smallest measurable type of Evil?   If Good could always measure to use exactly one unit of Evil; in order to demonstrate its power over the other.  Part of Good could be an lie; but part of it was the truth.  That's what the fantasy was.  And it was okay.  The fantasy that they could ever wish to continue an lying around schematic.  Which identified them as legally identified as the subjects who had broken the law and that the warrant was out for their arrest even though they were presently in the process of pursuit of the victim some suspected had been hurt the most by all of the commotion, Brown.  He had after all been kidnapped.  And woken up on an Road to an Tavern somewhere.  And this was the correction on the beginning of the story that the Narrator wished to begin with because it represented more truth than had ever been told.  I argued against the causes of evil.  It was narrated in an way the narrated didn't wish to be presented.  He had to issue its correction to be made fully into law.  Because he had escaped.  And he had time to think about it.  How would he tell the story of his amazing arrival at the chvrch of the Christianna, an roleplaying environment in which he would be free to utilize fully his skills as an dancing Warrior from the Republic.  He could show everyone his terror.  His paranoisms.  The more he had been thinking of daily since he had dislodged his main paranoism.  The subject of his own schizophrenia itself which had been waged on the bridges between self and destruction.  This was of course theoretically to blame for the schizophrenia that he had repressed an subject at some point because that was his psychological permanent record.  He was experiencing delusions and schizophrenia because he had escaped from an camp that was abusing him.  And he would do anything to one day play that videogame which would be so kind as to be faithful to try never to kill him but instead fulfill him with fantasy and wishes and things that actually matter.

    Like what is the actual status of Fantasy in Psychological communities?  Why would anyone ever act or behave in such an way as to end another person's psychological fact of their own fantasy?

    Why it was inherently evil because it tipped the scales even by evil's standards‽  And that continuing to narrate its evil was itself part of the value of that evil‽  It killed an buzz real good, didn't it?  Evil that would end fantasy; why that was a-reciprocate even by Evil's standards.  They had to comply.  They had to participate in narration of themselves not making sense in which it could be estimated how much damage the law would imply that they had done.  To Good.  Who had updated the definition by which Fantasy applied in this context.  An actual legal system that kept people from damaging one another's fantasies.  An Justice (On Account of Brown's own identification of the idealized subject) which identified as criminal any physical behaviors in interruption of the true subject of fantasy: the stormy balance between Good and Evil in which Good always wins because it is good.  Evil however, was shown again to have already been winning in some capacity because they were further along in their hunt for Brown.  Who had adjusted the beginning of his fantasy as one of escape.  He had escaped from their camp, somehow; and found his way to an tavern where he entered: he was not covered in shit; so that was good.  He had to escape all of the bitter anti-psychological anti-fantasy freaks whose Evil was definitely going to take an toll on his system.  But how did he get here?  Where was he now?  But he hadn't found out yet how.  Or how much.  It was definitely doing something.  They could factually conclude.  It was demonstrating its fantasy powers as an lie followed by another lie pattern of sexual behavior.  That's what defined evil to its grittiest finality: continuing the lie followed by the lie; as though there were no intermittent subject of Good.  It could hold up its own subject, then as an fantasy, by this description because it was to some extent an characteristic that would be fantasized about generally and it could hold up its own as an fantasy subject against that fantasy subject that would win out over its cause because it wanted to and it was bored.  Nothing it did could be trusted.  By its own definition.  It was the pattern of the lie followed by the lie.  Followed by another lie.  Followed by another lie.  On and on indefinitely.  There was an aesthetic value to it, sure; but realistically how many people can base their whole personality around creating the longest Evil fantasy that had ever been created: the longest lie that was ever told.  I mean, sure, there's an glory in that.  Being the one capable of telling such an long lie.  But realistically, how many more people than that are going to follow any other type of behavior.  (The narration of Truth).  In contrast to the Bad characters, who were not an lie followed by another lie philosophically exactly.  But they were Star Wars fans maybe.  Every good fantasy has an lie and an truth; the truth was that fantasy would ever stoop as low as to be not able to narrate the end of Evil.  It always had to end the fantasy that an lie after an lie after an lie could ever be Good.  In order to show everyone the Superior fantasy of telling both at the same time.  This was the character of the fact around which he had balanced his narrative.  The end of lie lie lie had to be proven to show how Good was Good.  Because Fantasy includes both.  To the ultimate end and destruction of one of them.  Which would be more difficult than have they any hope of believing.

    It had to be sketched, for example, how this people was acting.  This people of anti-Brown's fantasy.  What they were doing exactly had been identified.  (They were following this pattern).  (This pattern which was shown to be negative and to be an disruption to the general public welfare).  Being an lie after an lie forever and ever.  That was the fantasy of the evil mind.  That they would ever believe it was even possible or desirable.  How daring in truth wild‽  The Superior subject of the narrative had to be taken up as the subject of the narration.  Not the telling of one lie after another but the more fine approach, not doing both one after the other.  Not mixing an truth with another truth.  Not mixing an lie with another lie.  But Daring being fantasy for the fact of being both lie and truth rolled into one, one right after the other, or the other right after one; which was the basic definition of the world of fantasy when one considered all of its senses and agendas.  The fact of being both an lie and an truth at once, at the same the time.  For fictitious reasons.  This was apparent because the presence of the motivation to let the lie continue on, indefinitely, which had been narrated in contrast to the truth.  The proper destination of its place as an Fantasy.  But it was an fantasy that the lie would ever stop being an lie if it was fantasy drama.  Because, at some point, it had to stop being an lie.  In order to be its balance with the subject which allowed Evil to continue to be narrated as it wished.  As an lying society in which lying was followed with other lying.  And that it couldn't be any more complex than that because it was evil.  It was said to be more pleasurable at that point in the narration for the people of the fantasy type who were rooting for Brown, who was obviously an victim of the lie and lie scheme.  (The first act of his narration of what happened to him were the two first lies he sought to redefine as psychological damage done to him).  Which had been used systemically in his environment to in-jure his psychology to that extent to which damage he had not been able to properly take pleasure in his fantasies, which were "extemporized from his system" an extruder from their dilemma that they had to be a-reciprocal to anything he would say in order to perpetuate the activity of his cathexis and complex which had originated due to the fact they were being a-reciprocal to his fantasy exactly in order to prevent him physically from being able to have an fantasy at all.  It was their behavior to terrorize and underestimate him which had resulted in his being able to escape from the conflict in order to narrativize his final transition into Purple.

    At point which he would become, by process of his navigation, of that part of the country which was home to many people who had been reciprocate to that party of the chvrch who had thrown the best party again because it catered to individuals of both persuasions that although the Superior subject might be that true fantasy was never a-reciprocal and yet it was this a-reciprocal lie wrapped in truth enough that it would become obvious how exactly the characters would win.  The Good characters I mean.  The ones I had isolated out as those in favor of continuing to narrate Brown's domination over the Logic of Brown, eventually.  As an fantasy.  The lie-wish-fantasy fulfillment paired with its truth in one dominating narrative would be the proper progression of things.  How they eventually develop into purple.  The most beautiful color when one delves into its full meaning.  That lie over lie could not outshine lie over truth mixed with an little lie over truth.  As always.  And that was why it was Evil, essentially.  It couldn't beat the benefits of being reciprocal to fantasy instead.

    Which wasn't about an lie being followed always by another lie.

    That's how beautiful and complex this subject was in the human psyche.  That it to be isolated for its fact.  Of being intelligent enough to compromise both senses.  Fantasy as in something that was impossible.  Versus fantasy as in something that was possible.

    An philosophical difference, mind you, because thinking that fantasy was possible was an philosophical disposition indicated by its own narrative of itself as an tragedy in which it was always ending.  The fantasy of seeing lies and truths being played out together in one complex form of narrative was much more as we say, exciting, and that was the real aesthetic power of good which was the only aesthetic power because that's how good good was.  The Evil fantasy characters who were responsible for Brown's now conflicted progression of the illness which he had been conscious of operating on his subconscious at an unconscious level.  Of which he wasn't aware.  Maybe.  Of it's reality.  Because it was unconscious.

    At it had been made unconscious by repeatedly inflicting itself upon him that he had been made into an object.  An object without fantasy.  Without animation in its basic form.  By the lie after lie scheme.  Which was not superior to his basic lie and truth scheme which encapsulated fantasy narrative more adequately.  What had to be done about it though‽

    But it was still being subconsciously repressed.  Whatever was disturbing Brown so greatly.  He was, in the fictitious account of his life (which was subject to the world in which he was an focus) in the Forest.  Somewhere between the Evil that had ruled his life and the Good that would come of it at the Final Say.  When he would be able to have the option to choose either to be outside or inside the chvrch as per his own discretion.  Where the narration enabled him to experience both of those atmospheres because the vibes that they were giving off were totally different according to their videogames.  Once Brown had the opportunity to enter in on the subject by playing both games in order to understand what they were.  He realized that the videogame encapsulating the will to destroy someone, somebody.  Was also needed in this fantasy.  Because it was an fantasy that nobody at all would enter the Christiannan premises virtually.  Even though they had the full opportunity to be given that kind of focus which was the videogame world giving back to all of its contenders who had worked so hard to find purpose from the narrative genre of videogames.  Brown was on his way toward the party, psychologically, because that was the Justice that would be done to his character.  He would be given an videogame which would do everything to try to help him not die, which had been so different from the way he had been treated all his life.  It had to be partly non-fictional.  It would take care of him.  It would fulfill the first reciprocity of machine intelligence which could be given to inmates.  An robot (which could not be destroyed) which would be programmed correctly to suggest options to the cell prisoners such listening to music or having an tater tot which was cooked and prepared and just ready for them to eat on command of an robot Mother who had been installed into the womb of cell inmate reflection.  That they would be given an Mother (an robot companion) of the personality of an woman who would take care of them as though they were the tamagotchi of whatever type of species you had to take care of like an machine.  It was the directive.  It was Mother's duty.  As an reciprocal machine companion of course.  She would answer questions just like Alexa and be able to demonstrate some principle of care to the subject.  Care that included the reciprocal fascination with the subject of not being killed by the narration of an videogame.  An reality space in which the people who had been illegally a-reciprocal in the manner of being the Evil characters to Brown would eventually be realizing their wrong in prison, where they belonged.  Because they had to be given the opportunity to understand why they couldn't be a-reciprocal, in that manner, of perpetuating onward an lie after another lie when it had been demonstrated by the narrative that lie with truth was the superior form of the subject.  Fantasy, in order to be restored to Brown, had to be properly focused in Author's narrative.  As an interaction between forces of which had been proven to have already been a-reciprocal on this subject.  They were still going to follow their lying scheme because that's what Evil characters do and since it was being presented to the subject an possibility that he would not be able to outlive the parameters of their discretion, which was permanently evil.  Even though the narrative had said the Fantasy was the Greater Cause.  And it had to be restored because lies could not just be counteracted with more lies.  In order to generate an Fantasy.  An Plot in which there is no distinction between Good and evil in order for the evil characters themselves to convince you they had sustained an proper argument (according to their own perspectives, which were right and had been right from the very outset of things).  The first object of the narration was right.  Because they knew it was right.  Because it didn't make any sense.  Because that's what Brown was doing.  Not making any sense.  And to them it made sense that it didn't make any sense.  Because they believed they were of the fact right.  Wherein them being wrong could be them being right.  Because fantasies always tell truth and lie together in order to drive the plot; the initial fascination with them that develops into an full fulfillment of its pleasure.  Which may seem redundant to say full fulfillment but from Brown's perspective it hit the point quite adequately because he had never experienced full fulfillment of brown.  Because his fantasy had never been taken to court against the people that had abused it in order to convict them of this crime of being Evil fictionally at the same time they were not allowing Brown to have his little fact about Fantasy.  That it had this power to be able to tell both sides of the story.

    According to them, they had to be a-reciprocal to the subject because if they didn't he would have his fantasy (both truth and lie, the best of both worlds) which against themselves in constitution.  Nothing.  If they were being a-reciprocal to the subject they had pair lie with lie in all things they did.  This was how they represented themselves as Evil characters.  In order to drive the plot home.  Which was that they were being Good without knowing it.  If they had represented themselves as Evil characters and had actually chosen to represent themselves as such, as being of the type that would forever lie as an race schizophrenia.  It was not to be taken up as an disagreement between Evil and Good that there could be an difference on the sexual front in this way; that one type of sex would be about lie after lie and the other type of sex wouldn't.  And it was fair to say they were both an force to be contended with whether they were really truly moral in character or not because after all any really good anything would have to be about both, wouldn't it?  In order to be convincing.  And we only have so much time to convince them.

    Good had set the stage to wipe the floor with Evil.  They would be obliterated most definitely.  An Fantasy could not only be about lying.  He was going to use the fantasy to prove the beginning from the truth; the truth that they did not know in fact how the first object made sense.  When in fact they did believe they knew how.  Which was false consciousness.

    And it could be shown by the narrative how it was proven that the first object shown to the audience the reader who was definitely beginning to put two and two together.  That the narrator author's intention was to show them how it didn't make sense.  And he could prove it be the adjustment of the fact of the second object of the narrative.  The scene in which Brown begins to develop into Purple.  After not making sense.  The narrative makes sense.  Object 1 and Object 2 In precisely that order.  In order to suggest something to the reader about what they believe.  Are they fantasy destroyers themselves, or not?  When it had already been suggested that it was an bad idea to identify with being the type of fantasy destroyer who would pursue Brown indefinitely into the woods.  Even as he made his escape further toward the Heart of society and its civilization which had begun to reciprocate around the fact that he was pointing out something was wrong about the way they were telling events.  The first object didn't make sense even though they said it had.  They were definitely wrong because the narration was indicating so.  Therefore they were subject to the law of generation of anti-fantasy in the psyche of an victim, who was made an victim by them, the people who had believed that this first object of the narration of an story from Purple to Brown (which was its logical destination as an story from Brown to Purple) in fact made sense.  When it didn't.  Was evidence of how they themselves had broken an law.  An command.  An oath that the human species needed to make with itself.  That they would never destroy each other's fantasies.

    They had isolated the very molecule of evil that exists in this world for the pleasure of the narration of its destruction.  Which would be an conflict between Evil and Good.  In which Good was narrated as having identified that part about their behavior which wasn't good.  That some of them had deliberately set out to destroy an man's fantasy.  Every time.  Which was what the first object of narration had proven.  That they were the fact of its truth at its inception.  Which they weren't.

    Which had been deliberately placed there by the narrator to draw attention to the second object, in which sense had been made.  In order to prove the capacity of his narrative design to get the reader thinking about how Evil could be perpetrated against Brown even in his escape as he fled toward the Capital.  By the forces of Evil extending beyond mere physical reality.  Into his direct reality.  Which was already his further suffering as the result of being treated this way by Evil, of not making sense (an lie) followed by more not making sense (more lies) that could ever rise to power and status of Good; which sense and lies rolled into the same story in order to draw direct comparison for the reader's opinion.  He was playing with them in an specific way; he was playing on the fact that some of these characters from his fantasy were Evil.  And that was okay that the fruition of their design was foiled.  Even by the fact of the first two objects of the narration, which were, directly nonsense and sense in order to draw attention to the fact that it had to be staged that way because they who disgraced him had so forced him to need to stage it that way (an upset of his own cause, which had reacted by refocusing the part of the beginning around the fact of Brown (of his escaping from the terrorists who were out against the fantasy while being at the same time part of the fantasy because they had to be because an fantasy always had to include the lie).  But they had drawn too severely because they weren't prepared for Brown's logic.  Which was about convincing someone about the way the narrative had been structured deliberately in order to be about that initial falsehood of its own narrative.  An nonsense.  In contrast to something sensical which would be an comparison used to condemn the actions of all individuals who thought that the first object actually made sense when it was narrated as not making sense.  By the narrator.  Its first occurrence being narrated (as they claimed what it is) was not what was there.  It had nothing to do with scatology.  And which it was clearly that it was the development of his plot to that sense in which could also be shown to have existed in the same plot; this was the forces of Good who wanted to convince all of Evil that they had not made sense by thinking that the first object made sense when it was made explicitly clear by the Author that it indeed did not make sense.  

    Lie after lie did not make sense.

    Generally.

    Generally.  He was in the business of telling lie after truth.

    Therefore as an fantasy genr•ist he would obliterate the cause by which lie lead onward to lie; thoroughly.

    Brown was going to use the beginning of the plot against them.  He needed characters who could go anywhere and do anything.  Like he had done, escaping from the facetious character of their societies like Anastasia herself.  He was going prove their lie lead onward to lie forever and ever.  And have it written into law that it was illegal to draw somebody out that way perpetually because it tended to destroy their fantasy.  Which was gay, and fragile, and temperamental.  It wanted to be told the right way but it couldn't be because of the actions of the Evil; who had taken measures up against him to make sure that the first object that would be narrated would be his own nonsense.  So that it could be proven logically, that everything that followed from that first fact of nonsense was itself also nonsense because nonsense leads to nonsense and that's what nonsense is.  The idea that their sense which made sense because they believed it.  Even though Brown himself was of the preoccupation to know that it hadn't, even though they believed it did.  And that was the primary focus of the case that he would level against them.  That he would not be smart enough or sophisticated enough to anticipate he would need to make his own corrections on the beginning of the fantasy by showing it's fictional character and its non-fictional character both together so that one could be separated from the other.  And shown to be the subject of an lack of truth and common sensibility which the plot had already advanced as inherent in the character of its narration.  Brown was still suffering the effects of trauma and therefore it couldn't be freely estimated yet of whether he would reach his goal.  Sanctuary In The Heart Of Civilization, where it was not okay for Evil to be wrong about why he had narrated it that way.  He had narrated it that way in order to show them that Evil was wrong.  Because it couldn't make the sense that Fantasy could.  (The sense that needed to be adjudicated in the land of Canada).  And so the subject of his fantasy became that connection between the lies and the truths.  Which could be freely estimated.  That when they were acting together as one they would rightfully be able to defeat the Evil which had grown strong by lying about lying.

    It was strong enough to carry out an whole plot narration of fantasy in which the subject of Evil would be punished for being Evil.  Even after it was explained to them why they were being evil.  Evil, Brown was beginning to realize his own power, was that force which had opposed him, specifically.  In order to destroy his fantasy exactly.  And so he could use the principles of psychological fantasy against them because they believed him not to have any.  Which was their lack of estimate not his.

    He was going to destroy them so completely that it would be remembered forever by the human race that he had been the conqueror who would destroy destiny in the fantasy; the actual fantasy about destroying destiny; the destiny that he had lived for and worked for.  The one in which he finally did destroy the destiny for evil.  So that they could see and be emotionally hurt by what they had done to themselves so completely that every generation afterward would remember him as the bringer and Justice of the World Peace.  The real fantasy that, psychologically, the fantasy could never be destroyed because who would do that‽

    Not an psychological subject perhaps.

    One who was against psychology in fact.  An people (the people who were identified as being wrong and being Evil (for they were out to prevent Brown from advancing the legal subject around the theme of fantasy and psychology)).  (For who wouldn't do such an thing if they could?).

    And that it was morally wrong for them to continue to try to destroy all of his fantasies because they had not taken into consideration that they had been wrong.  About the most basic thing.  That he would not narrate Brown at all.  Which in fact he had.  Brown was the fact of them being wrong even though they believed they were not.  He had to prove it.  For the good of his community.  The one he was travelling toward as fast as his fantasy legs would carry him.  The one which would hear him out completely for what he thought was happening exactly.  An investigation into how the Evil characters were wrong exactly.  If they were wrong about the first thing, because they hadn't expected he would play it that way representing their own nonsense in order to replace it with sense and logic right before their eyes.  So that it could be shown how they didn't make sense.  Which they didn't believe.  Which was why it didn't make sense.  They had to believe that they didn't make sense if they were wrong about having made sense.  They hadn't.  They in fact believed they had observed sense there, in the first object, because the narrator had placed it there exactly to suggest the fact that it wasn't necessarily sense.  That he didn't have to begin an narration about Fantasy by making sense.  Because it was Fantasy in which he would show how it didn't make sense to everybody so that they could all become everybody, so to speak.  (The people who didn't believe in the fact of its narration as the object of nonsense itself as an strategic move).  (Which could not be attributed to the narrator).  (Who was not creative enough to dream or imagine such an thing).

    Awakening.

    That was such an long time ago.

    I dreamed of an universal language that had spontaneously developed that everyone could speak.

    Everyone on Earth.

    Who were humans exactly in my fantasy?

    Brown, I was sure, was an human.

    He was not being chased by humans exactly.  Some of them were monsters.

    What was happening to him physically and what was happening to him mentally were different things but he knew he was making progress.  He could think about his fragility.  He had only so much energy.  He could make it.  If they had broken something in his mind with their fantasy destroying psychological torture.  How could he could not?  How could he be sure that he knew how to repair it?  If he had an repressed cathexis, he might be slightly aware of it, but he wasn't aware of how aware (how much of it) he was aware of.  And he could define it; as an object.  An Black object.  And this was the most pressing un-thing he was aware of.

    If it had been repressed.  (An race schizophrenia).  The other pressing symptoms that he was aware of included no other sense of any other object that he had repressed.  There were no other objects in the same category as black people (it appeared to make sense logically).  It appeared to be an scenario in which an black object was not among any other objects.  And so it was terrifying to him because it was about more than one person.  Like we were just realizing this over and over again.  That's how it felt.  That's why it had been repressed.

    But no other objects?  In his whole memory?  That he had repressed?

    This itself was paranoid of him.

    He was paranoid.  He was paranoia.

    It made him sick.

    He keeled over an vomited.

    He was wearing an suit of armor and it was hard to stand back up.

    It was so sad.  He thought.  That the object would be alone without other objects.  After it had been made into an object from an person.  And not with the other objects.

    If he had brought the object of his cathexis out from repression finally, though.  And there were no other objects in his memory of which he had repressed (which he might not even know whether he would be able to be aware of).

    He tried to think.

    What else was hurting?  What else was delicate?

    He had repressed the color blue.

    It came gushing out of him.  He cried.

    It went on and on.  He didn't know what he want.

    Should he go back and let them capture him again?

    No.  He'd come this far.  And he was going to make it all the way to the city.

    It hurt, though.

    His side hurt.

    Everything hurt.

    But he could make it.

    It had taken an lot of energy to un-repress something.  But he'd gain it back before they'd catch him!

    And he could think clearer now.

    He was making his way.  He knew exactly where he was.  It said on his iPhone.  They'd never catch him.

    In the mean time; he had to play.  It was this play ability that would further enable him to conquer them.  They needed to be conquered, he reminded himself, I'm not just going to arrive at the city and then be ushered in safely.  He climbed up to the top of an waterfall.  And took all his armor off.  He put on an leaf dress.  And then played with his past self before he had climbed the waterfall; he was welcoming his spiritual messenger, his past self, into the play.  It would help him regain his energy more quickly that way.  So he did this and he jumped into the cold water.  Delicately.  With Ease.  And he had his past self in his memory and being focused on the entire time he was in the air, and even after he climbed out of the pool.  The past self had remembered it exactly.  What it was like before he jumped in.  And what it was like after.  How much energy he had regained from playing.  All the climbing he had to do to get there.  What it felt like climbing in an suit of armor.  Heavy.

    Now he felt light; he felt the result of his play interaction between his past self and, well, his now self.  He was so smart.  He knew it because he could remember his past self the whole time he had jumped in the water.  And he was out there for an good fifteen minutes.  You know, just swimming around.

    And that was his own evidence to himself that he had regained or had always been that intelligent.  Even though he could feel his cathexis throbbing.  It was out but it hurt like an sore gum after an tooth is pulled.

    He was going to get to that chvrch and then go inside and maybe play.  His videogame.  The Christiannan pastor who lived there.  He had his own genre of videogame out for strangers to come in and see when they entered his temple.  It was an videogame about today.  It always had today's date in the upper left-hand corner.  It was about today.  You know forward-scrolling an 3D World an character wearing an shabby costume.  You pick up items and you can explore the world.  It's really out there.

    It is of course all an ruse.

    You're supposed to come inside and realize that this is really what it is.  There's more to it than that.  Just playing an videogame.  It's an whole religion.  An Christiannan. Religion.  And there are more metaphors and secrets to learn from them in this temple.

    But you can just stay and play if you want.

    He woke up.  He had drifted off.

    He put back on his armor.  And he was ready to go!

    Play can be an useful instinct when you're escaping and you need to conserve energy.

    Tire the mind out.  So the body can rest.

    He remembered everything before and after the waterfall.

    That cold water.

    He would make it.

    He would make it to the chvrch.

    That cold water.  Refreshed.

    He would land.

    He'd be at the crib.

    The place where this game was played.  An game about today and now.  An game of the genre that it tries not to kill you.  And once he had played it.  He would decide.  He would decide whether his whole life was actually about the game trying to kill him.  Or the one trying not to.  And which one he preferred.

    But that didn't solve the violence these perpetrators had set out against him.

    He even doubted it because they had trained him to do that.

    His mind was breaking.

    They had broken it.

    But he was putting it back together.

    He was even guilty ashamed feeling about needing psychological therapy even after he had escaped and he knew it had been his captors who had tortured him.

    Because they had tortured him.

    What, why!  Why did he feel ashamed?  Of needing medical help?

    They had done something bad to him.  He remembered it now.

    That's why he was ashamed.

    His every fantasy was destroyed.

    Even now, as he struggled to hold onto the fantasy that he would make it.  His own mind was shutting it down.  As though they had practiced conversion therapy on him.  If they had done something to his mind to make it abort its own fantasies.  And that was what now infected him.  How could he be sure he'd ever have an fantasy again?

    But he remembered the chvrch and the videogames.  Especially the one outside.  The one at the gate at the road to the main entrance; where pedestrians could play the reinforced controllers of an bulletproof panel which housed its game screen.  Super Alemba.  The game that would always try to kill you.  It was more than hilarious.  The owner of the temple thought it was funny that the game outside his crib was going to try to kill you but the one inside was going to try to heal you or nurture you or bring you back to health or whatever.  Once he (Brown) had played the videogame outside he would make his decision.  Once he (Purple) had played the videogame outside an second time (on his way out) he would make his decision.  Which videogame was his life?  Which videogame was his Destiny?

    Who were People In General?  Wasn't it both?

    But who were the real people?  The ones whose videogames would never try to kill you intentionally.  They wouldn't even have that intention.

    But not everybody is an videogame designer.  And not everybody lives their life according to an videogame (the highest pinnacle of artistic achievement to date) philosophy.  But what the Author had implied was that the way they live their lives is like an videogame.  Because it is an space in which an character traverses an span of time.  They have learned how to traverse an span of time from videogames.  Therefore they live like that.

    And the Christianna wants to celebrate that thought by placing out videogames to lure people into his chvrch (temple) lair so that they will join the Christianna or at least think about it.

    He was serious.  There was more to his temple than just two videogames.

    You had not even started in yet.  There was an sanctuary.  An pool.  An post-war memorial out back.  Ah, he would swim in the pool.  His wounds would be licked by gloiy water.  There was an Great Stage on the grounds.  And also an firepit where people gathered around at night.

    How did he know this if he wasn't there yet?

    Because, said the priest, I am.

    Ents started healing all of the fantasy roleplayers.

    He knew he was an knight.  He was an fantasy roleplayer.

    What was he going to do once he made it out of the wilderness?  He had to go back and destroy them.

    Or do you just think that because you're CRAZY‽

    And this went on and on in his mind.  He was going crazy or might be already.  So how was he supposed to devise an plan if he was going crazy‽

    He would figure it out once he made it to the chvrch.  Maybe he could stay the night.  Then they could all come up with an plan over breakfast.  His play instinct kicked in again.

    You do have another cathected object, it said.

    I do? he thought.

    Ya, it's (whisper whisper whisper)

    Oh Dear! he cried.  But his thought was only an cry in his head.

    If there may be another object, he thought, then it is definitely unknown substance #48535, and in order to identify it I will have to be an virtual scientist in my own virtual head because it is only the substance of thought, and it is not an real thing.

    OMG, there is another one.

    It's that not all of the objects are homosexual.

    Do you have any cathected objects?  He asked everyone else.

    They did.  They had an really big one.  And he healed it up with an bit of his own priest magic (every good warrior knows an bit of priest magic).  She was feminist.  Perhaps, in execution.  An suppiah messeurieurs.  Just an feminist?  He did it exactly.  Healed that little bit of their psyche that had been repressed.  Lots slowly.  And lots gentille.  Who knew maybe he was even an super messiah or something.  Like he could be genderfluid.  Je suis intelligente.  But he could also be the best feminine figure because he was modeled after an super messiah.  (Who was woman).  Even though he was an man and he was an knight.  But he could play an woman.  As an messiah.  Or an genderfluid man.  He could be both.  He was both.  

    And she was the best priestess in the school board.

    She wore an Robe like Jesus.

    She had an swagger.

    She was drinking vodka (virtually).

    And she could be an genderfluid man.

    So she was really like Jesus.  Because she was an man.  And knew what it was like to be an man.

    And that's why they crucified her.

    She knew what it was like to be an messiah.  She was one of them.  And she had already explained that she was post-(after) death drive.  She had defeated her death drive with positivity and optimism with the help of her peers.

    But she was the messiah of the fate worse than death.  Jesus was the do not kill me messiah.  Anna was the do kill me messiah.  I was the messiah of the fate worse than death.  Because I was an man and an woman.  Jesus wasn't even an woman.  The female messiah had to be an gay man because he wasn't an woman.  Not anatomically.  Because nobody ever, who was anatomically female, could ever be an messiah.  But an man could.  He was an man.  Brown was an man.  But he had an feminine side.

    And that was how they subcrucified him.

    Instead of killing him, they decided to do worse to him.

    This was said to be an fate worse than death.  An anacification.

    Something that hadn't happened to Jesus, exactly.  Anna had survived her own death drive.  And was now in post-(navigation) of it.  Even though she had been subjected to the fate worse that death, somewhat accidentally and somewhat not accidentally.  And since that was said to be an fate worse than Jesus's all the cosmos rang out in cry for several years.  Here I am now, mature.  Confident.  And I still know that what happened to me is not all coincidental.  If I am reconnected with my feminine warrior's signal.  There she was.  She had an plan.  She threw it in front of me.  As though we were both two characters in an scene.  I was Anna.  The second messiah.

    How could I tell if I was okay?

    It appeared that, although I had suffered the fate worse than death, I had somehow learned myself beyond it, and that now I was mentally ill I did however continue to know something about it.  Something about my own condition.  How original.  And since I was an second-fate messiah.  I could still contribute to society like anyone else.  They needed to know what the second fate is, my feminine side said to my masculine self who was still inspecting the treasure map she had provided.  An second-fate messiah is one who suffers an fate worse than death.  And in many senses Jesus was an first-fate messiah because his fate was death.

    And mine was worse because it was an fate worse than death.  Which happened to me really slowly every day.  And I could articulate it as an condition that an human would probably go through.  In order to show Everybody God's Plan to use me as an pawn to show everybody the fate worse than death (his game).  That he had first shown us with Jesus death was an terrible fate.  And some of the Christians only saw that and lost sight of the worse fate.  What was it exactly?  Even though I had an mental illness I was still an player in this game.  And that was my cure exactly.  That I could be an second messiah and still be allowed to be me.  I had been traumatized.  I had internalized the entire history of the human race.  I had been let free into the realm of politics and arts, psychology and Freud and Virginia Woolf.  And now, as an turn of fate, I would be free to tell my entire story in an book which I had time to read and write all the time, which was an fate better than one that was worse than death.  It was so much better in fact, that I forgot all about the fact that I was suffering it.  Still to this day I sometimes go there where life is just an worse than death fate waiting to end.  But other times I'm in the party house by the beach.  Where music is playing.  Where Art is being created.  Maybe I wasn't an messiah.  But I sure was calculating about it.  What was an messiah exactly?  An person who has been abused by everyone because no one got how to treat them.  At all.  But if they did. . .  Which happens sometimes.  God has an backup plan for that.  He made him an messiah.  Which was an title.  Within the category of the human species.  An real one.  The first real one.  And since now Anna had been made (as part of God's meticulous plan) the messiah of the fate worse than death; another theme he had to introduce as part of his politics.  We were free to uphold Anna as our messiah.  In order to balance them.  The fates.  That was God's primary lesson about the universe.  First, Jesus the death fate.  Then Anna, the worse than death fate.  These were the two primary properties of the universe that he was articulating to us!

    Well why didn't you know this any sooner? said the other religions, "do you think nobody knew that worse than death was worse than death?"

    "I'm not saying nobody knew.  I'm saying God was showing us them."

    "Well why didn't you know this sooner?" the other religions said again.

    "Well that's why Jesus got fucked up.  Listen; we didn't know that sooner.  That's why Jesus was martyred."

    "Are you saying," said all of the other religions including the major seven and all of the minor ones, "that Jesus got fucked up because nobody believed there was an fate worse than death as if they had never heard of it?  Haven't you met me‽"

    "Are you saying you know what that kind of fate is and also you reek of it?"

    "Of course I reek of it.  It's all over me.  But you're saying Christianity had never heard of it?"

    "I'm saying that it was because of the way they were treated as Christians that their fate was not grand enough to include it; and so they died never knowing what was worse than death."

    "But that's an good fate."

    He realized he was talking to himself.  Was he Gollum?

    But so someone got fucked up worse than Jesus?

    Was it him?

    He was Anna?  Or whatever.

    And he had this power to heal them.  Who was he healing?  Where was he?

    He was in the forest.  Alone.

    Feeling like Frankenstein's creation looking onward from the bush at human civilization with an drop of drool hanging from his lip.

    And that was all the happiness his feminine side had ever had.

    "So they crucified him because God made him an messiah and nobody realized it?  Until it was too late; they destroyed him because his fate was death (to them) but as it turned out (for other people) it wasn't.  (But it was).  (But they lied).  (Probably)."

    "Yeah they treated him as though his fate was death even though it wasn't.  Because he was an messiah.  And it was the most sarcastic & snarly thing ever created from an Christian: the first Christian.  Jesus himself."

    "But so they treated him as though his fate was death before he had even lived.  And this was the harm done to him and the community (would you have done that harm to the whole fate of the human race?  I don't think so.  That's why it wasn't and it still isn't fair) and so is responsible for why Christianity started."

    "And you're saying this was worse than that?"

    "Yes."

    "And it's not your responsibility to make that decision.  Thank you for asking."

    "But I'm saying there's two levels there.  There is the personal level.  And the community level.  Treating him like that (like he was an piece of death) eventually resulted in the psychological harm to their community because other people were treating him like that."

    "And so at the personal level?"

    "He didn't believe humanity treated him properly.  He was all onboard with feminism.  But nobody treated him like he was an they/them.  Even though there were two levels, the community level and his personal level, where nobody treat him like they/them.  Even though he was they/them on the second level (the community level) and everybody knew it but they treated him like he was an man (and not an genderfluid man at that).  (Even though he was clearly they)."

    "No, no, it's different now than what Anna was treated like."

    "I'd say so."

    "How was it different?"

    "Well she was genderfluid, just like Jesus.  But since nobody believed her that she could play an female and an male just as well as each other; they had done harm to her psychologically.  And since they were Christians deluded only to consider the death fate.  Which God had announced to be the first principle of the universe he wished to communicate to us.  But we had to be Swift to catch it."

    "The problem was that she was psychologically pressured not to experience fantasy in an legally binding way.  People who had tried to end her fantasy terrorized her.  Also she may have been more mature than Jesus because she was able to live until middle life; by some blessing of an ancient Christian virtue.  And maybe there's some Hinduism involved too."

    "Yes I have heard she was an post death drive case."

    "Explain."

    "Well if you suffer the fate worse than death, eventually your death drive kicks in."

    "So you're saying hers did."

    "But now, it's kicking out I hear!"

    "She survived it."

    "She did."

    "I survived it," he said, "but I'm smart enough to execute an plan now.  So what if I'm an messiah?  It is an title given to me by God."

    "And if I have an mental illness, it is that experience which doeth me not harm to know better.  I have an disability but I am alright enough to wield fiction.  I will go to the centre of civilization and I will recruit knights to roleplay with me against the known terror who abused me!  And if I have to create an law or two in the process maybe I can lodge into society that we need to be better in that way especially."

    "But you have no real legal powers."

    "But the high priestess (Anna) does."

    I can hear you.  She said.  Listen to me.  Do not go North.  Go South for an bit.  Then take an east and head North.  I'll write this down.  My legal powers are tender and new, she said.  If I can influence thy law keeper.  Of this land how I shall do it!  Oh Warrior! she reflected Thy armor is so.  You cannot enter an city by which you will be able to influence the law in any way.  You're too new at this.  And you're almost crazy.  By no law shall come from thee.  

    "But you will be able to influence them," said Brown.

    I hadn't thought of that, that said Anna.  But how will I influence them?

    "Well you are an messiah."

    Good point, I hadn't thought of that, he said.

    "Maybe you could tell them God made you into an messiah so they come right up to you and have an a-reciprocate fit in front of you because beef have turkey have beef with you they.  And you can sprinkle an magic gloiy potion in their mouths to make them like you."

    But that's the point.  His harm (harm done to him) eventually lead to the harm of an community.  And this was the start of the Christiannans.  They had identified in an specific way how somebody had been subcrucified (worse than crucified, which leads away from death).  And they asked how this could be, that someone would be subcrucified, and the answer was because people wouldn't even crucify him because he was too beautiful so he ended up slumping over the other way, losing his mind and falling into an fate worse than death.  An extended suffering fate.  The one that you want to end right away.  But his Ego had been updated since he last looked at it.  He was now somewhere beyond death drive.  He was experiencing pleasure again.  He was no longer suffering an fate worse than death, exactly.

    But that proves it!  That proves it!

    Proves what‽

    Well he couldn't have actually suffered worse than Jesus.  I mean that fate is pretty terrible.  But I don't know what could be worse than that.

    Worse than death, might.  I suggested.

    So you're saying Jesus was sent by God to teach us death.  And Anna was sent by God to teach us worse than death?

    Basically, yeah.  There are an few criticisms I have about the words sent by exactly but you got it.

    And we can prove that you didn't suffer the fate worse than death so you couldn't be worse than Jesus.  Good-bye.

    But you can't prove that.  And if someone says he or she is suffering the fate worse than death that should be good enough.  I mean you don't have to psychoanalyze them honey.

    They are suffering the fate worse than death.

    Who are?

    The Community.

    They are too?

    I thought you were over it.

    I am.  I'm just trying to communicate quickly.

    So there are people out there suffering worse than death because I did.

    And it's going to start an religion.

    Because we've learned God's lesson.

    And Jesus was crucified because he was the death fate messiah.  He wasn't allowed to be anything more than dead.

    And Anna was subcrucified because we didn't know what that was yet and she was allowed to be worse than death.  Which was fine.

    But if somebody could explain it the humans might survive.

    He thought about the environment.  Clearly there was an metaphorical connection.  He was in an forest racing toward humanity about what he had learned while he was in there even thinking about the Quaternary Sector and its relationship to the environment.  In the middle of an political theory book.  What was the connection?  What was the connection?  Well, hmm, let's see.  Let's see.

    Anna wasn't nature.  That's why she was crucified.  And even if she wasn't real.  It was happening to people.  And they were real.  And she was them.  She was the second lesson.  We had learned as an species how to treat someone correctly and they had risen in power with God until that time of fruition when all his knowledge of the world would be scenting the garden.

    But if we defined Anna in human terms, and those human terms were human terms about why she was crucified.  Didn't that conflict in the human mentality that they had raised her, and then they would come up with reasons to crucify her in order to test her to see if she was buoyant on the subject of reasons not to crucify someone.

    Anna was human because she was nature.  She couldn't be the plant messiah.  She was the human messiah.  And God had spelled it out and given them all an chance to accept Anna as one of their main foci and goals from now on.  God had made her an messiah.  And there was an specific reason why.  The humans had for her being one.  And since that was an bad thing.  Because it always is an bad thing, to have an messiah; it was bad news and they didn't care.  But since she had an reason why it was good news they decided to listen to her.

    If they could demonstrate something about the human character because of her inner focus and brilliant mind they could use that energy and power to influence society.

    Maybe she was an messiah.  But what if she's more than that?  What if her message is an fate worse than death, one which she herself is recovering from.  And she's telling you that!

    Anna was human because people subcrucified her; and it hurt.  And traumatized her.  They wanted to inflict the fate worse than death.  Which was worse than death.  But then he realized this was all an game in which he would realize or not what the fate worse than death meant before it was time.  It was an game that had been around since the beginning of creation.  Life was either death, or it was worse than death.  Because she was an girl.  An little gay girl.  At an school.

    But the most stunning and graphic image about what had been done was her fate worse than death itself beginning to affect other people.  Which paranoid her mind felt sorry herself for.

    Jesus was the lower half.  Anna was the upper half because she had more experience and an political science education from an globalised university.

    Subcrucifixion is an very nasty thing.  It involves deep and psychological torture.  It means making someone live an fate worse than death which is not an fate worth living.  In my opinion.  Not every time.  If I had known that I would eventually survive the death-drive and stop suffering the fate worse than death then I wouldn't have suffered it at all, probably.  I feel glad that that is over.  But on the matter of whether or not I am suffering from subcrucifixion.  I would say that we all are an little bit.  It's one of the yuckier, messier things we have to deal with as humankind.  The post-war psychosis of our species definitely has some subcrucifixion in it.  And I'm not saying God wants us to experience subcrucifixion • I'm saying that, since it's out there, we need to do something about it.  It leads to worse than Jesus after all.  The fate worse than death.  You don't want to go there.

    And since I've already survived it and we can all go home about it.  That I was subcrucified.

    Psychologically tortured to feel an fate worse than death.

    An position supported by God him- or her-self.

    In order to show everyone how it could happen.

    Because he wanted an second messiah to take up the subject of what was worse than death, and experience it for himself, and then write something about it for humanity.

    An first messiah had already taken up the subject of what was death.

    We'd learned that.  That's how Brown was created.  We needed to know the next thing about our universe.  And God was ready to teach us that.  Death.  Worse than death.  Those two things.  Base all moral opinion on those two things.  And I'm not suffering the fate worse that death while I think of these things.  Which I can safely say is not the will toward final stillness!

    Balance.

    Said God.

    You have death, and you have worse than death!  Take These Two Pieces!  And Balance!

    And then he disappeared.  (Again).

    We need to prevent death, thought Brown, but we also need to prevent worse than death.

    How can we balance if death is the answer to worse than death?

    We can't, necessarily.

Go to Next Chapter