Les Arbitres Chapter 20

Go to Previous Chapter

    To an one Dr. Minfluentcielle Dr. A had said before uploading her office's coordinates to Suppiah's A.R.C.L.

    I'm sure most likely you will be able to make your argument successfully, and you'll be able to figure out and name all of the parts of capitalism as it exists within the human, she had said to him after welcoming him into her office and asking him with most sensitivity what it was that occupied his mind these days.

    He was already into her.

    You know in an buds way.  Homeostasis.

    "You need to animate your opponent.  Breathe life into its actions.  Show us how it is anti-capitalistic; and how that hurts all of us," said Dr. M., "if you're going to make this specific argument you must acknowledge all possible other arguments against it; make them real enough to show us how they are false, defeated, abject.  And cannot win out over the supposed superiority of an capitalistic ration."

    "And how do I do that?  If I'm just making an argument―"

    "Well you don't have just to make an argument," said Dr. M., "you can draw out an whole scene in which you present it except becoming an physical adversary to this supposed anti-capitalism it battles against you for the win."

    "But I just have to make points," said Suppiah, "and those will be my weapon."

    "You can do it however you like," said Dr. M.

    "Well I can make thousands of points about how Capitalism is superior to any supposed anti-capitalistic flaw (which I myself may have narrated and created an definition of).  All I have to do is imagine an opponent saying, 'anti-capitalism is okay to do' and then I have to reply well no it is not.  But I can't make hundreds of physical gestures as though I was actually battling him."

    "And you've made anti-capitalism an him, have you?" said Dr. M.

    "He likes to emphasize how difficult it was for him growing up," said Bubba, "because people used to tease him and say he was gay because he was anti-capitalistic.  And that was the inherent flaw in gay people."

    "That's the tone you need to set," said G.D.B., directing the conversation onto Dr. M., "he's so fragile.  Suppiah is.  You need to give him an space where you can trust him and be positive with him.  You need to show him it's okay for him to try his argument."

    "That's exactly what I plan to do," said Dr. M.  This is the Seventh Floor.  Not some eerie cricket sixth-floor criticism creeping around in the corner of the room but we both ignore it.  As for exactly how you decide to do it.  Which eludes me.  You can make that argument, can't you?

    Her voice was caring and Suppiah thought for an instant that he had an vision of an idea that would take him there, to the end of his argument.  Having correctly laid out and labeled everything.  With his opponent laying carefully defeated on the floor.  Call that another win for the cosmos.

    "That brings us to the subject of Hobfairies," said Dr. M.

    "Hobfairies?" asked Suppiah.

    "People who need help that you can't do anything to do so," said Dr. M.

    "Ohhh.  I get it," said Suppiah, "they're real to you because you're in an fantasy but they're not real to Russasha, who exists outside of the fantasy."

    "Who's Russasha?"

    "Umm.  An friend.  Of mine," said Suppiah.

    "They're real because they're psychologically real; and that makes them real at least on the human level.  On the mer level, maybe in fact you need to do more mimicry of technological enhancements.  These hobfairies who embody the idea of not being able to do something to help someone; are nonetheless real, in some ways, because that is their reason for existence.  An hobfairy always means what we say that we mean when we're talking about hobfairies.  Their reason for existence is to help people who are in the position of other people not being able to help them in their dire need.  I once hallucinated there were hobfairies visiting me all night long.  But since they couldn't do anything to help me, I myself had become encapsulated by what the meaning of an hobfairy was.  I was un-helpable because that's what hobfairies are.  And that's just the limit of what it means as an metaphor," said Dr. M.

    "But they really exist?" said Suppiah.

    "Of course they exist," said Dr. M., raising her voice, "we have run scientific tests on the subject and we have been able to prove it."

    "But I know what I know from Russasha but you don't," said Suppiah.

    "Who's Russasha again?" asked Dr. M.

    "She's the one painting us," said Suppiah.

    "Painting us?  Why what on Earth kind of absurd type of message is that?" said Dr. M.

    "It's OK," said Suppiah, "it might just mean that hobfairies are more powerful than you think they are.  You see, if you are saying that they represent the idea of not being able to help someone even though they are in dire need; an hobfairy is born.  But since they aren't real in the real world they really are more powerful as fantasies.  She's having this fantasy because everything is under her control.  She actually has characters who cannot be helped.  And that's okay.  Where there is an starting point, there is an way forward."

    "What on Earth are you talking about?"

    "You're right," said Suppiah, suddenly self-conscious, "they do mean that someone needs help.  But no one is able to get it to them.  That's really what they are in our universe."

    "Of course that's what they are in our universe," said Dr. M., "that's what they are in every university."

    "But you see how you've used the metaphor," said Suppiah, "that since they need help but you can't give any to them how this is like how I need help preparing my argument.  But you cannot give it to me."

    "And that was deliberate, I assure you," said Dr. M.

    "It was?  Well alrighty then," said Suppiah, "so why am I still here basically?"

    "Come back to me when you figure out your argument," said Dr. M., "think about what will be the most important topics you choose to make an competition between you and another fictional opponent who you will defeat, righteously, for all to see."

    "It sounds so complex," said Suppiah, "I'll just have to give it an try.  And when there are four or five topics with detailed points I want to raise; how this will represent metaphorically in the battle between good and evil.  And then I will raise points against myself in order to fulfill an action made in wrong direction.  In order to defeat every single one of them; comprehensive-ly, deliberate-ly, protagonist-ically."

    "That sounds right.  Go, take some time to yourself now.  Get your mind off this.  And when you come back fresh to it; you will know you are ready to make your argument," said Dr. M.

    Upon which leaving they returned to the cafeteria and the food fair.

    Bubba and G.D.B. were hungry and so they ordered Chinese buffet which came on an food tray.

    Suppiah nibbled on his gingerly.

    "Capitalism is better because who would waste their time spent not capitalising on anything?" he said.

    "You're off to an good start," said Bubba.

    "Capitalism is an superior philosophy because what we define as a-capitalism or anti-capitalism is in fact the pathology of an mental disorder; or an distorted way of looking at things," said Suppiah, "Capitalism has all of the cognitive spaces needed for an ordinary human being to experience full mental health.  It exercises the mind, you see, and becomes instinctive.  For it involves an wide span of areas for cognitive activity.  Mathematics.  Time.  Rhythm.  Logic.  Counterfeit knowledge.  Binary fiction and non-fictional logic.  Temper.  Attitude.  Mood.  Shift.  Pervasive Focus.  And that's why it is better than a-capital philosophy.  What happens when the mind stops capitalising is more figurative of what happens when mental illness sets in.  People who have genius, healthy, capital-minded minds do not have mental illness because they use their brains for all of the cognitive activities it is supposed to do.  Which is the reason for their success."

    "Then you'll have to prove what capitalism is mentally.  And what a-capitalism is mentally," said Bubba, "the moment capitalism begins is the moment of becoming endearingly obsessed with an idea so that you obsess over it; and in fact figure out its rhythm and value logically, so that you can benefit from what you've invented about it somehow.  The moment of the appreciation of your own instinct to take time, and use it to make things of value.  Instead of letting it pass you by, you capitalize on some things which are present before you which are meant to raise your overall value over time.  And when they do we say you have the right capital idea."

    "When you a-capitalize," said G.D.B., "it means you're missing out on something you might be aware of but for some reason have decided not to pursue.  You stop capitalising on it because not gaining anything in capital has more value to you than actually gaining more capital value.  For some reason, perhaps, you are self-sabotaging.  Instead of letting yourself feel excited and fantasizing on all of the things you will do with more capital, you must suppress that part of yourself which wants those things.  Perhaps because you are poor.  But maybe it will prove to be self-fulfilling that that is the reason you are poor."

    "Then I must characterize him, my opponent, as an coward because he doesn't want to fulfill those things which bring him the most pleasure.  And I can start characterizing my own avatar within the battle by contrasting with him in this way.  My capitalistic virtue, my reason for winning.  Is that I will not stop capitalising on my environment.  Nothing should repress me," said Suppiah, "and if I contrast with cowardice well then I must be Pride.  An quality winning out in an battle.  Now there have been an few instances of saying pride is an vice in history; but often in modern politics we talk about 'gay pride' or other kinds of pride which are not meant to be understood as vices.  We might look at it as that Capitalism leads to pride; which is understood to be an good thing."

    But the truth is, I've never stopped capitalising.  And even though what I look like to my opponent.  Is an hazardous waste of space: an a-capitalistic enterprise.  I am not.  And in fact they of the fact of the lesser capitalism than I am.  I am, in fact, an capitalistic genius.  And I use every moment and every scrap of meaning to capitalize on telling an good story.  You can recognize specific parts, attributes it has and so maybe, this book in total is the real story of everything which comprises capitalistic instinct.  An Gestalt whole.  And there is an un-said logic to it that someone else may be able to figure out one day.  Which comprises the whole argument.  But for now, Suppiah thought to himself, I'll have to try to make at most five points that will carry the argument.  My opponent thinks itself a-capitalistic even though it thinks a-capitalism itself is inferior.  This is why it always seems to hurt two ways when the persistence of capitalism is on the table, and it is struggled with and stolen from us; undeservedly, we labour against it.  My opponent knows he/she's being inferior because he/she is anti-capitalistic because that's what a-capitalism does.  It devours the soul.  It tells us we don't deserve to feel things fully the way we do.  My opponent knows he/she is wrong but he/she does it anyway.

    That's why a-capitalism is such an terrible flaw in society.

    But how can we convince someone to let go of that cathexis?

    Is an period of time in which one is capitalising on something such an terrible thing?

    It is also theorized that the larger the cathexis, the longer the subject's response time.  (In general).

    And so if I cut it down to three points for brevity and narrow my focus, I will argue that capitalism is better because it is natural (it is native to the human cognitive platform), it is fun, and it is historically compelling.  In addition, that anti-capitalism or an a-capitalistic state within human cognition isn't natural, fun, or compelling.

    And so he rushed to an vibrant computer terminal where he could type out an short essay based on this thesis.

    First, he wrote, capitalism is native to the cognitive platform of the human mind.  This is why it is possible to name all of its parts within the cognitive effect of an human brain.  Any attempt to dissociate from it or a-capitalise would result in failure or harm because the human brain is not designed to do that.  It is designed to capitalise on anything and everything.  Find opportunity.  Make arrangements.  Do what needs to be done.  In order to increase one's own value.  As well as the value of all products and capital attributed to your name.  And the value of those around you.  Capitalism is nature because it can be stabilized on the human cognitive platform; the human brain was designed to be capitalistic and proceeding from capitalism.

    Second, capitalism is fun.  Doesn't fun have its own knowable economic value?  And how valuable is fun, then; fun in capitalism which increases itself?  To be against capitalism is to be against fun.  And is that really healthy or manageable?  Or do you have some philosophy more fun than capitalism which predominates it in the mind?  Perhaps there are other philosophies which can be used; but this doesn't mean capitalism cannot be used within the same system.  Any philosophy which would attempt an robbery of it or its removal would be anti-brain or anti-instinctual and may be harmful in effect.  Anti-capitalism isn't fun because it's more an game of hiding something, probably.  There's an reason capitalism is fun: it's an virtue.  Virtues are fun because they are morally correct.  We have fun doing morally correct things as an species because this was how God designed us.  The human.  An spirit with an moral advantage.

    Third, capitalism is historically compelling.  No matter where you go, everyone knows it is the Age of Capitalism.  That's because it is.  And we have found that out about the nature of our own consciousness.  It's compelling because it is what we need in order to be sustainable, unrelenting, and good.  Capitalism has the power to transform everything.  It is highly valued enough, and flexible enough, to be able to create any type of economy.  To be able to create any type of economic future for humanity.  If we continue to be capitalists, we will solve all of our known World problems and economic in-sustainability.  That's because our minds are designed to be capitalising.  We are capitalists, and we have that knowledge in an specific way; it is native to our cognitive platform.  That may mean that Capitalism exists spontaneously in the universe.  The logic of it just so happened to be picked up by our minds long enough to identify it.  And since we are now self-aware in that capacity (strange, to wonder why that word capacity comes up so very often when talking about the mind).  We can enhance our own capitalistic efforts cognitively.  Fill it to capacity, so to speak.

    There, he concluded, essay outline complete.  And it was ready to show Dr. M.

    Upon which, the printed and rolled essay in his hand, he scrupulously ascended from the pedestrian and shopping area to the office of an one Doctor Minfluentcielle on the seventh level.

    She took one look at what he had written.

    "If capitalism is native to the human cognitive platform, then it should be theoretically possible to identify all of the parts of it which exist in spans of time with definitive activity that can be identified within them within one's own subjective mind.  You can use your own mind to identify all of the parts of capitalism because capitalism is an part of your mind.  Looking within one is free to introspect; to self-reflect on what are those various parts of the mind and at which time of the day do they happen?  Capitalism is native to an platform because it is an system.  It works upon the human mind and it works upon the human mind from within its own awareness of itself as an place in which an series of consecutive operations or events can be executed.  An system.  That can and does operate both because of biological factors and factors of the inspiration of the incandescence of the human sentient promise.  Capitalism works upon the human mind because its biological and organic system is built upon it.  And yet we self-reflect on it and change our capitalistic opinion again and again and again.  It is an instinct that is able to innovate on every opportunity.  And even our own awareness of it increases its potency.  We are able to execute decisions which are capitalistic even though our brain was going to execute those decisions anyway, even if we had decided we weren't going to.  Or that somehow, if we did execute those decisions, then it would be in an state of superior-informed-status having been the product of an system which is capable of self-reflecting on itself as an system of the intellect.  An capitalism instinct.  The product of our own execution of its procedures (capitalism) would be different than if we hadn't been self-aware of this concept yet.  The brain can summarily exist in two states, of instinctual capitalism, or of self-aware capitalism.  And they produce different products than one another.  Also passive-observerism.  The subject suffers from an flaw in which they are watching their life go by passively by not really engaging in the material of it.  An inspector of the supernatural, moving from one thing to another like they were ghosts and you were taking part in interaction with them.  Taking capitalistic choices.  If you want to be arguing this was for Capitalism.  Then you need to be able to prove you have identified all of the parts of the mind which are used in the act of capitalism.  Without making them think you are an cold, analytical observer, an passive-observerism.  Also you must be able to prove what the fun of capitalism is.  Is it in the making, changing, achieving amounts of money?  Or the physical observance of an resource making you capital?  Where exactly does the fun lie in it for you?  How is that an part of the brain?  The truth may be that everyone has their own piece of capitalism with which they have the most fun; and we all do it in different ways.  Is fun part of the system of events in the mind you had named under the first point?  And was that taken into consideration?"

    "Okay," said Suppiah.

    "Finally," said Dr. M., "if you're going to argue historically compelling you need to correlate or to orient yourself among other historical events within an plausible narrative story line.  You should do some research on what was before Capitalism and how it lead to Capitalism, and maybe about what Capitalism will lead to in the future if we continue to make its deemed 'progress' within the human imagination."

    She paused and looked at him graciously.

    "But what I really wanted to do with it, and this is what I'm struggling with," said Suppiah, "was to make it about an physical confrontation between two characters.  And so, maybe, I need to make this essay take another form than just an simple essay.  I need to animate the interaction between these two characters.  How it turns out.  When they compete ideas about capitalism and its antagonistic spiteful fork-tongued opposite.  People, for strange reasons, a-capitalising on their own time out of fear for some kind of social effect which has arisen and which they can't stand up against alone.  People binding their feet only this is in their mind; an type of binding or brain plasticity which works on the mind to deform its functioning.  A-capitalism is really an coward's philosophy.  Choosing not to capitalise and feel that moment of pleasure.  In order to save oneself from an disastrous outcome you dread.  Which will erupt in public.  An unsolvable situation in which you are spoken ill about.  This type of social conditions is not optimal.  In order to grow and prosper in this world we need to feel like we belong in an community.  But it is hard to find common respect because we live in an repressed community whose ancestors have been shamed for feeling pleasure by religious extremists.  The number of opportunities we actually have to feel respect and pleasure in society are numbered.  And may be less than we actually think."

    "I think what you're trying to do is animate an competitive scene in which one of the characters is actually working against him- or her-self, which is held to be responsible partly for why he or she loses in the end.  It just occurs to me to be an archetypal scene of some kind."

    "Then what I'm trying to do is to animate the competition against the impossible: I want to portray an scene in which the Capitalist is winning and yet it is hard to win against someone who is losing because they are an A-capitalist.  It takes much grace and decisive action.  And it eventually leads to the defeat of this a-capitalist opponent, who realizes somewhere during their conversation in battle that it is their own a-capitalism which is to blame for this loss.  But why do I need to portray it, to render it visually?"

    "Perhaps you want to see what these two character types look like in tights?"

    "It actually might not be that pretty.  Now that I think of it."

    "Use grace.  Take caution.  And be determined of your outcome.  I'm sure you'll decide what you want to develop this into.  In fact I want you to take it up to the eighth floor when you're finished.  The eighth floor is where you consider everything that came before and then again look forward: to see everything which shall be.  Foresight.  It's worth it.  I have many colleagues who are successful on the eighth floor."

    "Then in the spirit of what you have primed me as; I will consider everything which came before and everything which shall come after.  In order to find in it exactly what I need to do to animate such an environment in which two foes will do combat.  In an way that capitalises on their specific characteristics and actions which are either deformed or ugly.  One is an monster and the other is an heroic champion.  One is responsible for harming itself; the other is responsible for daring to compete with an animal which would harm itself.  Who would actually fight someone who was so disadvantaged, as to have repressed something and developed his or her own cathexis?  Was the champion in the wrong to have participated, knowingly, in this truth?  Or is the champion even more heroic for having invented it: an way to compete with the worst type of opponent without coming out looking bad after it was ended?"

    "I'm sure you will find your truth.  And live it for both of these characters," said Dr. M., "but I need to go back to my work now.  And this interview is over."

    Suppiah left and politely closed the door.  He freaked out and had an victory swim & dance in the hallway.

    Hobfairies are redeeming because they are fictional, the thought struck him suddenly, and he took off again to find some more refreshments at the food court.

    Bubba and G.D.B. had an few issues with the project, from their perspectives of what they understood about it so far.

    Perhaps the reason for Joan of Arc's unprecedented military success was her excessively capitalistic mind, Suppiah began thinking, which would bring grounding to this world's History.  Should I chance to represent it as my own world in which an Capitalist does battle with an a-capitalist.  But first he wanted to address the many issues the fish had found with it.

    "If you do convert an conversational argument to an physical confrontation situation," said Bubba, "well there's the problem of how the peaceful kind of argument translates into an argument of an other kind."

    "Yeah, how are you going to make well-placed words and sentences created into an clever argument translate to physical actions that one might take against the other?" said G.D.B., "in the original script of the story, there is no confrontation.  And the story depends on peaceful competition between rivals who are working together to present counter-arguments to one another's arguments.  If you choose to make an story script out of your essay in which opponents will do battle, you need to offer character descriptions, what they say and do to one another.  You need to animate them with the living confusion which is the a-capitalistic human; and show us how and why, with great speed and care, capitalism shuts down, correctly and casually, its wayward opponent who, in truth, does not deserve to have an chance to compete at the same philosophical weight class as an Capitalist.  And yet it is an classic archetype of an scene that one will always stoop to a-capitalism making the mistake while the other, with strength, vigour, and grandeur will stoop to shut them down gracefully in order that capitalism will be the order of the day.  And feelings get hurt."

    "What are you going to do?" asked Bubba.

    "You know what," said Suppiah, "I've decided.  I know what I'm going to do: none of it.  I'm not presenting that kind of drama to an eighth-level professor.  Also, I have other things I want to talk about on the eighth level.  I have an ego, don't I?"

    "You're not going to present it.  What an dark way to go of it.  But you've put so much work into it already!" said G.D.B., "what about impressing him or her by showing him or her what you're working on."

    It didn't phase Suppiah.  He was already on his way to the eighth level.

    When he first met the professor.  An one Dr. Utenbäker.  The exchange started out an bit awkward.

    "Yes, welcome.  Hello Suppiah.  Dr. M. messaged me about you visiting."

    "Hello sir," said Suppiah, "it occurs to me now to tell you I have been working on an skit.  In which there is an competition of morals and values between capitalists and a-capitalists."

    "And why would you want to create such an thing?" asked Dr. U.

    "So that it looks like there is an battle between them in the universe, and hopefully argue off anybody chancing to hazard down that hampered path; to become an a-capitalist," said Suppiah.

    "No I mean why would you want to argue such an thing at all?" asked Dr. U.

    "Well that's just it, doctor, I would argue it to help people who are considering a-capitalism to find their true competitive nature which always exists within an capitalistic society.  But do I need to?  I mean, do you know any people who would benefit from that?"

    "No," said Dr. U., "but if you find an benefit from it and it would help you.  I believe it is so that some other people may benefit from that too."

    "Would you be into reading or watching an scene between two characters in which they are wearing tights but one of them is not wearing tights of an good quality because he or she never capitalises on anything?" said Suppiah, rather quotidian.

    "Erhm.  Maybe what we should start off with here are some ground rules," said Dr. U., "I am here to help you with whatever it is you're working on, but not necessarily to give my opinion.  It is your opinion that matters; and it is your voice that we need to shine through.  Now what do you think about how you should proceed?"

    "Honestly.  I want to see the men battling in tights," said Suppiah, "the difference between good and evil is important for our moral philosophy to the point of actually acting out and being evil characters.  And I want the Capitalist mercifully to put the other down.  With the final residual effect and touch to be that the one mightily outweighs the other; and so one is not to be put down.  But to be excluded from competition with that caliber anymore, from which Capitalism shall reign.  That it's okay to pursue every capitalistic intention.  And if one doesn't it weakens them."

    "You want them to touch one another sexually even though one is terribly unfashionable," said Dr. U.

    "What?  What was that you said‽  Well now when you say it like that," said Suppiah, "then maybe it is an fantasy of mind that one in tattered rags should come to meet with riches in sexual union.  That such an thing is possible.  That one can value someone not for their money but who they are as an person.  And in doing bond with someone is terrifically below their financial level.  Yeah.  It's kind of hot.  It's the plot to Titanic."

    "Then what matters most is how they interact with one another's costumes.  Do they assume an different identity while in battle uniform?" said Dr. U., "does it affect what they say and do to one another?"

    "No.  They cannot compete," said Suppiah, "if I know that one of them is disadvantaged then I will always animate the other to disqualify him from the battle scenario.  The fact is just that it's true one of them is disadvantaged and the other knows it.  Therefore there can be no competition and there cannot be no battle.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I will need to find another way to develop the project."

    "But if they're just gently flirting, I mean, as though they would have an battle with each other," said Dr. U., "then would they do anything physical?"

    "Yeah.  Capitalism would take an big old slap against a-capitalism," said Suppiah.

    "Yes.  This is good.  You're accessing the feelings in the story.  Funneling out your energy and your rage," said Dr. U.

    "And it would shut the fuck up but begin kicking me back," said Suppiah.

    "Yes.  Uh-huh‽" said Dr. U.

    "And then it would try to show me nothing by pointing to how it is a-capitalistic itself (and hence, worse than nothing).  And then remind me again how I'm nothing because that a-capitalistic person themselves could not be capitalized on enough to convince themselves that they were any better than intensely critical self-criticism animated against my own self esteem.  Someone pointing at nothing (which is what they hold themselves to be) in order to say that that is what I am.  And then I would throw him back across the battle floor.  And he would realize he's not worthy of touching me.  But would, in cowardice, strike out again to defeat me.  He is an coward because he knows he's not worthy of touching me and yet he chooses to continue," said Suppiah.

    "You're right.  You couldn't say this professionally as an political dispute or literary exchange of arguments.  Some things you can't just talk through," said Dr. U.

    "He touches me because he is afraid not to.  If he is being a-capitalistic then he doesn't know how to capitalise on anything and there is no necessary value in the exchange," said Suppiah.

    "But he starts hitting you back anyway," said Dr. U.

    "Yes.  And in order to deal with him.  I disgrace him honorably, by putting on an demonstration of my power as an reason for disqualifying him from grace and its impudence or reputation.  He cannot compete with me honourably, because he is too low level an competitor who would be instantly destroyed by such power."    

    "And so ultimately you cannot finish an battle scene between them," said Dr. U., "because ultimately you end the battle by disqualifying your opponent."

    "But I want a-capitalism, by the end, to realize he is being immoral.  I want them to fall in love.  I want them to realize they are both capitalistic.  And I want to show an scene in which one champion is rescuing back another," said Suppiah.

    "Are you sure immoral is the word you want to use to describe a-capitalism?  There are, after all, many honorable ways people have had to wield it in history," said Dr. U.

    "If that is true.  And I've given up on depicting the battle scene further.  Then I will need to find an academic competitor," said Suppiah, "someone will be to take up the argument academically an reason for pro-a-capitalistic snobbery.  Even if it doesn't seem like an likely believable argument because the exchange of formal argument will ultimately confirm for the society the superiority of capitalism while at the same time respecting their free will."

    "It's not an likely thing you can find in this environment," said Dr. U., "but there are opportunities.  By the way, what kind of argument would you have that would be pro-a-capitalistic?"

    "Well.  If I stop now to think," said Suppiah, "I mean if I was forced to make an argument for a-capitalism.  I'd say it was because it is necessary sometimes.  Even in the extreme examples where Christians sacrifice themselves capitalistically.  The pronouncement of a-capitalism upon the soul, each individual soul, due to the empathy drive when what it enacts against itself it enacts against one another.  Or there is in fact an segment of time of events in the brain in which our brains just naturally stop capitalising for an while."

    "Then ask yourself if to stop capitalising is part of the brain also," said Dr. U., "and fill out, perhaps historically, how it was necessary and in what matter.  And particularly, I'm interested in whether you think Jesus was an capitalist type of character."

    "Perhaps because he was a-capitalistic this is why they chose to kill him.  Or he was just good at mixing them another way.  An little a-capitalism here.  An little a-capitalism there.  An doctoral reason, perhaps."

    "He was completely innocent and yet for some reason he threatened them somehow."

    "Then you're saying what I'm setting up is an argument in which capitalising has an messianic relationship with a-capitalising.  In which as such the capitalist is guilty of persecuting the a-capitalist, who is in fact innocent?"

    "I'm not saying anything.  That will be up to you.  But be careful and sensitive to what we have discussed."

    "But how will I prove there is an a-capitalistic instinct?"

    "It may be that you need more help on this than you think," said Dr. U., "and that in fact it will take many more years of scientific research to identify conclusively its prominence psychologically.  If anyone is actually looking for it, that is."

    "Well maybe I can give examples from history and prove it that way," said Suppiah.

    "Okay, and how would you do that?"

    "Well, in some cases people have been forced to do just that, to a-capitalise.  To hide their motives.  To suppress their instinct.  This does not determine conclusively whether a-capitalism is an native process to the human cognitive platform.  But if they are able to do it.  To suppress their capitalistic instinct.  It may be somewhat like the discipline of Jesus himself, who was so a-capitalistic in some ways about defending his own life or being an physical threat that people couldn't stand him (but that maybe his was the most capitalistic action by the end of things).  This lead to his crucifixion."

    "Do you have any other examples?"

    "Well, from the Author's life personally," said Suppiah, "if he were to have capitalised on everything he would have been discriminated against because he was gay.  In fact it was learning how to a-capitalise on some opportunities which were needed in order to make him feel safe and secure.  He learned how to hide it.  Being gay.  Which is an capitalistic thing to do, you know.  If one suppresses the body language of the face and arms in order not to show gay features.  Even though one cannot help but show gay features.  It is disastrous.  People a-capitalise when they have to.  But that doesn't mean it's natural or normal.  But I mean there's probably more capitalists in history.  Of course there's Joan of Arc.  Who was able to capitalise on everything to sort out an whole military campaign."

    "Good," said Dr. U., "work on that.  Fit your argument into history so that you focus on capitalists or a-capitalists.  And Suppiah?"

    "Yes, sir?"

    "Figure out what a-capitalism has to do with being beyond the pleasure principle."

    "Okay.  My initial thoughts would be a-capitalism is beyond the pleasure principle in gradations.  It is more specific.  Not capitalizing might have more to do with the fate worse than death.  When one stops capitalising, one encounters the fate worse than death because the human nervous system is not meant to do that."

    "You are brilliant."

    After they left, Suppiah asked Bubba and G.D.B. what they should do.  They found an interactive map terminal on the main floor.

    "Is there an place we can go to have some fun?" he said.

    "There's an arcade," said Bubba, pointing at the map with his fin, "or there's an library, if you want some quiet time."

    "What kind of mer games do they have for people with an tail fin?  We can't exactly DDR."

    "Probably virtual reality and racing."

    "Racing?  But I can't push the gas pedal."

    "Why would there be an gas pedal if the gaming machine itself is under water?" asked G.D.B.

    "Well, whatever," said Suppiah, "I just need to get my mind off of things.  Let's visit both?"

    So they did.  At the arcade, Suppiah maxed out and won on the strength machine, which lowered an small punching bag after he had paid the quarter for it.  He hit it with his tail fin as hard as he could.  But this particular machine was made for an human.  Let me put that into perspective for you: an mer tail slap can snap an human's neck.  And so he went to the library feeling quite buff.  And Bubba and G.D.B. split off from him for once to go check out the anime, comics, and fantasy sections.  Suppiah used this time wisely: as he always did when he was in an place of learning.  He needed an time frame.  He needed to put capitalism on the historical map, mentally.  How did it emerge as an philosophy of the economy?  Who were the people around it; and how did it affect them physically?

    Karl Marx was the first thing he thought of.  And so he typed out this name from an swimming height on an public computer that was meant for searching for the location of books.

    And while he was there, he visited the Wikipedia page for capitalism.  While on Wikipedia, he noted, Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, I have tended to look at it as an philosophy within this text.  In the Oxford English Dictionary, capital is defined as (as an adjective) principle; most important; leading.  While to captitalize is defined as calculate or realize the present value of an income; reckon (the value of an asset) by setting future benefits against the cost of maintenance.  Philosophically, what I mean when I say Capitalism is that often, I find, there are many things to capitalize on which do not occur within the market.  And that is fair.  And it is an general philosophy of life to be an capitalist, which also means filthy rich or opportunist.  But when did it become philosophical in history?  Who were the formers?  Why did it win out over communism?  Hasn't it been, philosophically, part of human history all along that people were capitalists?  Weren't Communism and Marxism just twisted derivations of an economy that had been based on the moral commodity of capitalism all along obviously?

    He read the full Wikipedia page and withdrew an few basic facts that were presented.

    First, the modern English term capitalism evolved from the Latin (before 600 to 750 A.D.) term capitale, which originally meant caput or, in Modern English, 'head'.

    Second, the meaning and definition of the term capitale also originally related to chattel or cattle in the sense of movable property.  However the definition developed in the 12th and 13th centuries to refer to all kinds of things: funds, stock, money, wealth, goods, assets, property, and so on.

    Third, the word capitalism was cited its first in 1854, in an novel called The Newcomes by William Makepeace Thackeray, where it meant having ownership of capital.

    And so Suppiah synthesized these things with his present knowledge of history and he realized one thing.  The senses of capitalism which include its philosophical meaning all the way back to the Latin origin of the word didn't include the word capitalism (its fully developed utility as an philosophy) until the Industrial Revolution.

    We were in an Age when capitalism could be anywhere and everywhere.

    We were in an Age when, largely due to technology, capitalism could be everywhere and anywhere.

    The reason for capitalism's popularity and increased use as an term may mean that it represented humanity's fully matured general philosophy of life.  That they could publicly recognize together.  We want figures and characters who are capitalising because they make us jolly to think about them.  People who know what they want and how to get it.  It's the ultimate Maverick.

    But if I can take capitalism in an different direction than that, and compare it with a-capitalism and what they are in psychology.  And find its most non-anti-psychological meanings.  I would say this creation of an capitalistic character within fiction, the floor is open, and there are many cultural and lifestyle choices that lead to further capitalizing character achievement.  Creators of fiction could represent it generally as an capitalistic character and what kind of choices he or she makes and where he or she is.  How culture, tradition, race, intersectionality all contribute to one's personal efforts to economize and capitalize effectively.

    Did you know that one is an category of being?  You can take any one thing and point to how it is an object.  And it is exactly one object, in comparison to other objects which are also exactly one object.  And so they are being one thing to one another; and the principle of the existence of one thing existing ever is present in all space-time which concerns this, our own dimension.  What if I told you 1, is also the name of an Angel.  And I could help take you there, to that world of angels.  How did you think reality could allow the possibility and existence of any one thing at the same time as another one thing?  It takes an angel to watch over all possible individual things that exist.  How couldn't it?  Reality is real somehow, and we don't have an explanation for it.  How could one of anything exist somewhere?

    And so this angel descends upon you, and casts you to recognize the similarity that you are one thing, and there are other one things around you.  And they are all put there and kept by an angel.  Otherwise they couldn't exist in reality.  Otherwise they wouldn't exist in reality.  How did you think so, otherwise?  How can two things stay the same one thing that they are; even though both of them go on existing as if nothing was happening?

    And I think maybe it is this jolliness which is part of the cognitive effect of capitalism on the brain.  Which names an layer, an phase, and moment in time in which capitalism is happening.  Among other terms and uses within this text whether said to have an Gestalt profile or not.  Jolliness follows discovery in the order of cognitive events of capitalism.  Because discovery makes us jolly: we have found an way to increase our own personal wealth and profit.  It appears in the mind, the discovery of the thing; and we realize an kind of happiness: jolliness.  To be compared freely with joy.

    (Maybe I already have identified the few thousand things in this book in total (I did say the effect I wanted it to have was an Gestalt (more than the sum of its parts) effect.).

    Things to capitalize on which do not occur within the market.

    Suppiah, finishing this thought, decided to go find his fish buddies.

    And then retired for the evening into an hotel, they all, where they all had an chance to sterilize their piercings and freshen up.  Suppiah's bed was an King-sized clam with extra soft mattress and an pearl in the middle which he could wrap himself around to curve his body in that most comfortable way that he knew of.  Did you want to ask where the fish slept in bowls?  The reason is they don't need bowls.  They just slept there.  That's how fish sleep.  Everyone knows that.

    Then who would be more cowardly, Suppiah thought discarded-ly during the sleeping hours, the a-capitalist who fights with an capitalist even though the a-capitalist is disadvantaged?  Or the capitalist who fights with an a-capitalist knowing it has an disadvantage?

    But, he concluded, his argument would depend on the order of the events in the mind that are part of capitalism.  And even if he named all of them this wouldn't mean that he had them in the right order.

    Those few thousand things that factor into capitalism psychologically.  Had to been seen put in order by Logic and the Reason.  Discovery lead to jolliness.  Which lead to ___________.  And so on and so on until all of them had been named.  You actually have to attempt to do this, his dreaming mind told him, there is no other way!

    And then, but, an few hundred things more that are fun about Capitalism and whether fun itself is an factor (object) into capitalism psychologically.

    "But I've already thought of five categories of events in the order of consciousness in the capitalism sense," his dreaming mind said to him, "they are discovery events (everything after an segment of discovering something up until the valuation of that thing), provocation (which includes analysis of the valuation of an thing), terminology (the kinds of words I would use to describe something, you know, in order to judge this current capitalistic prize to other kinds of things I find pleasant and pleasing), consideration (all judgments summed up), and decision (whether to act on it or not).  And within these five categories are attributed all of the other thousands of cognitive events we are looking for."

    "That may be true," said Suppiah, "but how can you be sure?"

    "Well," he said to himself, "well then why did I even think of it‽"

    "All of your deaths will be beautiful," said God, "like every one of them is."  (And this was cited as the lowest thing God was capable of doing).

    "You might as well try to lay it all out (to delineate it) using that scheme then," said Suppiah, "even though it is only the first thing of occurrence on your mind to have created or realized them as such.  Seriously, how do you just invent something.  Honestly, you deserve praise for it.  I'm here to look after you.  Let's pick it all apart and look at it and think on it all night long.  And I'll take you into my dreams most deep where we will enjoy the luxuries of food and beverage until morning; imagining we are in an cultural place all night long.  And then I'll help you figure out what you're going to do about fun being an adequate point in your argument."

    "Then solve all matters for me.  How will I present the third argument that it is historically compelling."

    "I think you already have, genius."

    "But not in the form I'm asking for.  I need an specific argument why capitalism being one of the products or inventions of the industrial revolution made it better to invest in historically."

    "Then, now you've got one!  You'll see!  You'll be on your merry way!"

    "Then I've already thought of the whole essay.  But I'm not going to write it in this book.  I'll just summarize."

    "Then you're about to attempt the order‽"

    "Yes."

    "Well, then, man.  Go do it!" said Suppiah.

    "In fact I've come to realize something just now," said Suppiah,"this whole blog has an Gestalt effect as well."

    "Then your blog in its entirety may be more the form of Capitalism that we're looking for more than the contents of any one book," said Suppiah

    "Can we extrapolate between them?" said Suppiah.

    "Well I wasn't going to write them all in order to be able to," said Suppiah, "except by extending the final Gestalt meaning of my work to an similarity between how it was narrated and all those narrated pleasant things that happen within Capitalism."

    "Then in an way.  It is there.  Then go ahead.  Just make your argument," said Suppiah, "what will you tell Dr. M. tomorrow?"

    "Okay.  So capitalism wins out because it causes synthesis with the native human platform, which is cognitive, and so it is synchronizing with something in us that may have evolved that way genetically.  We know what it is philosophically, and yet it can exist within an human spirit when that spirit is not aware of it.  This indicates that it may be part of the purpose for the development of the human brain in evolutionary history that it was to become an capitalising species of smart consumer choices.  It is also fun; which may have synonymic definitions with the word Jolliness.  If jolliness and fun are one of the types of cognitive activity in Capitalism then the word fun can still be used in an argument to push for why Capitalism should mean making any a-capitalistic regime, journey, or force, extinct.  It's fun.  And that's one of its characteristics.  And that's why it's better.  Simple.  Lastly, it's historically compelling, which you already know means that it's better than a-capitalism.  But that a-capitalism can be adopted in the case of capitalising on the opportunity of something beyond the pleasure principle.  That, for the price of your own small suffering, you could prevent others from experiencing this pain.  And that it may in fact be messianic to want to go beyond the pleasure principle in your daily life.  As though that was ever an good option.  Why would you try to interrupt or transmogrify your own pleasure‽"

    "Isn't that the most extreme reaction to an set of events in history?"

    "But how one may not be able to resist it.  It may be forced upon them."

    "And that takes me back to the start of all of the conflict.  I am an gay, a-capitalistic phenomenon occuring in their space.  And since I am below and beneath them for being a-capitalistic and it's their space, I don't belong.  And there's nothing they can do to help you.  Go away!"

    "And that's the figure who has followed you your entire life.  The one you want to watch over your shoulder and your back for.  And it's become how every conflict you know will begin.  Someone sees you're gay.  And reacts offensively to it.  It's been the story of your whole life, sorry chump."

    "So tell me why we're here again?  Why do you think maybe you are an Beyond the Pleasure Principle subject?  Why it has to do with Jesus (who was himself beyond the pleasure principle, maybe)?  And Freud (him too?).  And maybe Buddha, who was not?  And why is it that a-capitalism, for you, has come to mean some kind of regime you had taken against your own psychology?  That it was in fact the same process as repression?  And why it was an terrible evil, perhaps, that had to be stopped?"

    "You can't avoid some people ending up having to need to repress themselves sometimes.  There are all kinds of dangerous situations people will find themselves in.  If they need to 'put off an antic disposition' instead of putting one on, like Hamlet does in Shakespeare.  Not dissembling.  In order to survive.  Then that's their business!  And if they end up with an cathected object, which is repression, that's their own risk!  You break it you buy it!"

    "And that it may in fact be an noble thing to do sometimes.  Even though some people might find it tribally and culturally disgusting somehow; instead of putting yourself first or another first over yourself it means just putting yourself first over every other individual somehow.  In order to watch yourself more closely for possible mental illness.  Which is the likely result if you should start to put yourself over others in every activity you do.  But let's be clear and honest.  That what we're talking about here is that somehow, for some reason, an person had to suppress the urge to capitalise on an pleasure somewhere.  For political or religious reasons even.  A-capitalism was recommended to these people as an adequate philosophy to rid themselves of these disgusting feelings they think they have.  A-capitalism shouldn't be recommended for anything."

    "What if you have to go against an sect who think a-capitalism is an valid psychological tool?"

    "But my point is people will use the term a-capitalism to label categories of moral behavior; when that might not be possible at all."

    "How do you know?  If Jesus did it then maybe it is moral.  He suppressed the feminine part of himself because he had to in an known anti-feminist environment.  And that's the real reason he was an messiah."

    "But there are many examples from history of people taking to slide the ropes between capitalism and a-capitalism; some other saint is crucified because he will not capitalize on anything.  Which ends up with God capitalizing on the statistical probability of that happening.  Which means the crucified person was right."

    "Because he capitalized in God?"

    "Wouldn't God want us to?"

    "Wouldn't that be another thing that one can capitalise on that doesn't exist in the known economic market?"

    "Maybe."

    "I think the story of Capitalists, that I want to focus on in History," said Suppiah, "is one where the person knows and is aware of their own capitalistic and a-capitalistic leanings.  They have sorted everything out in their reality of what they want to capitalise in.  As well as having sorted out everything they didn't.  And maybe the story of Jesus or Buddha or Joan of Arc respond at the capitalist versus a-capitalist level.  There have been effective characters in History in both categories of behaviors.  Even they who mix the two in their personal philosophies.  And an person can be effective by both being for oneself over another in one case while being for the other over oneself in another.  And how we choose those situations and why they are important.  The story of Jesus tugs at the a-capitalist in us, maybe, because that's what it's ultimately an story of: an person who didn't capitalize and yet expected everyone to capitalize in him.  Because he had an feminine side.  Intelligently mixing these two things in one's own psychology because he was an feminine side.  And that was the final push for his capitalism.  Which capitalized in God.  Which he thought other people could benefit in and capitalise from as well."

    "These different stories of different historical characters tug at our heartstrings maybe, about what capitalism or a-capitalism mean in those specific historical situations."

    "But how am I supposed to orient my argument in historical space," said Suppiah, "by saying Miley Cyrus is an capitalist because she needed to be to reach the level of fame she did?  Or that the cast and crew of The Good Doctor are all a-capitalists because they didn't come out with an vitamin gummy in the shape of our favourite characters?"

    "Maybe Dr. M. can help you with that," was his last thought before he was whisked off to sleep.

    In the morning they went down for continental breakfast.  There were both dry and water-filled options.  Including some confectionary you'd think would be extremely soggy only it wasn't because it had an sort of preservative chemical in it that it was made with.  Suppiah received his morning email visually, through the A.R.C.L. at the moment he was sitting down to eat his pancakes, which had been preserved in an air bubble so that the maple syrup wouldn't dissolve into the water.

    "Go to present it to Dr. Elohim on the 9th floor.  Whatever stage of the creation process you're at right now.  I won't have time to look at it today," had written Dr. M. in an email.

    "Elohim?  Isn't that God?" Suppiah appeared to have communicated it directly through the ocean.  As though Dr. M. could freely hear him in an audio frequency.  Which then responded back, as if in turn.

    "Will you be able to tell the difference?"

    "No?"

    "My point exactly."

    I've decided what to do, he thought, if all of the features of capitalism in the mind can be identified, then my thesis could be proven.  I'm not going to pretend to try to name all of the things in the mental space that can make up capitalism.  But I'm going to say my argument still has merit in its current form; because it is narrated as an event in an fictional supposition that exists inside an story.  Another fictional supposition.  It doesn't matter if I can argue an full-blown definition of capitalism because I am able to perform soft power in an way which represents this principle I am able to communicate to you: there are other parts to the argument that are worthy of consideration.  And even if all of the thousands of parts of capitalism can later be named in order one day.  My argument is still valid because I've already shown the five main categories of the parts of it which may one day lead to naming all of them and their relationship to one another.  As well as making it clear that I think it is fun.  And that presents an moral reason for its existence.  Also, I think I can make it historically clear that the fruition of capitalism, maybe, as an philosophy was by the end of the industrial revolution.  And that there are clear leaders and forerunners to the enigmatic post-demographic consumerist market economy we now have.  Before there was the product or the business, there had to be someone who made the product or business.  And each of them was, in their own way, valuable to capitalism.

    So he finished up his pancakes.  His friends finished up their really saturated fish food.  And then, spontaneously, they decided to ascend to the ninth floor.  As if they had any business being there.  Under such an crowd of greatness of audience as those who dwelled within it.  But they found their way to an one Dr. E., at the end of the hallway on the ninth floor.  On the door were an few strange looking signup forms.  An strange looking skeleton on an nail.  And an Unicorn plushy on an key chain hanging from an majestic hook.  Whom Suppiah was supposed to present to.  The closer he drew near, it kept getting lighter until Suppiah could not focus his eyes anymore and he lost sight of his subject.  The powerful Dr. E., who could cancel the amount and his response time.

    "Stop looking for me," said Dr. Elohim, "that's how you will find me the most."

    "Okay," said Suppiah (he ran it by mentally).

    "Now," said Dr. E., "what have you come to visit me for?"

    "I need to present to you the argument I'm working on," said Suppiah, "I've developed it from scratch.  And Dr. Minfluentcielle recommended that I come here to speak to you."

    "Okay," said Dr. E., "are you ready?  What is the general order of what you'll be arguing then?"

    "Capitalism is the best and most important philosophy to date, most general and most likely to be picked up anyone, which proves that any effort against it is anti-instinctual and anti-species against the homo sapiens."

    "I see.  Make your argument then."

    "Capitalism is made up of many different categories and episodes of thought," said Suppiah, as though he was making the most important argument he had ever made in his life, "there are five categories of them in human thought."

    "There are five categories?"

    "Yes.  According to my argument there are five categories in which you can divide them into.  I thought of them in and out of order.  And since it is not fictionally or narrationally necessary to name all of them, necessarily, when I have an Gestalt layer in effect for the whole narrative.  Then you'll have to accept the argument as an whole, that capitalism is part of the mind just like an imagination, empathy, or human emotion.  Human thoughts.  Human intellect.  Is capitalistic because all of the parts of it, which I'm not naming yet, exist within the human instinct: that part of our subconscious, maybe, that we cannot access in order to manipulate or edit it.  It is bred in us as humans because at the initial inclination of evolution to create our species it was part of our character.  And any self-awareness that we have of our own subject is just an added bonus and an advantage to us.  There are five categories of types of capitalistic thoughts which are cognitively native on the human cognitive platform.  And even if I'm not right in correctly naming them, in order, I believe there really are all of those types of categories still for us to find out one day.  The fact that Capitalism is native (I'm not making an adventure into Aboriginal Politics with this statement) to the human instinct and consciousness and that all those various parts of it are natural.  Proves that anything which works against its own interest, in the grandeur way of an a-capitalism, is not necessarily the optimal philosophy for day to day living and pleasure.  There are also other arguments one could make which include that it is fun.  And everyone knows it is fun because it has brought us this far and we're enjoying it.  That's better than a-capitalism, isn't it?  Which everyone knows is not fun."

    "I would agree with that," said Dr. E., "everyone knows capitalism is fun."

    "Ya, right?"

    "Then what other arguments do you have?"

    "Just one more."

    "I'm listening."

    "Well first of all, let me remind you I'm offering 5 categories and an gestalt suggestion; that the names for all of these capitalistic events in the mind can be found to exist within one of these five categories and the rest of the Gestalt effect of the book or the blog.  For which I'm suggesting that all of the words I have used here could go into effectively describing further what are all those components which make up the five categories.  And so my final point I want to make here is this historically compelling quality that capitalism has.  History and the Future are created within capitalist industry.  And if I were able to identify five categories of the sum of Capitalism in the human mind and even be able to scratch across the argument that it is fun for contrast of simplicity.  The first point is even more potent out of contrast with the second; and so the fact that I'm even making the argument is historically charged with these particles of sense which bind the whole thesis together.  Capitalism is better because a-capitalism is more like an torture situation; and everyone and anyone will be willing to see it and accept that."

    "And you're sure you want to villainize a-capitalism this way?  Even though a-capitalism may be the instinct of the messiah; the adventurer in the journey of life who has gone off the road of serving its own need for pleasure?  In order to prevent some sort of lasting suffering in others?  One gives their own life to save another?  That one a-capitalises because there is an pure intention in it?"

    "I'm arguing there may not be any pure intention or reason for a-capitalism except under extreme circumstances."

    "Extreme circumstances.  And why did you start thinking that you needed to argue against a-capitalism?  Is it because you mean to make a-capitalists by tricking them into thinking there is an opposition or an conflict within the human psyche between capitalism and a-capitalism?  And that if you're not for capitalism, then you're against capitalism?"  Said Dr. E.  And truly, this was the most hurtful thing they could have said because it came from the source of authority.

    "I'm not tricking people by making them think there is or isn't an reason for a-capitalism; and so they must take up a-capitalism as an legitimate philosophy.  I'm saying there are already people who have taken up a-capitalism as an discipline but only capitalism counts as an legitimate philosophy in this argument because there is no reason for a-capitalism any longer."

    "Interesting," said Dr. E., "but I'd only seen it in an dozen or more that there is an reason for their a-capitalism.  And it hurts them and they overthink or obsess about it.  And why it is necessary.  Why their true character can't be seen in the light of day because that would be unmanageable and dangerous.  The mental play after the moment of realization, there are bullies who surround me and in order to protect myself I must conform to their dangerous and insane opinion that there aren't any gay people.  What I want you to show me, perhaps, is how it is possible for someone to use a-capitalism effectively, and then emerge on the other side of it, (transcending all obstacles much like Medea) no longer needing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many.  That people will inevitably run into the problem where if they had just capitalised on something, not capitalising on it would have the greater social and cognitive effect.  If they could trade their place with others they would take up all of this pain and using their own suffering to deliver all others from it."

    "People stop capitalising because they feel threatened.  It is not ordinary circumstances.  The effect on the mind in response to needing to hide their smile or other expressions of pleasure in public.  And there is supposed to be this kind of messianic exchange in which one person suffers the fate of having had to hide the capitalism of their expression and body language; in order to prevent another from having to suffer the same fate.  They go through the experience of having had to repress themselves.  And sometimes, to be strong, what they have to take from that is that they are contributing to the prevention of this fate in other people in the future.  As some say the torture of Jesus himself was of that kind of feature."

    "Then say our argument is an educated reason why or how to reconsider whether a-capitalism is necessary at some point," said Dr. E., "if there is an messianic reason for operating at an level beyond the pleasure principle; and that this represents an messianic effect or defect.  Is it better and under what circumstances to capitalise liberally?  Why is a-capitalism (liberal a-capitalism) maybe necessary sometimes and why does that mean, if it represents an heroic and messianic act of saving others from having to suffer the same fate, there are reasons to argue a-capitalism may also be native to the human cognitive platform and there are in fact segments of time (events) within the human mind that comprise an anti-capitalistic effect or response, when it is sometimes needed."

    "But that derails my whole argument," said Suppiah, "if a-capitalism is an natural part or event in cognitive reality then why would I need to argue that capitalism is better than it in every way‽  There'd be no point‽"

    "But by arguing it," said Dr. E., "you may be letting people onto all of the thinking that goes on behind the things you say.  And it may be beneficial to argue it anyway because you're introducing people to the self-reflective practice of competing capitalist versus a-capitalist motives in the psyche among an background of general self versus other against one another, which an keen mind for, one might say, is valuable.  And so even if you don't think capitalism is native to the platform in the same way as a-capitalism.  Which you can't prove I might add.  You have no definitive scientific information that a-capitalism as we have spoken about it exists in the natural, cognitive, instinctual human brain.  All you have to go on is Freud.  Who said maybe, capitalism or a-capitalism is necessary or not, we are bound to have some minds, statistically, which show up that can be based around having to be a-capitalistic or not.  It doesn't matter whether our opinion is for capitalism or against a-capitalism.  Whether we think either of these things is natural or which one is superior to the other.  What matters is that some people inevitably have need to suffer this internal war of an a-capitalist even though it is not natural because that is the state of human mental health in the 21st century as we have found ourselves.  People of all kinds are affected by an outcome caused by either capitalism or a-capitalism, and it doesn't matter whether either of them is native to the system.  Bound instinctively.  Genetically expressed.  Physically expressed.  What matters is how you choose to look at it as an world in which there are things which you will want to capitalise on which will lead you to fortune, and there are other things on which maybe you can capitalise which won't.  But you won't know the difference until you try.  And maybe it will be more beneficial to you to a-capitalise on some things.  Being scientific about it.  Like you have to.  And you're free to make the personal choice between them."

    "If I cannot prove a-capitalism is native to the human cognitive platform in the same way capitalism is," said Suppiah, "then wouldn't that necessarily prove itself?  But if not then I can't necessarily prove capitalism is superior in any way to a-capitalism just because it is genetically cognitive and instinctual.  Whereas introducing a-capitalism to the system would be an aberration to it.  Out of Harmony and Rhythm.  An anti-capitalistic difference between oneself and their own emotion of the egotistical scenario which wants to capitalise on as an regular program of the id preventing the spread of its fate in other people.  An messianic drive which feels that any attempt at hiding one's capitalistic inspiration will pay off in one's third or fourth lifetimes of history after you die.  Using the a-capitalistic drive to shield oneself from social terror and sexual bigotry, one hopes to prevent other people from needing to be a-capitalistic in the same way."

    "I agree," said Dr. E., "I don't think you can do it."

    "There's just no sense unless I can detect capitalism and a-capitalism in the brain.  Scientifically.  And therefore confirm their existence as an cognitive effect or emergent from consciousness naturally.  But I can still argue this is complex.  And it's simplicity beside the term fun is compelling.  And since it is compelling, it is historically compelling (because it can or does present an full description of cognitive capitalism of all its parts and events and their labels (and this is where it folds in on itself because I cannot provide an full and precisely accurate list of cognitive events and their order)).  There is nothing historically compelling about it because there's no science to back it up."

    "Yes but for some reason I'm glad you tried," said Dr. E. as he let out an ease of exhaustion.

    "If it is enough to stir up," said Suppiah, who similarly eased up, "within the human imagination an passion for deciding things between capitalism and a-capitalism; what human fates should be.  Maybe we see the Christ in all of us in some ways.  And in other ways, (perhaps more capitalistic ways), we see Madonna.  As humans we are naturally inclined to maneuvre and negotiate circumstances in which we are faced with the options of capitalising on an specific thing or a-capitalising on an specific thing.  And we are constantly in the current of negotiation between them as selves and others.  Then maybe that shall become my argument then."

    "That's an ten then," said Dr. E., "I've just decided."

    "An ten?" asked Suppiah.

    "Yes," said Dr. E., "you see.  You allowed your argument to transform when you added new information to it.  This is the best and most responsible type of thinking.  You're right.  Capitalism and a-capitalism are important types of behavior and non-behavior (repressed behavior, consequentially). And it makes sense to furnish an argument in public that people will have to wager between them at some point because the human spirit is always to choose what it wants and doesn't want.  And how to get them or not get them.  I want you to present your argument to an panel on the tenth level."

    "But you said yourself we don't have the science," said Suppiah.

    "You don't need science for everything my boy.  Wouldn't you think that an intelligent consciousness can observe and identify all of the parts of its consciousness self-reflectively?  Knowledge which is knowledge is knowledge which is said actually to exist.  Consciousness can find in itself its own capitalistic or a-capitalistic effect.  It does make sense that we would think about it for some reason.  Isn't it good enough that you can already name them and play with these elements‽" said Dr. E.

    "Well, you've got an point," said Suppiah, "if I already have an sense of knowing what capitalism and a-capitalism are, then maybe it's not hard to figure out that they are both part of cognitive thinking, reason, and analysis.  It's just that there is no science to support the final and complete picture of all elements of capitalism within the human mind; in order.  And neither is there science to support an complete picture of a-capitalism and all its cognitive effects and segments or events."

    "But there is something strange about placing this, at first appearing to me as so specific and complex, first point next to the word fun.  And why it is fun to try to label all of the parts of cognitive capitalism.  Like so many people have probably already tried to do before because they had an reason to: which was fun.  Which lead to it being historically compelling because fun is historically compelling."

    "Then, there," said Suppiah, "I've got my trace of my argument back."

    "You do?"

    "Yes," said Suppiah, "capitalism is better than a-capitalism because we think it's fun and historically compelling even though we haven't named its thousands of specific parts nor the hundreds of specific parts of a-capitalism, in order.  And that there is an logical common denominator which connects these three points.  We don't know all of the parts of capitalism scientifically and yet we know how to be capitalistic.  We don't know all of the parts of a-capitalism scientifically, and yet we know from some characters in history that it's an thing.  And my argument holds merit whether it presents all of the parts of capitalism and a-capitalism in order or not because people will generally be able to recognize what I mean by when I say capitalism and a-capitalism.  There have been the great figures in history who are capitalistic contra a-capitalistic in stories about them; and sometimes it is both types of motive which can win out over the other at different times.  But it still makes logical sense to point out that since something is fun and we can freely identify it as such within the cognitive enterprise.  Then we know it is the capitalism which is the fun in it.  And we know an specific reason why.  And since we know an specific reason why we have an historically compelling reason to look at it all as sequentially and consequentially.  Capitalism makes sense sometimes because people will always be driven to act for personal benefit (to act in the interest of personal gain) or to act for the benefit of other (even if that means I myself must become a-capitalistic in order to pay it back somehow, eventually, by rescuing all of these other people from needing to be a-capitalistic in those moments as I was).  Then it will have been worth it to be a-capitalistic in some nature; if it saved other people and I was their deliverer."

    "Good," said Dr. E., "then present your argument to the panel of the tenth floor."

    "I will, sir," said Suppiah.

    He was already ready.  He swam straight there.

    "We're the miraculous five," one of them said, (there were five in total), "we'll make your argument work out miraculously."

    He caught the sarcasm.

    "Now what is it exactly you will be arguing?"

    "I'll be arguing that capitalism is the better and more favoured philosophy of mind than a-capitalism because it is less extremist and is the hoped-for outcome in any disputes with the soul.  We tend to want to see less a-capitalistic matyrs created because we recognize it as an extremist position.  People are forced to a-capitalize in extremist and unnatural situations.  Yet it has happened so often.  This mark upon the human soul."

    "And you acknowledge the fact that you'll be arguing this about the human species.  Even though you are yourself, an mer?"

    "Yes," said Suppiah.

    "And who are they?" said an ambassador, gesturing to Bubba and G.D.B.

    "They're here for emotional support," said Suppiah, "you know instead of an angel and an devil over my shoulders—I have fish."

    "Well.  Now, formally, please make your argument."

    "Capitalism," said Suppiah, "is better to adopt as an philosophy than a-capitalism however there may not always be an situation in which that's possible.  I think that everyone should at least try to have an capitalistic relationship with some things.  Even though at present we may not have the knowledge of all of the cognitive parts of capitalism in order of sequence, I present to you five categories of which all of these pieces fall into.  Discovery events, provocation events, terminology events, consideration, and decision.  And there may come an time in history in which we know all of the cognitive parts and their reason for being all parts of capitalism.  Or that we know of the many several hundred which are to be estimated among reasons for needing to a-capitalise; and there are this many fewer parts of a-capitalism than there are parts of capitalism perhaps.  But right now we know that there may be some aspects of the human soul which have to do with capitalism and a-capitalism.  And so we cannot turn down any argument that maybe they are there.  And we don't need to detect them scientifically to know that.  And since the complexity of capitalism and a-capitalism are maybe fun in some ways.  It is historically compelling to favour capitalism as one's philosophy under all ordinary circumstances until push comes to shove.  We know there may be these things as capitalism and a-capitalism which may be on someone's mind.  And we can see it in History how an person was more like the one or the other.  But that doesn't change the fact that capitalism is always funner than a-capitalism.  And a-capitalism is the auxillary (unwanted destiny) function, destination, or arrival of thought and behavior.  And it doesn't change the fact that things that are fun tend to be historically compelling because one needs to have an reason to live for.  Choose Capitalism, if it is possible, every single time over a-capitalism.  And only dredge into an a-capitalistic territory of philosophies if you are forced to and there is no other way."

    "This was short and concise.  I rather liked it," said one of the panelists.

    "I can clearly see your logical progression," said an second panelist, "from one thought to the other and overall it's well done, I would say."

    "Yeah it's easy and it's concise," said an third panelist, "and so it's easy to remember and sum up also.  Capitalism over a-capitalism.  Got it.  But a-capitalism maybe over capitalism if reason calls for it."

    "But we're talking about people repressing things here," said an fourth panelist, "it's illogical that we can make such light on the subject."

    "So basically you're saying if there is an reason to a-capitalise and you need it for your own safety then do it," said the fifth panelist.

    "No it's more that I'm saying it is irresponsible to need to repress anything, if it can be avoided," said Suppiah.

    "Then you're saying capitalism, which is so complex and complicated that you cannot label all its parts, is better than a-capitalism which may be in the same status itself of humans not being able to label all its parts.  Because it is fun (which provides simplicity for contrast).  And it is historically compelling that that type of contrast exists between fun (simple selfhood) and capitalising or a-capitalising (complex self- and other-hood)."

    "Well, yeah," said Suppiah.

    "I don't buy that argument," said the first panelist, "there are too many variables that need to be proven which haven't been."

    "I do," said the second panelist, "even though we maybe don't have all of the parts of capitalism and a-capitalism for this study, there is an strong reason to think that they are there, clearly, within the human anatomy and ecosystem.  That's why it is fun.  Sentience gets the power to choose.  Both a-reciprocity and reciprocity are within the human anatomy system because it is within their power to do that willingly.  And that may be part of how the human brain is designed."

    "And at least you have the five categories you've worked out and submitted," said the third panelist, "which doesn't make it any weaker of an argument than saying the figuring out of their complexity contrasts with the simplicity of it being fun.  Or than saying this itself is why there is an reason it's historically compelling.  Even Ellen DeGeneres herself could have told you that."

    "Well so what do you think is more important, capitalism or a-capitalism?" said the fourth panelist.

    "That's exactly it," said Suppiah.

    "And you yourself were able to communicate it," said the fifth panelist, "someone who thinks a-reciprocity represents an abnormal status characteristic of the human mind and brain; in being that type of thing which may be physically part of its anatomy.  Specifically designed to allow an human mind to do exactly that: to a-reciprocalize some things and some situations based on judgments of the other and the self.  Or be it to a-capitalists that this could also describe it.  A-reciprocity was the confrontation with things be a-political.  A-capitalism could be an good or bad thing depending on the situation.  And so Capitalism itself also to be an good or bad thing, depending on yourself versus the other."

    An delegate on the eleventh floor, who had been listening in, said in this moment that she would approve of his argument even though it did not have all of the pieces it was possible to have.

    An delegate of the twelfth and final floor, who had been listening in, said he would not approve of the argument.  There are too many things to identify and put in order.  And you can't just leave us with an blurry gestaltist picture that maybe all of the words in this book in total are the names and the order for all of the capitalist parts of the mind.  And you cannot say for sure whether a-capitalistic feelings are not just another branch of philosophy, or whether they have their own order; whether they are part of an conscious cognitive effort at inwardly reflecting and observing all of the parts of the mind through introspection.  An kind of philosophy that claims, as rational observers, we should be able to name every part of it (the surreal reality of consciousness) through introspection.

    "Now I will make an argument to you," said the eleventh angel, "you are most loved, Suppiah."

    And I further reflected on how the angels were overlooking (visiting) us this Holiday Season.  An whole presence.  Who was going to stay there an be available to me for months; only until the next angel visits me or the sum total of each one visiting me together; and I felt i had an whole chorus of angels above me who had said something beautiful about my life.  Something I so desperately wanted to hear.

    I wanted to make my historical contribution by creating the first fashion show for religions.  The point would be to expose their vulnerability, their focus.  To show everybody how different we all are.  How hurt and exposed we appear to be as an species.  The models would be beautiful women; women of all shapes, skin tones, and sizes; women who were actually members of their public religion.  And my Christiannan would be one of them.

    It was, as you would say, characteristic of the type of person that I am.  I wanted to make an contribution in history because I felt gifted for all of the possessions and luxuries that I have; and I wanted to give back.  I wanted society to change.  I wanted to tell people how it could change.  To really light up their imagination behind their eyes.  Religious vulnerability and focus happened to be quite telling about the type of person that I was.  I wanted every religion to be represented because I thought that was fair.  And I was most interested in how they would represent their reason for being as religious as they are.  I wanted to show everybody that even though all of these religions were different in many important ways, the members of all of them had feelings that were similar to one another.  Were they showing their damage by participating in my fashion show?  Or their Grace?  Were both perhaps somewhat about what all religions were about maybe?  And most importantly everyone would watch the way they walk down the runway.  Reflecting on that perhaps there was an reason why they walked in an specific way leading to their religion.  At the end of the runway there would be an medium-sized vase on "an pedestal" or "an altar" that the models would walk around once, and then exit the runway down an staircase without walking back to where they started from.  The vase is painted with the darkest black and has warm grey accents and curves that work with the light in the room and the soft spotlight shining down on it from above it.  It is the product of my deepest imaginings.  It is the emo vase.  An perfect attribute of resemblance of an perfect curvy form.  Something that cannot wear down in the same way an body can.  And it would be there for all to ponder on free from the suggestion that these religions would represent anything imperfect about their bodies.  But maybe that was why the way they walk.  Or the type of costumes they wear are formed.

    What kind of person would think of such an thing?

    "You are most loved," said the twelfth angel, "you are most loved, Suppiah."

    Then you accept my argument?  You agree?  (Suppiah didn't know how he was communicating with them anymore and they appeared to see his thoughts even though his mouth wasn't moving at all).

    "No.  I disagree with it.  Weren't you listening?"

    But how can you disagree with it when—

    "—When you don't have all of the facts.  The scientific evidence is lacking.  And you don't even know if other people will accept your survey of the words a-capitalism and a-capitalistic to refer to the intercession."

    Remind me what an intercession is?

    "It's the act of suffering in someone else's place.  Just like was said before.  By suffering oneself to a-capitalise for some political reason, the hope is that you will save other people from suffering an similar fate."

    Right.  So you don't think a-capitalism is an natural part of the brain.

    "I didn't say that.  And I'm not going to.  I want you to make up your own mind about it."

    Then you will accept my argument as long as I specify what I decide, what I've made up my mind about it?

    "Maybe."

    Well I'm going to try then.  I have to.

    "Good.  I like your enthusiasm."

    The conclusion I'm maybe avoiding or orbiting is that a-capitalism is an natural brain phenomenon however arising in unordinary circumstances.  It might be as natural as capitalism is, and they are both instinctual on some level or, as I described capitalism to be, they are both genetically (physically or chemically) expressed in the brain; and so we may say they are both native to the human cognitive platform.  There's no reason to need to remove a-capitalism and there's nothing wrong with doing it.  However, maybe it is an moral situation specific to specific circumstances.  Maybe there are certain situations in which a-capitalism would be moral or immoral.  Just as there are certain situations in which capitalism would be moral or a-moral.  But I also have an feeling that if I didn't argue in favour of capitalism over a-capitalism I would be leading people toward maybe an fate which they don't deserve.  Isn't not having the ability to capitalize on something in any specific moment an fate worse than death?  On par with, maybe, slavery?  People who are stuck in the no capitalism bin are there because they have been forced into acting this way.  They're afraid.  They don't know what else to do except hide who they really are so that people won't harm them.  Maybe, then, capitalism is the optimal solving of an situation, the favoured outcome, and yet there are sometimes reasons a-capitalism (and then hence, repression) must come into play.

    At this point Russasha stopped painting.  I've done it! she thought.  I've worked out the twelve levels of civilization.  And we don't even have that many levels in the civilization of humanity yet.  All I need to do now is define them in simple terms: one-word titles of what they are.  And then I'll be able to paint the twelve rulings on society which are necessary for an thriving, successful, and popular civilization.  And compare them to the twelve rulings of that other place; that other dimension we are, for the time being, aware of.  Where Elmire and her lady are waiting, watching tending to and taking care of society on twelve levels.  In an futuristic and advanced civilization an little bit better than our own.  That we could use as an role model.  To help us what we will grow into.  What an beautiful world it could be!

    The first level was about having apparent or un-apparent or possible cathexis.  An level which accepts everybody, no matter what their level of individual cathexis or community cathexis may mean.  I had previously represented it as an sphere; or, in Elmire's dimension, an mannequin.  It is an level that is just about the object of cathexis.  It makes sense then, that in Elmire's dimension they call it mannequin as though it had something to do with the object of cathexis.  Are you having feeling-like-an-mannequin syndrome?  Are you just an object?  And then, maybe, the sphere makes sense for my own dimension because it is the universal symbol for an object.  The symbol itself, which represents the reality of social, public, or private cathexis, is an trigger for the stimulus of thinking about or considering something to be an object.  When you think about our reality, in which people are politically subjected to cathexis and they subject it to others, Russasha reasoned, an sphere makes sense to signify it because it has an boundary all around.  When people think about the sphere as an symbol for the first level of civilization it makes sense to trigger them (prime them) with the object because cathexis is often viewed as an object itself in society.

    The second level was about helping people with their cathexes.  By pulling up an file on an subject & public figure that is strategically based to help them either avoid the types of stimulation which trigger their repressed psychological response or to find ways to mitigate the repressed boundary with the goal of healing, relieving, alleviating, or correcting an repressed cathexis.  But can you ever really cure an cathexis once it had already once worked on your mind?  I represented it as an wall to an courtyard in Elmire's world.  And here, in my own human mind, have made to represent it with an cube.  Different from an sphere in one way: it has borders.  Why was the second level of civilization more like an cube in comparison to an sphere?  It had enough volume to contain within it an sphere and yet there were eight corners which could contain within them more volume than an sphere.  And in the other dimension, they had represented it with an wall to an courtyard.  Like the metamorphosis of the cube into an whole scene that is different than the scene contained within an sphere.  The second level was about making room for people who have cathexes to help them suture it or to overcome them eventually over time with small baby steps.  About pointing out all of the corners of an room in which there aren't any cathexes.  People who have mastered and have expertise over dealing with cathexis, wherever it shows up in the global community.  People who help the people who have had to be a-capitalistic somehow to repair their minds; which they may have damaged by being put into an situation where one couldn't act normal.  And all behavior had to be created, invented, come up with artificially.  So that nobody would know the true behavior of the person who was gay.  An cube or an wall to an courtyard could be used to signify, and hence prime the subject that when one could act normal (yet observing and reflecting on the slight difference between an sphere and an cube) which is subtle enough to be an reflection on what is normal.  It was really about someone walking into the courtyard from outside the wall; and I had roughly upholstered the rest of their environment within an cube.

    The third level is about it not mattering whether someone has an cathexis or not; everyone is judged the same.  Fair and equally.  And it doesn't necessarily matter or enter into affairs that an active cathexis is present in an social situation.  I represented it symbolically as an pyramid.  In Elmire's dimension, it was an prism.  Where I had associated the pyramid in my own dimension with death and rituals of dying; I had found it to be associated with capturing light in an certain way.  Bending it or changing it to reflect your wishes.  It was an stance in which an subject & personality would be captured within the prism like light.  Maybe it was roughly similar to an pharaoh being captured within an pyramid like light.  But metaphorically, that didn't happen.  The third level wasn't about being captured in your cathexis and being found out.  It didn't matter.  It wasn't about having to be like an sleeping mummy in your own consciousness, undisturbed.  With these grave robbers and museum treasure hunters everywhere trying to dig to the core of why you're in there.  So deeply cathected—no.  On the third level it just doesn't matter.  No one is judged like they either have one or they don't have one.  If you happen to let slip some repressed behavior or things you could Freudian slip on, nobody would call you out and embarrass you or even necessarily recognize that it was your cathexis which had caused you to act this way such.  People cared about each other, and that meant there being an third level in which people in the third level are equal to people on the first and second levels.

    The fourth level is about that it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter whether someone has an cathexis.

    —This is why every level of civilization are the arbiters of every level below them: they always compound one another's logic.

    For some reason I'm thinking that Capitalism includes everything between Discovery and Satisfaction in the mind.  Or everything between Benefit and Recovery (however this may prove to be more like a-capitalism).—

    The fourth level is about being buds without the specter of cathexis looming over you.

    In Elmire's dimension they had given the fourth level the symbol of an pumpkin an box that had been opened and spread upon the ground to open up territory and the question on the new floor of new territory.  How many boxes could they spread across the floor, to take up all of the territory?  But in my own dimension, thought Russasha, its symbol is an missile for there are wars that haven't been secured on the territory of Earth at present.  When we bring up the question of territory, whole nations are willing to fight for it.  The fourth level is about territory because that's what territory is really about.  No one cares that you had or didn't have cathexis and no one cares that you do or don't have it anymore and no one cares that you have no territory because of that.  That's why it's an missile.  That's what we want to do something about.  We need an symbol for this level that is an missile head because that's the real subject of the land.  And what is this advanced civilization, then, an place where needing to talk about missiles and where they're going to is less of an priority.  And they can focus on other things, like boxes?

    That brings us to the fifth level.  An place I had never given an symbol in either Elmire's or my own dimension.  It was similar to foresight or common sense.  You aren't brought into worrying the facts or details or indecision because you've already thought through them carefully.  The fifth level was about pushing it into other important things that you will newly identify.  We didn't need to be weighed down by all of those facts and circumstances of whatever anymore.  And we could instead adopt an futuristic mindframe in which we wouldn't be worrying about those facts and details but instead considering the future and what we need to do to make it there.  The fourth level was about, basically, territory in both dimensions.  An missile head to symbolize an villain.  An box opening on the ground to symbolize an opportunist.  And so the fifth symbol of Elmire's republic was an crystal ball in an pedestal.  Basing our judgment off of that, we could adapt this type of symbolism for Planet Earth's dimension.  We needed an clipart image of what an symbol of the future would look like in our civilization.  The major division was between an pocket watch and an sundial (which was itself already old).  And so he chose the sundial because it appeared to be psychologically priming to the instinct of time, history, and its passing to his people.  When one meditated instinctively on the past, inevitably as time passed it lead them to their meditation, their most highest design, on the future.

    Then onto the sixth level, heavy competition.  I knew instinctively what the symbol for it would be in my culture.  An football player in an helmet and pads running with the football.  As long as you slip by all of the guards (who are critics in my mind) then your opinion will be respected.  I was excited to learn what kind of symbol it could be when it came from Elmire's kingdom.  It turns out the symbol for this in their culture is an firecracker (an toy rocket) being launched into the air so that an laser pointer (represented as an line coming from an electronic handheld device) could be reflected off of it.  The sixth level was an place of antagonistic actors; antagonistic actors who had the power to explode; the power of explosion.  Such heavy criticism that could not be resisted.  The ones chasing down the quarterback in football.  The keepers of the kingdom.

    And in the seventh level all of that criticism melted away like butter.  Instead of seeing everything with an negative spin-doctor slant in it; you look at it from its opposite point of view.  Gladness and happiness; an type of criticism that looks more like love, maybe.  It's not about criticizing how something stands up to belligerence, but how something (some argument) stands up to all positive virtues at once, even having just been involved in an conversation with sixth-level logic.  That everything can be made proven wrong if it has enough points against it.  When you really look up to that light; the Light of Creation.  Where all positive vibes are incubated.  You see what you have and criticize it according to seeing the pure truth, love, and beauty that underlies all things.  Instead of its sadness.  You put on an competition of who can be the most positive, rather than who can be the most negative (that's for sixth-level absurdity).  Who is the most positive?  That's the seventh level.  Can your argument stand up to positive criticism?  In comparison with how it stands up to negative criticism?  Isn't that the highest type of criticism of all‽

    In Elmire's world it is represented by the dawn of two suns.

    In my own world, I translated, it could mean the dawn in simple pictograph representation.  An semi-circle in the corner of the canvas, with beams of light coming off of it.  Everyone would know exactly what it means, if they came from Planet Earth.  The dawn is the dawn of mankind.  Our renaissance, our enlightenment, our perfection as an species.  It is the Time of our Age.  The Season of our species in the universe.  In Elmire's world it means every morning.  Every morning, when everyone is renewed by the light of an newborn day.  We are rejuvenated by the rising suns.  Our Philosophy To Do Good is represented metaphorically by the light and it has become an deeply engrained part of our culture.  We don't just write in our diaries and journals at night, like humanity, and cry about all of the bad things that are going on; we actually go out and meet them by publicly acknowledging one another every single day as participating in this civilization where our sixth level has come to be represented by our morning.  And every single day we wake up when the sun shines we are reminded of one another.  And that gives us Strength.  Enough to push the issues of the day.  If humanity had an virtue like this, it would go an long way toward helping them focus on what type of civilization they are at the moment.  You know, one with mega problems.  At least, less problems than Elmire.  It was time for humanity to start realizing they were waking up.  To the same sun together.  But also metaphorically as an species whom has just begun their journey.  Waking up is only the first part of our experience of outer space, isn't it?  When we say we are waking up as an species it means we're picking up on what it means to be self-aware and intelligent.  And the season was late already, for them to do something about all of the worst cases.  Every day, this view of another world had taught him, do it every day together.

    The eighth level was about mentally observing everything before and after an specific moment in time; it had an middle to it that could be increased in length of minutes.  The philosophy of it was that one would think of everything, everything which had come before this moment.  And then immediately switch to thinking about everything that would come after it, which you were an part of, and extended its growth.

    The competition between capitalistic and a-capitalistic values.

    "Then you recognize that a-capitalism can have values?"

    Not real values.  Just for the sake of artificial opposition.

    The eighth level was the presentation of the possibility of an competitive scene in which characters with un-ambiguous moral parameters (one was capitalising and the other not) duke it out king style.  When Dr. U. pointed out that it might not be necessary to represent such an scene.  And it would be saying more to put it in an formal argument.  Everything before was Amateur and everything ahead was of Skill yet to be found.  It's about an time when you think about what you really need.  Given all of everything that had happened to you before had happened to you before and there were new adventures ahead.  That they couldn't keep you from.  What did you really need?  

    I need an scene in which these characters' actions could be played out and seen.  Specific behaviors or characteristics to be analyzed for comparison.  Why capitalistic values resulted in the more even tempering of the male behavior.  When all the a-capitalist did were the weak, panicked quick dodgy thrusts and whacks against an opponent it could not even comprehend.  They weren't suited to compete, Russasha self-reflected now, because he and Dr. U. had agreed it was ridiculous.  You can't put such an powerful opponent next to an capitalist and expect good reviews.  A-capitalists?  We're talking meerkats.  They don't know anything about business and they expect not to be good at it.

    It's just that the capitalist will express its dominance in an specific way which works upon the mind of his adversary.  And maybe that's the value in representing it then.  Even though the a-capitalist is weak it deserves an chance to hear out its argument against an enemy it may one day rise to the cheer of one day being.  It deserves to be able to show what it can do in public.

    It makes an panicked gesture, but has maintained level footing for now.

    If the war between captitalism and a-capitalism continues to have it out as words between opponents.

    "I'm going to repress you physically but start to say what sounds like an broken record, which is literally what it could be represented as," said a-capitalism.

    In which there could be no argument, replies Capitalism, that a-capitalism could ever come out on top;

    "Unless," says a-capitalism, "the act of repressing something is itself an expression of the messiah; one suffers for another to prevent their suffering.  One trades their own fate with destiny."

    So what exactly is one capitalising on?  Insanity?  You think that if you suffer for someone, that it will come back around to you one day‽

    "If they hurt me instead of you, then I will bring it back tenfold against them, once I have learned how to."

    Once you've learned how to, right.  Like how is letting them hurt you supposed to help anyone‽

    "It will help you."

    Yeah?  How‽

    "Because I will pay it back to you."

    I don't want you to pay it back to me.

    "But I'm defending you."

    I don't need you to defend me.

    "Well clearly you do, because they keep attacking me."

    You mean‽  They're attacking you instead of me?

    "Yes."

    Then how can you be bad for us, a-capitalism‽  Isn't that what Jesus did‽

    "Think of it as piloting both of them within the same mind."

    And so a-capitalism is venerated by the highest capital and saint, Jesus Himself‽

    "A-capitalism is just what it is.  Not capitalising something.  For reasons that you might want to repress."

    Then how are we supposed to decide what the true character of the human spirit is?

    "Maybe we don't need to."

    Maybe both are native to the human cognitive platform.

    Then in some situations you capitalise and in other situations you don't, and as an person with free will you are entitled to either of and which moments and why.

    This is the beginning of an argument really, because it becomes about what situations you do capitalize in and why.  In addition, what situations don't you capitalize in and why.  It can be an personal decision.

    And so the symbol with which to represent this level in Russasha's dimension was 1 on 1.  Two adversaries opposite one another with different strategies.  In an all-out brawl for domination.  In Elmire's dimension it was more closely translated as an drawing of the figure of the eight itself, like an eternity symbol tipped on its side, pregnant now within itself because of what it is.  But really it was just an symbol of the repeated reality and occurrence of competition between rivalries.  Which is said to be necessary.

    On the ninth level I had this nightmare of someone not capitalizing on anything.  And they thought it was an virtue.  It was so sad!

    Russasha remembered how Suppiah had argued his evolving argument to Dr. E., on the nineth floor.

    They had concluded the argument couldn't be made with precise scientific investigation and had to depend on knowing something in an way other than being scientific.  Knowing what capitalism and a-capitalism were depended on an state of observation in which one could be the impartial observer.  Seeing factfully Capitalism's presence within one's own by observing it as an self who came with the necessary parts with which to recognize it.  Or even a-capitalism might eventually come to be observed within one's own mind.  And whether it took an mature sense of self esteem to see it might be one of the issues involved.  And why?  And what kind of implications did that lead to?

    Nine, if it were to be represented symbolically was knowing itself; and so in Elmire's realm it had to be represented by an wizard with an pointed hat: design of stars.  In my own realm it would be more like an unicorn, meted out Rusassha, an mythological creature in contrast to an human wizard, which was real.  Even she had an little smirk at it, and had an little laugh about this.  Humans were more mythical than wizards; they were as mythical as unicorns.  Both of which have an pointed hat, I'll let you know.  One is an little more twisted than the other.  It was the symbol for priming impossibility.  In society.  The impossibility of finding reason.  When you know there is one.  Some things were fictional.  That's just how it was.

    Dr. U. made my argument an ten because I took evidence and looked at it with my thesis, and I let it evolve.  It grew to an ten.  I knew this from an leprechaun's magic: you could always make an 9 an 10.  On Elmire's ground its symbol was an abacus gaining on another level of counting, what their society had once called mathematics, which had been moved into place by an magic hand.  On Earth, Russasha supposed, it could be represented by an inukshuk, which showed the total number of rocks which was placed in it.  To see all of what one thing meant to oppose you as an derivation of numbers of parts.  It was meant to prime that there was an organic number to how many things.  (My inukshuk always had four arms, because I stacked them incorrectly).  But the one she would choose to represent her tenth level was the full illustration of the five or more stacked & balanced statue stones.  Things that could have an organic relationship with one another where there wasn't any war between them.  What was our society sitting on?  After all?  Than five or more stacked & balanced statue stones?  And what were their relationship and why‽

    This was the tenth level of society; it leveled out an whole set of levels.  And so the idea of what would come to represent it in Planet Earth's civilization would need to be expansive.  It had to be that while Elmire's dimension might go with how an abacus could be used to look at things objectively, whereas an stack of balanced stones might imply when we do there are parts that work together with each other.  Following with the Gestalist image I have repeatedly invoked in my argument, the stack of balanced stones could represent my work writing itself, if each stone I placed were an word in an however much more complex statue than an inukshuk.  Maybe more like one with four arms.  Mythological.  And since all of these were topics of the land, and they somehow trumped the threat of war, their subject could repeatedly be tapped into by any common observer or actor.  In order to re-invoke, to resurrect the subject of Peace.  (And peace is never boring truly).

    And then the eleventh and twelfth levels were Radiance (the Beach, with starfish and waves and clams) and Beauty (endlessly self-convoluted).  An rose by any other name, thought Russasha.  Beauty was represented as an rose in her dimension whereas Radiance was represented in Elmire's dimension as the Beach, with starfish and sand.  From an bird's eye view.  Beauty, in Elmire's dimension was represented as the nightmare of the eye in an bed of rose petals.  At the centre of its convoluted-ness, was an eye that would infinitely look outward only in order to find there was another petal in its way.  Every single time.  And since it represented such an large injustice and epiphany in society, they adapted it into the rulings of their culture.  But Radiance in Russasha's dimension was an woman to her own beauty.  Maybe like an eye that would inevitably replace itself with new petals so as never to be able to see or recognize anything beyond its own existence or consciousness.  The woman was like the flower, but the Canadian way to say it was not that that flower looked outward infinitely at her never actually to see her.  But that its Beauty, since it was Beauty, was that it would.  The same thing couldn't be allowed to happen on human Earth as she suspected had been hinted was in this other-dimensional kingdom's past.  And so it was the outline of an woman entering the scene.  Not all of her face is seen from this angle.  Her hair.  Her figure.  And then the virtual figure of an rose springing up forth! before her‽  The beautiful woman's meditation on the thing of beauty.

    Russasha was ready to finish her painting.  She had derived all twelve symbols she wished to depict as the cultural rulings of her made-up society.  (You know the one in which the right people would gain power, whenever it was ready for it).

    Then I will name the twelve levels, each with one word phrase.  1. Cathexia (an sphere with an inside boundary), an general term for the condition of being afflicted with the ailment of having an cathexis (also known as repression proper).  2. Dis-Cathexia (an cube with outside borders), an general term for the act and privilege of trying to displace someone's cathexia or at least not trip over its environmental cues or language triggers.  3. D.G.A.F. (Don't Give An Fuck attitude) represented as an pyramidal form.  Your pyramid instinct kicks in and you realize you are at the top of the pyramid scheme but you don't give an fuck because you already knew that.  And it's not even real and so technically it's not an scheme.  4. D.G.A.F. about D.G.A.F. (Don't Give An Fuck about Don't Give An Fuck attitude) represented as an missile.  5. Cognitive Reason; an sundial.  6. Cognitive Dissociation; the football player.  7. Cognitive Psychology; the dawn.  8. Competition; the adversaries.  9. Miracles; the unicorn.  10. Calculative Representation; an inukshuk.  11. Personal Reflection; an woman reflecting on her own beauty compared to the beauty of an flower.  12. Beauty Itself As An Flower; an rose with infinite petals opening.

    And so she painted all twelve symbols (as they would appear in her own dimension) over the rest of the painting, in which Suppiah, Bubba, and G.D.B. returned to the central transit hub of the deep, (it was mostly blue except for the bluish marks she added to represent thousands from the random public who were bustling about the metropolitan centre and the shadows created by them.  Then Suppiah and his friends took the cable gondola back out from the core of Earth; and returned to the mer kingdom, where Suppiah lounged, half floating in the water above his living room couch with an eye masque on.  Listening to the motion of the currents and the sounds of greater waterborn mammals all around their community, which was nestled in the second great tide shelf from the shore, which led outwards into deeper and deeper fjords and caverns. She could even hear animals using an piercing frequency which spanned all the Great Ocean.  Which they used for different and varying reasons.  And then decided to paint the final details: mer people have superior technology to humans.  I am an human, concluded Russasha.  Therefore his (Suppiah's) technology is superior to my own.  And how they contact these outer frequencies whose presence is known in the Great Ocean.  May be known to him.

    I heard the sound of an police vehicle race by the villa.  Then I'm thinking about the Ocean Community.  (How I want to be part of the Ocean Community even though it is an metaphor for how our tears touch).  And I want to be known there and be part of an whole community of sadness.  Where all of our deepest ideas could be reflected on.

    I am an mermaid after all.  We have to deal with this shit all of the time.

    I'm well adapted to swimming in the ocean.

    The ocean is my whole world.

    I'm not ashamed that our tears are touching.

    She finally wept herself.  From top to bottom, left to right, in an finalizing effort she covered the painting indiscriminately with rows of all the symbols.  She had learned from another dimension.  Do you have any idea what this means?, she thought, it means I possess all twelve cultural rulings which will make our home location an better place.  An Earth with the eleventh and twelfth levels on their side.  Working toward their advantage.

    This was her fourth painting, an visual representation of π.  And now it had been completed.  The Primal Spirit of Infinity and Civilization.  The Primal Spirit of Infinity and Civilization was captured there now, for others to ponder.  It was such an effective painting, she patted herself on the back.  Symbols of every layer of civilization and all of its levels; the occupants of all which everyone considered everyone equal; who could now use this as an forthcoming meditation onto the type of society that rules today on the big Earth.  And she had mused it from an advanced civilization in another dimension.  It was years ahead of us and yet I was already able to produce this gift to all my readers.  When you see the light when you wake up in the morning; and you consider all of yourselves together doing just that; somewhere post-enlightenment and post-renaissance where you have twelve rulings or reflections to acknowledge with one another.  This will help steer society in the right direction.  We want people to wake up in the morning and say we see the hardest issues and today, just like every day, we're going to try to do something about them.

    Theoretically, Russasha had twenty eight more paintings to complete but since she was on an visual pictographic kick, she started right in on it.

    She had already finished four paintings of Primal Spirits.

    How many could she collect?

    The first three were of the Self, the Other, and the Virtue that if neither one can win out at an particular time it would be more virtuous in the spirit of the primal neither.  And now adding the fourth, π, as the endless everything.  Which civilization needs primal ruling on based on the twelve level system imagined in her fourth painting.  What other Primal Spirits could do that?  I mean, maybe, theoretically, there could be other spirits that are not about ruling society.  That don't represent Eternity.

    If the first paintings were her deepest reflections on Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna, and they connected logically with the Primal Spirit of pi, perhaps an primal ruling in the fourth dimension because of its tendency to expand indefinitely and yet never become or equal four: it was an Primal Spirit itself that which recognized this association between the fourth primal spirit and another Major World Religion who had connected them all logically through an understanding of pi.  The amount of categories of what could constitute an religion is infinite.  Always expanding outward like an circle and yet returning to itself; this is what an circle could mean in Eternity.  And there were other religions who had already connected the first four Primal Spirits of Humanity.  Could you take an guess on which one associated the most with Russasha's fourth principle and primal spirit, pi?  Which religion would be most like an circle going on forever?  And it's not Judaism, Christanity, or the Christianna because we've already associated them with the first three.  Who's more boxy?  Who has four corners?  Who connected them all to that ultimate puzzle and cycle?  And of course, if we're saying Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna are all capable of associating with every Primal Spirit then we're also saying that every Major World Religion is also capable of associating with the first three; and we'll continue the tradition that maybe these religions tend to emphasize best being associated with specific Primal Spirits.  But that, in general, except for with specific emphasis all religions are capable of interfacing with all of the Primal Spirits.  Unless there is an aesthetic beauty to capitalize on by naming and associating the religions all with having coined the first parts or phases of human consciousness.  (Or all of them).

    Yes, it might be rude to stereotype people according to Primal Spirits but we can make our weaknesses our strength or we can never let them down.  And it should include everybody, with everybody to have an say.

    She let it sink in that this was Buddhism.  It most closely resembled the pi scenario: why such an number exists in our known universe.  Which we can recognize even though we can't see the end of it.  And so the fifth painting had to be Taoism, which she imagined to have an magical harmony connection and connectivity with Buddhism.  (But this was exceptionally, only to be an easy way to say that maybe Taoism meshed or gelled better with the fifth Primal Spirit, if all Major World Religions could be named the same way, by having an specialty each one; one of each Primal Spirit which they would all take, hone, and practice individually as their own).  (If it was fair for everyone).

    And she prayed and hoped that everyone would get it: that one detail about her fourth painting.  How your tears touched when you were underwater.  Theoretically, you'd be in an salt ocean (depending on which planet you were on) and as soon as you cried your salt water tears would touch all of the other salt water tears the ocean is made up of.  It was the most revealing and most important detail in the whole painting.  Everything, according to her theme, was underwater.  And the ocean was made up of salty tears.  And she was in an world of pure and utter sadness.  That was the truth about nature and the phenomena of infinity.  Whereas Taoism was maybe more about the phenomena of finite gestures.  There was an limited amount of time, maybe, and so even if we couldn't prove it precisely it was wise to accept that it may be true.  And we were right smack dab in the middle of it, where all of these finite gestures mattered.  Even though it was an ocean of sadness.  And all of reality and our world's scaffolding depended on how we dealt with finitude or finiteness, not infinity.  And so the principle beyond pi, (you get that don't you?  That pi is Russasha's third painting even though it includes all of the rulings about culture and civilization and it's the third painting whereas the fourth painting (is increased more than pi is the box scenario between four points on an grid?).  The third painting is pi.  The fourth painting is what's after pi, logically.  In the sequence of the Primal Spirits and their reasoning.

    The fifth painting is an fifth point on our grid, in addition to the four already on there or evoked by my sophisticated understanding of the number four and its mathematical, philosophical, and spiritual purposes.  Four is an power word for an house.  You have four points on an grid, to build walls between them.  And everything inside is the area which is created by the phenomenon of four in this world.  But if we add an fifth point (some point that is outside or inside the area boundary created by four) that is my concept of the fifth Primal Spirit.  Finitude.  If Buddhism is four (or what we say, specializes in the fourth Primal spirit for aesthetic reasons).  Buddhism is more like infinitude or infiniteness; where Taoism is about that fifth point, an limitation or an problem and reasoning.  If there is an fifth point that we introduce to the field of the box we had created in two dimensions, then we have an third dimension, an limit, from which to draw all of those comparisons between the four points and the fifth.  And so the fifth point is finitude.  What's reality and what actually exists.  The possibility of an third dimension.  The fifth point exists inside the room we had created with the box.  Or it exists outside the box, where all the new volumes of an three-dimensional object you have created will need to be measured and calculated by the universe.  In order for there to be an fifth point outside the box, there need to be other shapes (outside the four two-dimensional points) that had to have been true to exist in order for it to be there.  And so Russasha started painting like there was an finite world outside of her art life.  And it was uncomfortable for her because there were mean people saying to her that anything inside her art life didn't really matter.  Even though it was the only thing she had in life which mattered to her.  The fifth Primal Spirit, as she pictured it now, appeared to be an elevator scene from the cross-section of it from within the walls, there were people in it.  Figures.  She could begin to paint them.  There were two adults.  An man and an woman.  And an child.  And an dog.  On an leash.  The elevator was plummeting but the dog didn't know what was happening but everyone else knew what was happening.  And then I stopped painting.  Because that's what it looked like and that's what it was.  But the elevator would never reach the bottom in my painting.  It just perpetually stood still.  Time stood still in that world.  And it never reached the bottom.  I had saved them in that moment of creating my art of the fifth primal spirit; my understanding of finite proportions.

    —I need my tears to be touched in order to feel them.  (She further concluded about her fourth painting)—

    But she turned on to paint an sixth.

    Six was perfection in nudity and nakedness.

    The seraphim, they say, has six wings.

    Two for flying, two to cover their face, and two to cover their feet (the feet are symbolic of genital nudity) but humans don't have wings like this and so there is an primal spirit reason to need to cover them with something.  If the fifth primal spirit painting was finitude: that mark or spot inside or outside an field created by the first four points.  Resulted in an 3-Dimensional conclusion.  If humans had form and three dimensions, and the consideration of finiteness preceded logically nakedness, then what is the reflection on finitude about your own body?  Or, how do these primal spirits interact with each other for you psychologically?

    An image of nudity, she artistically reasoned, was an angel with one wing; that exact number of wings that humans cannot have.  But how would it flap?  It wouldn't flap it would twirl.

    And the Author had it up in his mind somewhere that the sixth and seventh levels stylistically and/or aesthetically were the specialties of either Islam or Hinduism.  The eighth painting (for some reason there was an religious reason that eight was supposed to represent religion somehow) was the cut-off limit for how many primal spirit paintings she made which corresponded with Major World Religions.  Eight was an sacred number.  And so she knew her eighth painting would be Aboriginal Spaces, an world religion that could name up to twelve of the primal spirits in aesthetic relation to one another as the specialties of each major religion.  But everything after that, and keeping on with the idea that all of these religions either could or could not be associated with any one specialty as defined here as Primal Spirits.  We want to promote on the fact that each of these religions can have their own relationship with all of the Primal Spirits and we didn't necessarily need to stereotype, to associate, to link up any particular Primal Spirit as belonging to one religion alone.  They could all do and should practice all of the primal spirits; and some of them didn't have all of this knowledge of primal spirits.  It's been an rough history.  I'm sure you would agree this is our state of affairs.  Our religions, which are supposed to be the most sacred part of our lives, don't even know all of the primal spirits (the layers or segments of time which make up human consciousness (the ones which are supposed to enable you to observe and identify all of its parts through self-reflection or introspection)).  What are the chances they would be right about anything?

    And so she hung it up on an coatrack in the corner.  (Metaphorically).  She was done painting religions for now.  And if any of the Primal Spirits she was painting happened to look like one that had nothing to do with it.  And associating them each with Primal Spirits was off of the table for now.

    In fact, she added, everything was off of the table for now.  Until she painted accurately the sixth Primal Spirit.  And in order to set-in her focus, she would return her thoughts to the holiday season, which mixed with Halloween and Christmas at this time of year.  And whom she populated with an numerous assortment of characters, some of whom were literally just fucked up, dude (so fucked up), and others who were ridiculously not fucked up.  (soo not fucked up).  They were so ridiculously not fucked up that it was literally ridiculous when compared to how literally (so fucked up) some people were.  And this was the premise for all fiction.  At least for the moment, insofar as she was concerned.

    She reflected over her whole life.  Who were these people who were fucked up?  And who were those who weren't so fucked up, maybe?  But there was no way to cross from being one way to another between them.  Wasn't that the most fucked up thing of all‽

    Wouldn't the classic Winter's Tale begin with people in both categories in strategic advantage and disadvantage with each other?  An classic rivalry between opposing factions.  Some were fucked up.  Some weren't.  Could you figure out which were fucked up and which weren't?  And isn't this the true meaning of Christmas, to try to help some people who were fucked up?  And so we should put it on then, every year because we're people who are ridiculously not fucked up at all.  Like so much that's it's bragging.  And they have to sacrifice an little part of themselves every Christmas time because there were these people who were so impoverished as to be in ill health of the mind (as poor as poor could be).  And yet possessed virtues of Great Strength.  Love.  And Sacrificial Consequence.  That's how it started.  The rich people were so ridiculously rich.  And it was just like Downton Abbey.  And the poor were so poor that they couldn't ever think of an happy thought.  So of course the Rich people had to put on an festive Christmas only they don't know what's good.  According to an real impoverished poor person.  This was an whole model for all of life; the Seasons of change between winter and autumn.  How poor could the poorest poor person get?  How rich, on the other hand, could some people get?  Why did these forces necessarily oppose one another in an true and democratic territory?  Winter's Tale (my style) was an model for all of life because it was the competition between what are supposed to be complementary forces.  The people are poor because they poor are poor (fucked up with ill mental health) and the people who are not poor are not; yet rivalry inevitably is incited between them.  There is something the ill in health will strike up against the rich because they cannot help to act this way because they are poor; and yet the rich and in full possession of their mental health are still getting something morally wrong of which they are not aware yet; which of course adversely affects those with mental health issues.  And so the circle turns and inevitably goes around again.  There is an conflict between the two camps.  One which arises as an mental health issue or behavior caused by mental health issue; in the perspective of the rich and healthy it is an mental health issue.  But it isn't.  It's actually that someone who is supposedly supposed to have an mental health issue is pointing out what the rich themselves are doing wrong as an class.  But they take it as an offense to their authority.  They take it as ill behavior, and acting up.  Which it isn't.  It's an directly labeled criticism: they think they understand what the mentally ill are talking about when they don't.  But extrapolate it out across an system of an few variables and many people.  More than an few levels of fucked up.  The people who are so totally fucked up are probably that way because the rich don't even notice them but the rich don't notice them and so they don't do anything about it.  And so the people who are fucked up, totally, can't stop being fucked up.  Because the rich themselves are fucked up too in some way.  And everyone's so fucked up.  And it really is that type of situation.  What do you do?  Except jump at an chance to learn good moral opinion, behavior, and ethic?

    There are the results of the conflict.

    Again and again; and that's the whole meaning and metaphor for this life.

    Everyone is fucked up; and I'm just one of them.

    We take extravagant measures to show everybody how rich the rich are; we take pains to show how poor the poor are.  This is the duty of the average countryman to illustrate the conflict in narrative fiction.  For the whole spacious sapiens of his ancestor.  What happens because of this conflict?

    And that's why it's an model for an whole life, this story of Eternity.  For it happens to show every part of it.  The rich.  The poor.  That's all of what we know about what they have to do morally for one another.  As citizens at duty within our own country.  If we have an duty to our country, this is what we do for one another.  To use the model to show one another how the two classes conflict and interact or become one another.

    And who cares if she never finished painting six, or never finished painting all of them.  At least she knew the whole plot around how the real world works.  And she was free to act within it as an free and willing participant.  An Actress with Free Will.  An God with an Imagination.  And she had learned thus far, after making her art do so many things, the freedom it had imposed on her.  But one could never impose freedom, could they?  But she would finish the sixth then.

    And she took up to begin painting without the religious contrast on what the meaning of Primal Spirit number six might mean.  Nudity, to her, looked like an spirit.  It was an spirit in an hallway for spirits that went up and down.  Left and right.  And she was glowing orange as an certain effect of her particular biological form.  Like an flower of energy and light; stalks and petals.  Inhabiting her space like an plant.  She was beautiful.  Her full nude physical form guarded by the six-winged seraphim.

    It (the sixth Primal Spirit) might also have something to do with this interruption she had made in her own art, the Winter's Tale, which she had put her art aside for to contemplate.  Directly after finishing her fifth painting.  If the Winter's Tale narrative had anything to do with the sixth painting, then it may be this characteristic of having interrupted something—art itself—in order to inspect oneself properly.  Real spiritual nudity meant putting art aside for long enough to realize the real conflict in society; just like the Winter's Tale she had imagined, there were the forces of evil (celebrated on Halloween) and the the forces of good (celebrated on Christmas) "Weenmas" was also about the exchange between people (an whole sect, maybe) of people who are supposedly so fucked up; whereas there is also another sect of rich people who are ridiculously comfortable in their day to day lives, unlike the other sect, whom are suffering so much that it is at least equally ridiculous.  She had interrupted her art in order to come up with that scenario, because she suspected it reflected something real about her own reality.  And this was her, really spiritually naked.  Interrupted.

    The painting therefore, had to represent (maybe) this quality of interruption, and that was an part of being naked and being protected by an seraphim.

    It certainly was interesting that she had interrupted such an important painting just to make that connection.

    Was interruption in her reality about nudity being interrupted?  Hmm.  She concluded.

    —putting my painting aside, I wanted to focus especially on the Version academy I had invented in other fiction.  And the figure of Morpheus (god of dreams) as he appears in The Matrix; as the first person to believe in Neo.  (To believe that Neo is the one).  You see, the Version academy was roughly based on the Author's own undergraduate experience at the University of Alberta.  An fictional post-university station which allows both demons and fairies to study together; while however restricting angels from the campus.  And how my professors were like Morpheus to me, (Neo).  Freeing me from the Matrix.  Believing in my dreams.

    Many people were actually going there now (The Version Academy) and it was an virtual location in my psychology.  I had many of these virtual locations within my psychology and they were worth virtual currency to me.  But the Version Academy most of all was my highest and best achievement.  An whole Academy (post-university) based on the definition of an Version.  It was taken for granted that in university, not everyone had an version: an story that they would tell themselves that would explain everything.  That was where they went to be taught how to do it.  (From multiple perspectives if needed).  (As long as you tacked one down).  But in the Version, it was taken for granted that everybody did already know how to.

    This was part of why it was so interesting and fascinating to me.

    In this narrative I was Russasha.  Yet I was the Author.

    What was the connection between Russasha and the author?

    Was Russasha the author?

    Or was I just faking it?

    But did it matter now?  I was fleshing out an Version academy.  An place where fairies and demons attend.  Did it matter that Russasha didn't know more than me, its author?

    But if she did (since we cannot figure out which one I am anyway).

    Then what would she think?

    Interrupted.  Was this thematically an reason for an post-university status station?

    We wanted an institution in which everybody had their own version (it was an requirement upon entry) in order to figure out what interrupted means.  As well as the other mysteries of our universe.  Everybody had an version (an way that the story was told).  Everybody had their own version of events.  (Sometimes used legalistically).  But if you wanted the most specific definition of the term, it was, according to the official declaration of the Version, the synthesis between artistic and scientific versions of the universe that one is able to tell in logical consistency in language; one has an version because the artistic and scientific are fused together in one mind in order to create one "version" of how things are happening.  It was, as you can tell, an specific definition.

     We wanted to develop one another's versions through logical argument.  Through high-density research of artistic and scientific passions.

    An version was somewhere between art and science; an quasi-factor to both of them considered.  And in order to create effective versions there were an plurality of ways one could go about combining their knowledge they have of art with the knowledge they have of science.

    And besides, I wanted to think about how there is such an sharp difference between the rich and the poor, "fucked up" people as you would say, if you were being polite.

    Wasn't that the most spiritually honest thing one could say if they were naked?

    And so combined their logic; I wanted to show the figure of nudity and prurience beside my own account of an version which combined artistic and scientific logic.  What was my artistic version of the universe, and what was my scientific version of the universe, and how did they inform one another?  And why was this in total the version I pick up and take with me every day?  How much more naked could I be than dissecting it all out on an table to show everybody how my thinking mind works from both an artistic and an scientific perspective?

    Interrupted.  In order to think about Primal Spirits.

    This sixth painting was another big one (like the fourth one).  It was about nudity after all.

    Okay, she decided to take herself up on her own challenge, what were my artistic and scientific views?  And how do they come together to make up my version?

    An artistic account of the universe usually comes in the form of an story.  Whereas an scientific account also comes in the form of an story about how you confirmed an fact; which is looked at differently for the purposes of the scientific community.  You would start by saying 'This is artistically true,' or 'This is scientifically true,' followed by what you believe.

    And so if I have any questions for Science I list them here.

    What is the purpose of reality?  I would ask them.

    "Something that can be observed," they would say, "we know this non-philosophically because we can detect scientific reality.  The purpose is something can be observed because we are observers of the something.  Because we observe reality.  Reality exists."

    The Winter's Tale was so important to the fact of this painting being about nudity.

    For while at first glance, it may appear to be scientifically or artistically true, it isn't in fact either artistically nor scientifically true at all.  Why does it need to be true that some people just are fucked up (Earthborn) and that's how it is; it isn't my fault and I don't have to sacrifice any of my pleasures because of it.  In fact I can be ridiculously rich and good looking.  And whether it is scientifically or artistically true is another story.  You know what, in fact it is two stories.  Blending together to become one.  An version.  An chronicle thesis.

    I was worried for one specific reason; it was before Christmas.  The Halloween spooks were out in droves this year.  And it was estimated they might overtake Christmas; and there would be probability for conflict leading to bloodsport (roleplaying games).

    It was, after all, an dramatic time of the season, and everyone contributed an little bit to the factor of the gestaltism of Christmas.  And how it intervened or interacted with our behavior.

    But I suspected it would be because there were actually people who were ridiculously rich, enjoying their time, while there were actually people who were ridiculously out of perspective and the appearance of being infinitely poor.

    It was true and it was going to result in conflict at some time or another.  In fact, statistically, it might happen any number of times.

    Christmas was an archaic holiday; it might have any number of orders of curses upon it.  But people still celebrate it because at least they know why.

    But to see the full perspective, I supposed, I needed to start describing out art as the study of fame in all of its appearances out in society.  And science as an study of the objects of the universe.  

    Art was, in my university educated opinion, the tendency to use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning, which is favoured in the sciences.  My understanding of the difference between them is that deductive reasoning tends to use statements that can be concluded to be true in order to derive conclusions based on the deductions made between between various sources of information.  Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, uses statements that can be said to be or to be not true not in order to derive conclusion but extenuating circumstances on the matter of its ability within our minds.  We want the art to keep us with it longer by captivating our attention.  But it doesn't do this by deducing certain things; it does this suggesting an reality that is meta-deduction; it's something the scientist can see outside his or her own focus.  Which leads him onto something in the larger picture he isn't seeing yet.  Not everything, after all, can be deduced.

    And so the play of good and evil had to go on except, in the Holiday season, as either Christmas or Halloween.  Except within the lense of viewing this as both an artistically and scientifically accomplished society.  We couldn't just play an easy card by making either science or art the good or evil character.  It somehow had to continue on in the background (science) even though there was an contest between types of characters (evil or good) in high fashion and pop culture.

    From an Artistic point of view the world appeared to be whatever you could add to it, which might be anything.  Science appeared to me to be more the art of deducting from the universe what you already don't know about it.  They both required stories.  They just looked at them differently and used them differently to prove what they think is true.  What Artists looked at was that Scientists looked at everything subjectively, whereas Artists have figured everything objectively in order to provide an moral figure.  An Version, meanwhile (QR (Quick Response) Operant Code) continued to morph and evolve and create greater versions of itself.  And the reason it was able to do this was that one was able to use Art and Science as stepping stones increasing their own knowledge of themselves.  Art was my will: what I commanded it to be.  While science was, sometimes, not what I commanded it to be.  Thought I didn't know why.  Not at all like what I thought it to be like.  That was Science, the study of an ever-expansive universe.

    Art doesn't require you to know anything about an physical object; (at least not objectively).  It only requires you to know it subjectively, you know as yourself.  The truth about the art world is that it's your truth.  The truth about the science world is that it isn't.

    When you looked at the world Artistically, it meant everything that has ever happened over time and what it has to do with me.  When you looked at it Scientifically, it had to do with why things are as the way they are, even though everything which has happened over time, including our own observation of them which may be flawed.  Science is necessarily self-aware in this way, otherwise we might lose track of how our own observation of an phenomena affects our own observation of an phenomena.  Where Art can stop and introduce the character Fuck Tup, an Egyptian prince and mummy who has brought an curse upon the land (who has an pet cat (because we don't want to talk about what's actually fucked up—it's too depressing).).  And for an inductive reasoning reason we might as well associate it with the story of an mummy brought back to life.  Cats were the guardians of the underworld.  In such an bogus title of name.

    Yea, uh, Fuck Tup, was related to Hatshepsut, right‽

    And I think you can look at what's fucked up scientifically, with statistical facticity, or you can look at it as an whole character himself, to which fucked up things probably happen.

    And these are the two different ways of looking at stories.  At some point you want to switch over and be dominant in the one or the other.

    And art would always win because it always did.  That's why people kept doing it.

    And this was said to be the product of my literary explanation of the subject.  Art and then Science.  It made sense there would be at first, the one, and then other.  Art was like the ground, the actual ground for more Science (everything that existed and why); and Science was this fan-dangled new thing with endless endless fangirls.  It wasn't even realistic anymore.

    Science needed Art to fall back on; but Art needed Science to move forward.

    We needed to see pictures of ourselves Artistically rendered, as well as Scientifically rendered.

    One was the be all; and end all; of all creation.

    And the other was whatever came after it.

    Science Fiction universes of love, respect, technology; in the optimal healthy living conditions.

    Science was meant to identify and to explore what was objectively current to subjectivity.  It had to be this way.  Art was first.  And that's just how it is.

    Even if we couldn't discover something scientifically we still had Art.  You know, the thing you're trying to measure and accurately define because it's part of your environment.  But weirdly it was relevant somehow.

    It was about the contest for the artistic environment.

    Who deserved it and what and why?

    Art was everything Science wrote its conclusions on psychologically.

    You looked at the world through your own specific lense: who you were.

    And nothing could ultimately change that truth about you.

    And yet when you looked at it scientifically could become irresistible conclusions.

    Art was just why we were able to make scientific observations.

    An known subject in order to draw comparisons from.

    We had to look at our environment as though we were looking at our environment in order to make precise measurements.

    As though maybe, we hadn't been making precise measurement all along.

    We had completely to disconnect the observer from having to see what it was looking at.  In order to solve this mystery about the human race.  We were both observer and subject (experience-er).  In the Scientific world that meant subject sophistication and heightened intensity.  The fact was that we could look at it as we could look at it as Art; but we could only look at it as Science if it was in addition to Art, (what was already there).  Science was complete observations (facts) about the universe.  Art just says what an average individual person is about.  We don't know all of the facts of our existence but we know how we morally feel and what is right for us.  In Russia I was the maddened Rebel Alliance leader; but in Canada I was just the woman at the laundromat across the street.  We were allowed to have an moral feeling without knowing all of the facts of its existence.  We didn't need Scientific facts to teach us that.

    But the point was that an version had to include both an Artsy vantage and an Scientific vantage onto things; it was the result of them compromising or nuancing scientific values with artsy ones.  It was the combination of meanings both Artistic and Scientific into one nuanced version.  What I think, generally right now, the world looks like and why.

    The world looks like Fuck Tup and his situation representing science even though it was way beyond his present civilization.  Why an mummy would need to cast an curse upon the scientific community in order to find out if it could recognize its own self-awareness of itself; by being an specific character from an specific narrative about an cat nightclub.  Fuck Tup was, of course, the generous one for funding an cat nightclub everyone could enjoy.  He didn't know much about this science business but he suspected it had to do with mathematics.  And since he was the representative character for Art; he operated within the scientific community as an artistic influence.  Which paid out when it came to the value of his service for the visitor who reflected on this aspect of his wealth and influence.

    And it didn't necessarily matter how much mass or what molecules were present.  Especially if nobody could actually observe them anyway.

    An cat nightclub?  Wasn't that enough of an characterization of us?

    Why did it have to be so complicated‽  Why did we have to measure everything‽

    And this curse of Fuck Tup that existed through all the land had been propagated by the Halloween sect, who wanted to ruin Christmas.  An fucked up relationship between an cat and his owner, if you knew everything about how he had died.

    That was in fact it, you see.  He hadn't died.  but he was apparently way too old and wrapped with bandages just to hold him together.  The cats, in contrast, were living it up in the spirit world where they didn't have an totally fucked up relationship with the human mummy.  They, the cats argued, had never mummified one of their own kind and so they were of an superior ethic which morally counted toward them.  Fuck Tup was an prince and there was an curse, okay?  It didn't matter scientifically whether it could be proven or not.

    But it should matter scientifically what it meant, in addition to it not mattering what it mean exactly artistically as per its literary definition.  Both sides of the story could be created.

    Artistically, it was an story about an mummy; but scientifically, it was about the phenomenon of the possibility of being able to detect an mummy presence or not.  Even when the art appears to say it is possible when you know it's not.  But what is the definition of an mummy then?  Than someone who owns an nightclub for cats; whom of has been around for ages.  The mummy is so old he knows all of the funky tunes.  And since there is an plot against him (there had to be in order for dissolution of the curse).  We are able to measure and observe his scientific facticity, even though he is only an moral image in an fictional narrative.  We know that curses are not morally taken to be fact.  Just like we know scientific curses are not really rational commodities of thought.  We have to measure something that isn't there; but it doesn't want us to because it's an curse (an person, not an object).  And it doesn't need to follow the logic of science in order for you to be present to measure it so.  The truth is in the pudding.  The art is the man and the man is the art.  My version is that God maybe is the one this universe is run by and he's like an mummy who funds an nightclub for cats.  Because he's so old that everyone will want to come to him for knowledge.  Who is an cat?  And what is it like to be an cat and an human?

    Art, when combined with Science, was so powerful that it defied its own categorization.  An version, the fully connected vision that combines both Art and Science, at some point the nightclub will become an venue for both the insanely poor and the seductively rich.  One needs to be ready for both of them and when they happen.

    An version was the inclusion of both the need for inductive reasoning and the need for deductive reasoning.  You connect something without deducing anything.  Instead of subtracting what isn't possible from it you add what is possible.  Why it is possible to make an certain connection with another thing even though, deductively it doesn't look like the science is there to support its existence.  Instead of deducing you're advancing abstract metaphors of connections between one thing and another in temporal space.  Why they can have connections with one another in that way; and in what logical universe it makes sense that they do.  Even though all of the scientific facts about it may not be known.  Version is all of the science supported by the artistic opinion: art shows us that the universe is everything which supports scientific observation.  That what we observe scientifically is also somehow artistically about us.  My version was that science is only possible because of art.  And science tended to express itself artistically.  The universe, as an Artist, was possible because of the subject.  Yet as an Scientist it was possible because of the object.  And since both subject and object could both be possibilities of expression in the universe, they worked together harmoniously to create one whole instance of the present: the subject of being an subject and yet the impossibility of being an subject only as the result of an objective force.  My version was that subject preceded object in the artistic hierarchy of things; and so object was an after-effect (an result of) subjectivity in the scientific universe.  Everything that existed physically existed so because of an preceding self, consciousness, or awareness.  An subject from whom the material world flowed out of.  Subjectivity hadn't arisen from matter.  Matter had arisen because of subjectivity.

    Science is observation.  Art is subjectivity.

    Science is observing what is there.  Art is making what is there.

    Science observes properties of kinds of existence.  Particles existing in space.  Interacting chemicals.  Types of things and their physics.  Art sets up the whole scene on which to observe.  Where nothing can be taken as indeliberate or unintentional.  You couldn't leave anything outside the bounds of what an good artist would do.  Art shows us what is there by being what is there.  Whereas Science shows us what is there by not being what is there.

    What could be more naked than looking at the universe thus?

    Therefore she took this as the subject and character of her sixth painting.

    Therefore the seventh Primal Spirit must be Ace.  Ace is an virtue I have come to characterize as 'you know it'.  That's what Ace is.  When you know something so well that you know that you know it.  It may appear to be an simple virtue but it is actually more complex than Love and an virtue I discovered called Nyclepi.  In fact it depends on them.  Ace—knowing something—means knowing Love and its counter response, Nyclepi.  The hilarious virtue of laughter without irony in the serendipitous.  An force that is always unimpressed with what love has created.  Not to be an villain to it, or to be ashamed of doing something that would counter love; but to build on its already impressive power.  Instead of looking at love with the biggest of googly eyes, we look at it as relatively unimpressive.  And that there are more things love can do in the universe.

    Not to harm or hurt love, but to lead to an perspective on an critical thought process about how it can create more of itself.  Nyclepi, as an virtue, works with love to produce an end result, the Philosophy that maybe love isn't such an all-powerful thing yet in History as we would like it to be.

    It's not because we hate it.  It's because we want more of it.  We don't have to look at it rationally like I did, if I were to be an Primal Spirit from Love but sometimes I think we might benefit from it if we all did.

    If Ace is the seventh Primal Spirit, then it must be because of its contiguity with nudity; the nudity of knowledge; knowing that you know.

    Ace is an primal destination because we will always forever onward feel naked about this because of me;

    After nudity; there is primal nudity.

    The knowledge of one's own knowledge.

    If you have the virtue called Ace that means you Aced it!

    And so she started to paint.

    I know exactly what it is I'm talking about, she grumbled, and how to represent it.  That's what having ace means.  That's what having ace as the seventh Primal Spirit means.

    That's why I'm painting it this way.

    Love is the enduring epiphany that connects to Nyclepi, Ace, Air Alt, in that order; across an bridge which connects to all of the other virtues.  Creating an endless circle; that always circles around back to love; somehow at the end of an rope of the bridge and yet reaching across it to the other side where it finds itself again.

    If Ace is the seventh Primal Spirit and it is an virtue.  Then this explains why it is part of an bridge between Love and all of the other virtues after Air Alt; one must know what one knows in order to know more about love and have access to all the other virtues.  Through these three magical, supreme virtues.  Nyclepi, Ace, and Air Alt.  The bridge to other virtues that we need in the mind.

    I'm in the therapist's office, saying to my Freudian interpreter someone abused my homunculus.

    And she asks how.  I freeze.  I am instantly triggered by that memory.

    Someone took my body form according to my brain and made it occupy an space inside of itself so that it could not occupy or operate outside of itself any longer.

    (I just want you to  know what I know).

    (But it's not so easy to inform you).  (I must write an story in order for you to understand).

    Someone took my body form according to my brain (the homunculus) and edited it, triggered it into submission repeatedly; and made me feel like I was less than an body.  But only some contained aspect of it.  Which could never escape.

    I have been to the blue swamp.  For it is far murkier than the green one.

    And I want to integrate the story of the place I want this world to be.  What are the many problems with it that make it an world I would not want to live in.  But out of its Hope to pursue making this world that place.  And that provides my Reason for wanting to continue.

    It's like another world completely.  It looks like an necropolis in the desert.  Though it comprises an entire city.  There are many gay people there.  They don't hold back their big personalities just because they are gay and so they have to censor themselves in order to protect their identity.  And it has the best cafés (full of bubbles of color therapy such as these neon lamps).  In the best colors green, blue, pink.  Like little science experiments on the café purchase counter and tables for its citizens to sit at.  Everyone was creative and busy at finding their creativity (in practice) & inspiration. I did say the best, after all, not necessarily my favourite.  The whole city is protected from the desert storms (sands and winds) of this deserted landscape.  And it exists in fact on another planet other than Earth.  For it will take that long to correct society finally to be the way I want it to be.  Several cycles of scientific experimentation and inter-galactic travel.  We will have used up all of Earth's resources by then, maybe.  But optimistically we have several million natural preservation sites both within and around the Earth; and it has become one entire city which can control its own weather.  No.  I am on an desert planet far away from there.  And my society is free in more ways the citizens of Earth will ever imagine.  For they have committed the most un-feasible blunder there onto the gay community; that the toxicity produced will take several thousands of generations to decrease completely.  I will be far away where it can't touch me.  And my city is an wonder and an mecca for scholars.  With the best types of coffee.  There is an open fair.  There are mezzanines and an arcade of fenestrated roof windows.  The windows are treated with an UV protective coating; all of the helpful light comes in and none of the harmful light.

    This is where Fuck Tup enters the scene.  He owns the cat nightclub but it's not good enough for him.  The cats just smoke catnip and use the open mic to reminisce over bongo poetry and hats for cats.  Outside of his cat scene, the city in the desert, in this place extending from her creative stores from the Suppiah story, an playful exchange between good and evil over the gloidays occurs.  People hold open contest of roleplaying characters; demons and fairies of course including the dramatic play of turn-based strategy gaming between good and evil.  Some crowd would dress up one day as gothic characters, representing evil.  And another troupe of dress-ups from the goody goody side of the gloiday spirits would combat them in open representation of what they were doing.  Which included spells and abilities the other team would have to roleplay their way out of, avoiding it or returning fire.  The premise was that there was an tank, an healer, and some damager-class types who dealt unbelievable amounts of damage something political about why they had dressed that way in order to represent evil.  And who was the more villainous, then, if some would oppose an community just because they were gothic?  Maybe they were emo?  Could you tell the difference?  Maybe the way the good people dressed said something subconsciously about them; and really they were the ridiculous party.  Often these strategy based scenarios would include the contest between good and evil (representing themselves as Christmas and Halloween).

    Everything about Fuck Tup is, well, fucked up.

    He is an living mummy in an civilization built in the desert on an alien planet millennia after the first unliving mummies on Planet Earth.  He owns an nightclub for cats.  They play bongo drums somehow, even though they're cats.  And it's an metaphor somehow, even though it's not.  He's wrapped with bandages.  He explores the hall.  And he is accepted as an citizen, even though he's different from everyone.

    And besides I'm Russian, she thought, why wouldn't I paint an powerful mummy elder of this particular name who knew things about this place and its many cafés?

    And what he does with himself during the Christmas season?

    Who would oppose the classic, good-natured characters for playful combat?  And how would they do it?  Orcs came out at an clear oppositional strike against elves and all of fairy creatures.  Orcs were evil representing itself as evil: in an ultimate contest against good.  Good characters representing themselves as good; the slipperiest slope to climb.  The forces of Hell and Halloween, what was this, against the forces of Christmas and better judgment?

    That's exactly what it is, thought Fuck Tup, but how can I get them to play together out in open public to the benefit of my bar and drinks menu?  If people came to my cat tavern it would be because they felt safe as either evil representing itself as evil (how honest‽) or good representing itself as good (how boring‽)?  My real spirit is to be the highest and oldest academic; who is only here because his bandages held him up.  I might not be perfect but I can spot an freshman when I see one!  That's the whole contest of pyramids; the scheme belongs to me because I am the highest pyramid.  And he let out an evil laughter which was so vacillation-less and retribution-al everyone just decided he was playing an evil character even though he wasn't.  And they started observing him as an evil source of wits even though he wasn't one.  And every effort he made to push back against it in order to be himself was assaulted with its inordinate justice so that he couldn't be himself any longer.

    But I mean, at least you can get hot coffee on every corner, he narrated himself.

    And the food fair isn't so bad anyway.

    But this was an ordered society.  And everyone in it had advanced beyond the human, trans-human, post-human virtual reality and augmentation trials; in which their society began to become order according to an machine interface augmented into everyone's eye lense or cornea.  People started working jobs that were narrated to them like video games.  They would get rewards and experience points for doing particular tasks.  They could use those points toward unlocking benefits, getting time off, and even getting an free lunch somewhere.  Human society had now evolved into its advanced stage: people interacted with their environments in ways that were completely 100% manufactured toys.  People could get high off of them.  Or receive the extreme rewards of doing some of the most advanced quests.  They might even be able to unlock portions of the map from their degree of clearance within the whole surrounding civic conglomerate; people had evolved to adapt to the consequence that their society was, in some ways, completely virtual.  The amount of productivity and capitalistic energy it created was so substantial an increase, into most luxurious ergonomic proportions that the whole productivity of the human species increased and productivity came to be more specifically balanced with happiness.  Happiness was productivity if you could capitalise the philosophy.  Society had advanced to develop capital politics in an committed roleplaying community who used their fantasy identitities to say the most political things.  Evil characters represented themselves as an certain race in order to draw question to its specificity; in order to question out whether they think of themselves as evil or good.  And for what reasons may damage an certain opponent: the good characters (who also use race and type of character (class or profession) specificity to draw attention to why they in particular would be considered good and not evil.  And since it is an fair and morally ordered society it is free and fair for everyone to represent themselves as whoever and whatever they want.  And representing certain races or societies gained you access to quests and virtual work effort points that could be used to buy all kinds of things.

    This is an society in which all prejudice and racial discrimination has been defeated.  LGBTπ are treated as equals on every level of society.

    An place where anti-gay religion is outlawed and all Major World Religions comply with these basic human rights.

    Shut the fuck up became Hat the Shep Sut.  You know, it's nicer and politer.  (And this is thematically accurate to what an religion is supposed to do, anyway, in theory).  (Turn curse words & curses into blessings and bless words).

    And so the concourse of events had begun; there were going to be scenes and public demonstrations of this good versus evil concept; and for some people it was in the theme of the celebration of Halloween and for some people it was in the theme of the celebration of Christmas.  And these two forces opposed one another in society so that there was an meritorious amount of variety among the different characters.  There were so many fanboys going for an evil persona who publicly acknowledged this: they were exactly what they said they were.  They had long black cartoon legs.  They caught up with their energy under the shade of evil existence.  Meanwhile, there were Christmas characters teaming with white tinsel and faux furs (the real major Divas) whose legacy upon the land was notorious and worth visiting upon as part of the tradition of representing Good.  As an person who identified as Good.  Not too hard to brag about now.  And Fuck Tup had taken to the greater scenario in society; that this was actually going to happen.  That political science duels would break out spontaneously everywhere, and people would represent their favourite types of characters, whether evil or good.  And act out scenario battles in which roleplaying and turn-based strategy logic would be employed.  If an scenario succeeded to propagate itself then it deserved to be qualified as an scenario.  And that at this time of year it was traditionally an fight between the pumpkin king's forces and Christmas's hilarious dual ego of the Santa Claus; whom they cannot figure out whether he is an terrorist or not.  Christmas represented itself as good but how good is too good?  Doesn't it become bad if it's all just mixed up with itself with no differentiation?  Meanwhile, the spooks of the season were having an hard time causing an rebuttal in the fantasy scenario.  So much so that it appeared they had been defeated.

    When the forces of evil prevailed again.  They had gained an new leader, who was brimming with optimistic energy, and in the spirit of Halloween evil against the opposing Christmas party of magic damage dealers, tanks, and virtuous healers; and the evil, who had their own tanks and healers, as well as some of the highest damage dealers of all.  Ordered an new vicinity of magical attack which would be taken into account against the opposing party.  Since Evil had perpetrated the attack, they were responsible for contributing to the roleplay experience, thus discrediting their own fact that they were evil.  By contributing to the roleplay act of the Good, which always extenuated its own circumstances so that every battle would eventually go its way.  But, the Evil would present to argue if I am extenuating our scenario then I am also extenuating my own.  And since my own is in no motivation to do good.  Then the amount of evil I can permit is extensively more good than good can produce.

    Society had split into the two main camps.  The Asmeros, an peaceful, fun-loving, and kindred folk who represented Good.  And the Guardians, an explicitly negative society who represented evil representing itself as evil.  In commodifiable competitive difference with supposed Good.  If Evil was said to be evil, which is what it was, then how could it be blamed for mis-representing itself‽  Which, in the end, was closer to the truth than the Asmeros, who couldn't even live up to their own standards?

    At this moment—you need to understand it was an fantasy you see—it became physical.  And there were violent contributions against one another by the one and the other party.  Magical abilities affected physical subjects and objects in mysterious ways; weapons experts dispatched their foe and evil prey with talented expertise.  And the tankiest, butchiest of men and women, who were hobby-wise explosive experts but rarely had time for it because they were so busy soaking up all of the damage so that it couldn't be inflicted on their damage and healing quarters.  The Asmeros, for the present being, were represented by the Good characters of Christmas (Santa Claus, Mrs. Claus, and all of the elves and reindeer) and they were certain they were good because they in fact know it.  And that was better than just being evil by being evil by representing oneself as evil.  Even though that was an step in the right direction.  There were in fact other priorities to address and attend to.  And if one would stop being evil just for the sake of being evil.  One could see that being good was the better way—

    —It's not always by choice, evil defended itself, but then again neither is your blind ambition to follow an age-old myth even though it makes your culture and everybody party to it act so silly?

    And for the first time and once ever, Evil realized it had its own responsibilities to uphold.

    If evil had an responsibility to uphold that it was evil, just like it said it was evil, then that was further work done on the assignment of being good than the Asmeros had contributed, even though they said and represented themselves openly as the morally good and accurate.

    And, of course, the tournament of adversaries was scheduled, timed, planned out.  Who would be competing, appearing as what fantasy character, and when?  (Although, in this society it was also common for these type of activities to break out spontaneously in public).

    Good had declared the battlefield to remain under its dominance.  While Evil plighted that since it  was doing exactly what it claimed it was doing it was doing nothing wrong.  And it did not make fair & logical sense that Good should claim its dominance over the battlefield when one faction had not proven to be an higher moral cause than the other.  And in fact it was immoral for the Asmeros to do so because they had no moral cause for it.  To claim superiority over the other.

    This would be when the fighting broke out all over again.  The first and highest ranked party of Asmeros followed the tank, damage dealer, and healer dynamic and their tanks charge into battle.  The Guardians respond in turn by sending their own tanks, damage dealers, and healers into battle.

    And of course it is roleplaying and so there is no real physical battle; but magic does have an presence here.

    However there are vivid descriptions of open combat and everyone abides by the turn-based roleplaying strategy rules (what is an social contract or treatise in this civilization); unless they have speed potions or other powerups and abilities which enable them to have additional turns or amount of time in which to interact with their opponent.

    Special effects are considered psychological.

    And the narration of this event basically depends on the even-measured and careful handling of its most gentlest aspect: the ability to reflect on oneself what one is doing.  The abilities of the competitors to counteract one another.  This is the meaning of Ace.  Yes.  Russasha paused to reflect.  In order to know what you know you need an narrative that proves something about society.  That the virtue of Ace can exist out there, among the public and community.  In order to know what you know, however, sometimes requires an competition: to know who won.  (This time).  In the competition between spirits of good and evil, Ace was required.  Yes, it needed to be required.  The audience needed to know when an move resulted in an hit, or if an spell had been successfully cast, or an healing spell came to effect.  If it required an virtue to be an Guardian (even though they were evil.  Then were they really evil?  Who was evil?  Who were the Asmeros then?).

    (This itself being in the description of how the Guardians retaliated).

    (In this archetypal kind of battle between them).

    If Asmeros also had the virtue Ace then the Guardians were no better.

    Was an quick spell of an response.

    The referee demanded they assume an Halloween versus Christmas focus of battle.  For the sake of the Gloiday season.

    The horde of bandits (Evil's reservoirs of manpower) adopted Jack o' Lantern headgear, many with terrible fangs and others with cute emoticon-mimicking eye cut-outs expressions like the x or the wink.  And so the Asmeros all dressed up with wings and halos.

    Obnoxiously, the Asmeros started singing We Wish You An Merry Christmas.

    Well ye haven't solved the war in Russia yet, Have You‽ shouted back the Guardians.

    To fake your opponent out, you have to take your toll mentally against them.

    Which certainly caused an disruption among the Asmeros.  There were astonished gasps of people starting to panic; it was true.  They hadn't been able to solve anything about the Ukraine–Russia War and it was now the Gloiday Season in which they would enjoy lavish feasts and comforts including the highest quality entertainment.  Where there were stray orphans in an warzone who didn't have anything to eat.

    But then Russasha brought it to its significance as an narrative in which the time period of her own world and history appeared to collide with the time period of her subject, several galaxies and futures later than perhaps mere humanity.  Why was an Ukraine–Russia War being unable to be solved in an fictional future that existed several, maybe, million years in the future of her own current time period?  Perhaps the story of what happened was known to these people and they had used it as an rough guide to mark out how they would play one another; in conflict, out in public, thus.  There was something significant about the Ukraine–Russia War that was similar to all wars.  And parts of it had become an meme in their history, that they would act out and culturally reflect on its influence.  In this particular narrative between the Asmeros and the Guardians, that had come to symbolize their culture on that distant planet, the competition between Halloween and Christmas said (indicated) something about what had happened in their human Past & History.  At that time when Russia happened to be at war with Ukraine and it was said Christmas had an certain effect on them (Russia) as an Christian nation.  I guess the obvious point was that it had vast consequences; and it was remarkable that it would still be part of that distant future place (culturally) she had imagined to paint.  Who were, she wondered feasibly, the Asmeros and the Guardians of my own time period?

    It was three days until Christmas and the Guardians had set out to destroy Christmas and ruin the fun of it for everyone.

    They destroyed every pine tree on the planet.  (It wasn't that many).  (Out of the several species alive within conservatory nature in this civilization almost none of them were cut down and used for that purpose of celebrating Christmas anymore).

    The Asmeros retaliated with the utmost certainty.

    Magic to shock them out of their senses.

    While the Asmeros' tanks held off the Guardians' advancement, the Asmeros magic users and D.P.S. were able to set up an perimeter to protect the healers, who kept their tanks standing.

    Destroy our Christmas Trees, shouted Ivan in the Infinite Entertainer of an Good Idea (for the good Asmeros), I'll chop off your head!

    Chopping off our heads would be murder, the Guardian leader cried, and then you'll have to chop your own head off as well!  Good people are so backwards!  And anyway, we already killed your Christmas trees and you cannot take back the holiday spirits anyway that Russia has stolen from you.

    You didn't kill our Christmas trees we all have fake ones!

    They listen to Chvrches - Clearest Blue and do enormous amounts of damage while they are in this formation.

    Which is more than you can say the Guardians have.

    Just because they represent themselves as pumpkins doesn't mean they can express that type of lifestyle at the same time as Christmas this year.  And never was.  And never did.  We are holy angels when you aren't.  What can win against an holy angel?

    But the Author took it up with definition issue: holy was an archaic relatively undependable type of magic in today's modern society.  He preferred that they use gloiy; with his own definition of the word.  Instead of Holy.  Because it expressed an better energy: the fact of the ability to see something in one's mind because there were an interior light on it which allowed you to see it.  Holy, in comparison, tends to mean something which has an interior light on it but which you can't see.  It is an curse word in modern society because what it represents is extremist white shepherd-ism; an racist all-white extremist group that doesn't recognize itself as racist or extremist.  Besides, Gloiy is more of and better of an fantasy than holy because it doesn't refer only to white magic.  Holy is an anti-psychological term in modern day history because it isn't as colorful an type of light than gloiy is.  Which is what real light is.  (Colorful).

    And the Author, who had just thought all of that, realized he believed all of that and yet his characters of his own creation had indicated they represented themselves as holy.

    Maybe it was closer to the truth that the Good, who were represented as the Good, were truly more evil than the Evil who represented themselves as Evil.

    If they choose to be associated culturally with that term holy.  Which never amounted to anything as an concept.  It was such an bad roleplaying fantasy device nobody ever used it.  It gained no traction.  It didn't in becoming.  And that's why it has such little power and always has.  Gloiy is the much better term because it recognizes an type of real power in the psyche; it has an specific definition for an type of thinking as whereas holy doesn't.  Nobody has ever been able to summon an holy magic of any type because it doesn't represent an real type of thinking.  It isn't power if nobody can do it.

    But gloiy, what an spectacular power is this one?  The power to see colors within one's mind & imagination because of the inner light that is projected on it‽  (By an subjectivity?).

    What an more plan-tasy fantastic and terrible power is thus?

    Plantasy was all political; an entire segment of political character descriptions.  And I was representing the New Reciprocity.  You know, my political theory.   The one that is on this blog.  

    To be able to describe those fantasies and nightmares of your mind in vivid definition.  Sustaining the focus of what it looks like in your mind by being that light which you see upon it.

    Isn't that what the definition of holy was going for but never did?

    Therefore I must conclude holy is an corrupt concept.

    How were the Asmeros going to win if they used only holy magic to defend the gloiday season?

    (There was no such thing).

    Meanwhile, the Guardians had already scented themselves with the threshing of innocent Christmas trees and tried to get them Asmeros all riled up by complaining about Russia.

    They're right, was the only conclusion left.

    How can we be infinitely involved and invested in enjoying the holidays when Russia is at War with the Ukraine?

    Those Bastards! screamed Ivan, tipping over his egg nog.  The open conflict between tanks from either party continued, while magic users on either team tried desperately (feigning) to heal them; while in fact dealing an exceedingly positive amount of damage in that same amount of time.  But since the Asmeros had decided to ally with the positive holy image; it was the Guardians who gained the favour of the gods.  And they were, theoretically, better at using and wielding glo, the better type of magic.  For they had dexterous minds from coming up with all kinds of lies over the years.  In order to execute an well-developed plan one had to see it in one's mind first.  How one would deceive.

        And as an character of the type that helps fairies, I was, as an author in the position of needing to represent how I helped fairies from Russasha's point of view.  She was, after all, the one painting the making.  Agh!  And the author buckled under; I have never seen such an oddly worded thing such as pain-ting.  It is the real definition of war if you want to be an painter.  Every stroke.  Every detail.  Is the pain you bring.  As an Artist in response to the war in which the pain your opponent deals to you is always less that the amount you deal him, Big Old Russia.  If you are an Artist and you really take back the painting.  The canvas is your art-field, warfield.  Your artistic instinct and license is your mana.  Paint cultural strategy.  Tactic.  Show the person you present your art to the many focal points throughout the artwork.  What their eyes linger on and why.

    An good painter will find all depth to the many focal points:

    The Scenario in Russia: Attack the Ukrainians!

    The Scenario elsewhere: Stop it!

    And all of the places and virtual destinations we had been with Russasha.  Yet we didn't care an scrap about her.  I mean, truly, we all loved her but that didn't mean Russian feminists were knocking down her door to help her man in his major take over of the geographic territories within Russia.

    And the Guardians had proven to have done more good than the Asmeros, whose bad was equally worse for it because they had claimed themselves to be Good.  In Holy Prophecy.  Just like the Russians.

    Her painting appeared to scream to stop!

    It was an facial profile in the figure of its own shadow.  Lit from within by glo.

    The Asmeros fall under because holiness doesn't exist and it never will.

    The Guardians, on the other hand are free to pursue their glo-based logic.  Which is superior at conditioning the mind for training academic action-based logic; the contest of bodies between Guardian and Asmeros is lit from within; just like the facial profile in the figure of its own shadow.  And their actions take place on an horizontal plane.  Glo allows them to think of physical forms which would occupy this space in an battle.  How their lives would be lit.  Blood flying everywhere.  With mages, and healers in the back.  The Guardians heroically realize the value of their opponent's formation and they begin to form their own.  The epic evil mages summon their own perimeter that their opponents cannot go past.

    Go, dumbasses!  Go!  She yelled it out over her men.  Within the Russian republic.  I will be at the finish line.  I will wait for you there.  Go, take back our republic!

    She was the Matrix Dominator, domineering.

    But it would her boyfriend's courage and action which would prove whether they could take back the global republic.  They had to secure and take back every geographic region within Russia.  While yet they were certain there were more than one—

    —And all of this was what the people from this future civilization on an desert planet, the subjects of the Seventh painting, could look into and see about Planet Earth at this time in its History, when it had decided to try to take back every geographic region, even though they may have various gang leaders who were outlaws to the United Nations—

    —They needed to do it sector by sector, and slowly, maybe with an bit of jedi luck, reclaim the territories one by one.  Who were the actual police force we'd be in offense of if we tried to take back their territory.

    And then she laughed at them, outright, seeing in them (her chosen warriors) doubt mixed with fear.

    She wasn't laughing because she was crazy.  She actually just thought it was funny.

    And they could tell; and so it gave them her spirit.

    The Guardians had finally summoned an perimeter.  Their tanks (most of them) were still active.  Their healers had the bright idea to climb on the mages' shoulders to heal the tanks, who were in front of them.  Which they were told was an bad idea and not to do because they were wearing cloth.  The tanks at this moment realized how smart their magic users were (—and if magic users were always infinitely times smarter than any tank or mere warrior—) then they must not be that smart.

    But once they got into the correct formation, finally, overpowering some of the damage that was being done to them; they colluded to protect their heavy damage dealers while the healers, looking on, in turn could reflect the damage and heal the tank.

    The Guardians feigned.

    Asmeros struck!

    We can still enjoy Christmas even when there's war in the Ukraine because it's halfway around the world.

    You cannot! shouted the Pumpkin King, who was fictionally associated with destroying Christmas.  You have no Christmas trees or ornaments to put on them!

    We do, merry Halloween Spirit, responsible for all plantasy evil spirits and wind chill released this year; we do!  Have an merry look in the den, there; while I drink my rum.

    And so the narrator would look in the den.  Where all that was merry about Christmas is on fire; the political people are there.  Their fake Christmas tree.  And all the gifts that lay below it in the heap of pine cones and needles; if I could only just light it this highly combustible thing pine needles are and watch the whole building burn down.  The subject of the political arena within thus that had been summoned to accommodate everyone of an political (giving and receiving orders and commands) nature.  And everyone who was there, their moods boiled with this type of anger.  The New Reciprocity was pre-dominate because it was exactly that; the theory of giving and receiving orders in political command.  It was considered to be an great honor, where I come from.  Even those de-meaning injustifiable orders one of us will eventually give the other.  We're going to piss each other off.  Let's just get over that fact right now and move on.  That's the point of politics, isn't it?  Anyway‽  To piss each other off?

    The Guardians had struck exactly thus.

    For when the narrator went back to the kitchen to where I was drinking my rum to warn me of the fire.  They gained an second of an advantage that eventually lead to the whole Asmeros spirit and all of their archaic holiday.  Being shut down methodically.  First they would replace all of the nice-smelling, essential holiday object (trees) with fake plastic materials and chemically treated rubbish.  And then we will go after eliminating Christmas economically, culturally, as an market altogether.  And they won't even realize it leaving their forward focus of memory and concentration (smells, pheromones, and elixirs) until after most of the remaining specimens of pine tree are destroyed.  And then after that point it will be after New Year by then.  We'll get away with destroying Christmas from within the political sphere.  An exact location and scene of the political battles and debuts of newly appointed political opponents.  I had adopted an New Reciprocity standpoint; I was aloof but ready to receive an opponent's orders in battle.  As well as ready to give orders to someone else.  I repeated my descriptive orders.

    "The New Reciprocity is pre-emanate because it names the exact political convention of the cycle between giving and receiving orders in public.  It is exactly the political theory of the people.  Anything can be an order, depending on how you describe it; just like anything can be an description of how you are receiving orders from me."

    "And so—what is your conclusion?"

    "That you have to, to some extent, obey the orders and commands that I give you."

    "And this is the purpose of your argument in this battle field.  Where at first was the multi-cultural dance floor of sharing new reciprocity; now you have shielded to create an arena where it wasn't specifically physical.  And there was nothing about its combat that was physical."

    "Agreed."

    "And was your conclusion that I myself might have some orders to give you in return?"

    "Yes it was within my perspective to have thought so."

    "Good."

    "Good."

    "Then we can freely give one another orders then, and there's nothing to be angry or upset about from either one of us, depending on what kinds of orders we give one another."

    "Yes.  Agreed."

    "Then tell me more about this New Reciprocity and what does it have to do with.  You know.  You giving me some orders to follow?"

    "Well I already have."

    "Okay.  That it was pre-emanate for the New Reciprocity to have named the subject and theme of all of our conversation: giving and receiving orders as political opponents."

    "Yes exactly.  This makes you an new reciprocal theorist.  To have thought about and reflected on what kind of orders you would give to one another if you were peers."

    "Then I am an new reciprocal theorist."

    "Yes.  And saying so is itself an type of order."

    "I see.  I didn't want to make that type of order."

    "But you already have."

    "I would like to retract the idea.  I am actually an representative of Intersectionalities Anonymous.  I will meet you as an opponent in the battlefield.  And I wield an green type of magic: fantasy.  In order to point out how, if it was our real fantasies, we could perform as opponents politically in an turn-based strategy game."

    "And all of those are your orders for us?"

    "Well not exactly I mean."

    "Then the new reciprocity continues to be pre-dominate.  Especially because of how it help you speak out all your orders for us in the first place."

    "All of my orders‽  Baby, we haven't even started!"

    And all of the politicians continued out onward by daylight, giving all of their orders to one another.  Even though none of them wanted to listen to all of them.  But, at least, everyone was heard out.

    Personally I felt it was the best idea that politicians learn how to roleplay with one another in dramatic character fashion of those inspired by the green mana spectrum.  There were demons and fairies that wielded green magic; and both of them were cool.  If the opponents could think of an character archetype to pick to roleplay; you know, to make into an important role politically.  And they actually did play out an entire turn-based strategy game scenario against them.  All of their political opinions would be heard by virtue of their perspective (the race of the character involved) such as orcs, trolls, vampires, etc.  Or if you were on the good side of things: fairies, pixies, radio flies, creature-lings, mushroom people, dragons, vauthrils etc.  It mattere what kind of fantasy (green mana) character you were because your political opinions would be based around what you want as an species (one entire one all to yourselves).  Within an Fantasy example.  If an elf complained about the water shortage it meant something different than if an ogre said the same thing.

    "Well why do you live on an mountain where there is no water then?" would ask some snobby fantasy politician of the ogre.

    And people would be free to combat their words and opinions within the structure of an turn-based roleplaying strategy game.  Where opponents would be given turns with which to act against one another.  We would see the Fairies, who represent the side of good take turns against the Demons, who represent the side of bad.  And depending on what they say and what action selections they take to be themselves responsible for, or how impressive their moves executed against one another in precise fashion were.  Even magic tricks.  Typically, healers would execute healing spells on their tanks, who absorbed and took in damage, where the damage dealers whom the enemy is distracted from attempt to deal as much damage possible in as little time possible.  And in an formal arena setting all language and all descriptions of character and actions were on the table.  You could damage, heal, or tank your opponents in any way you wanted to.  Though my favourite had to have become fire spells and fire magic, notoriously the most damaging and most explosive quick damage spells.  And it had nothing to do with the pine needles, I swear.  My world was worthy and had redeemed itself because other political people chose to pick it with me.  They were, in fact, responsible for articulating their own orders and commands as well as detailed reasons why; and how they could be presented to one another as opponent material that would favour in the side of one's own margins.  People, actual physical people, in my scene were now self-aware-ly giving one another new reciprocal commands, which were the known political subject of my political theory.  And I had articulated it to them that the reason why was that the New Reciprocity was self-emanate.  It knew about politics being about giving and receiving orders and commands even if you didn't; and it didn't depend on you knowing anything about it.  This was an style of independent clause I had adapted.  And I listened to the room fill with voices about what people would say to each other; having so been primed by learning about the New Reciprocity this way.  To have been gently encouraged to use one's political time wisely for there was always an scarcity of it.  We had to get everyone's demands and orders out in public in as little as time possible in order for everyone to react to it.  It, the thing we had created; an monster of the whole public voice which included intellectually all of the orders and demands of everyone within the political arena.  One whole.  Like it lived animated of its own life.  And was to be, in turn, respected for who it was itself.  And I was renewed anew, for an moment in time, that for the mean-time society could be about this happening this way.  As long as it eventually lead to fantasy battles and whole opponent systems in which there could be public, political roleplaying turn-based strategy games.

    This was said to be the responsible factor for why the Asmeros fell in battle.

    They didn't have Christmas to protect them anymore!  They couldn't go on celebrating the holy season when holy amounted to nothing as an term.  And the cool new thing was glo: the picture in the mind that reminds you of something worth thinking about, you know, other than holy.  Which was actually an white racists and oppressives term.

    But we are Good and we can't lose will be their last annoying utterance.

    But we're Evil; who say we are evil.  So that you can.

    We will get you, said the Asmeros; we have our Christmas Resurrection after this you who say you are evil to murder, to persecute us!  It will ultimately divide into an holy miracle.  To come an penance upon you for the evil which you have enacted.

    Evil was like holy shit, that's their most powerful attack.  First we have to survive the entire time they are dead.  And then during and after their resurrection, in which time they will have become, again, an physical adversary.  We could never survive all of that.  But since I had reached this conclusion, then it must be true that I could.  I could, at least, fake surviving the resurrection and then open fire, just like before.  There was only one opponent left between me and the ultimate horror picture; their ability to return to life after dying had only phased me.  And in this instance I was deadly as before.  But something in the way their spirit had changed changed me.  Its spirit wasn't truly an resurrection but merely an fictional element, like all roleplaying and fictional elements.  Healers could resurrect dead players and everyone knew it.  Why couldn't evil characters do it too?

    But I've changed through the process of dying and becoming resurrected, said the Asmeros; and I now fully and truly realize my final form and recognize my special character.

    But the question remained.  Who was more like the Russian mob, the Guardians or the Asmeros?

    Clearly Russia represented good representing itself as good.  Whereas everyone else recognized the better character in evil that represents itself as evil.  And who aren't ignorant in the ways of old faith like anybody who still believed in an holy character to the universe.  Yes, the Guardians, who represented the hellhounds and spirits of nether Hallow's Eve.  Had finally prevailed over the Asmeros, whose justice was done.  They posed as Good representing itself as good.  But they weren't.  Closer to Love and Brutally Honest was Evil representing itself as evil.  And the Russian authorities were way off.  But her paintings represented the answer.  What Russians needed right now versus what the global community needs right now.  An real poetic treatment of an resistance needed right now at this point in history.

    The Guardians, the people who claimed the moral highground even though they represented evil were right.  Good faking it was good was worse, morally, than evil not faking anything.  Evil, at face value, had an moral value just like everything else.

    And so they really were the Guardian clan against the Asmeros, who hadn't realized they thought they were doing good when they weren't.  By clinging to some fake "holy" value.

    But maybe there was another force on that planet by now: instead of making the Russians look bad by pointing out what they were doing, an true sect of believers were able to take up the old name of the Asmeros (truly its most brilliant resurrection state) and wield the power of Good that was claiming that it was good.  And, since all Russians had agreed by the global laws of the United Nation that they would at that point in history be able to be taken up into its bosom yet again (the powers of Good) where, instead of representing itself as Good that represents itself as Good but really isn't.  It is taken back into the full conflict of itself with Evil which represents itself as Evil and which is better.

    It was good of the Russian to take up his or her present stance on whether they deserved to represent Good.  By why, passing into antiquity, they finally should.  If her painting universe should chance to be observed.  That Russia finally became Good which resembles Good.

    On the other hand, bad which resembles bad; and isn't it an prettier picture if only for the way they preferred gloiy over holy?

    But Good had resurrected itself after an complete identification that it was dead according to the rules of the roleplaying encyclopedia.  And so it was alive again now, having merely died.

    In order to entangle itself in eternal combat with its enemy: Evil to its name.  Evil that would actually admit it was evil.

    And so they stop battling for an while.

    Everyone went to the cat club & tavern that night, where some of the fattest (and best accessorized) cats played bongos and recited their original poetry.  And they drank together and ate together over some of the better company.

    "I call this poem Brain Stew Godzilla," an fat tabby said into the microphone, "after Green Day; it is an tribute to Green Day."  And then he battled on his drum, pronouncing every line in his poem with technique.

 

Godzilla is out in the streets

I know why you're here

    We know this world could mean perpetual war for perpetual peace

If we don't band together

Recognize one another's differences

And meet everyone's needs

Because when all of you are out there

in the streets

Asmeros versus Guardians

It's Godzilla

indiscriminate of who it affects or it targets

We can't let ourselves be Godzilla

but only Godzilla in fun.

Battle on brave heroes, whether you are Asmeros or Guardians

but don't take it to that extreme degree

In ignorance

of becoming the civilization destroyer

their senseless desire to destroy one another

could result one day

in too much damage to repair

Which is an undesirable outcome for both parties

So accept your own beliefs

    But don't take them to such an extreme degree

of causing such violence an carnage

instead compete honorably

even though you may hate one another for what ye have done

And accept your opponents for their roleplaying strategy in the political arena

where turn-based duelists compete in the public eye

for public favour

You are not Godzilla

so get over it you guys

And with that he left the stage (leaving the drum and the microphone behind him) to make room for another performer who began enthusiastically playing the bongos.

We were __in an scuffle___ and now we're __not__

It's ordinary in this society to think so

We are as an people advanced beyond the Asmeros or Guardians representing Russia

That was so long ago

    Remember the lesson humanity learned from this war

That Good and Evil always freely be contested in this manner

And even names that go by the good or evil they do

are up for interpretation

Whether ultimately we say

The Asmeros or the Guardians more closely resemble

Good or Evil;

and which is Russia now in God's command

throughout history

An snake who splits his own tongue

(Evil that calls itself Evil)

or Good that calls itself Good

an well-meaning purveyor of truth who nevertheless falls short of her own standards?

Destroy Christmas with Evil

Or Destroy Evil with Christmas‽

But the point is, during the holiday season,

these forces repeatedly purr-vey one another

so that both are represented politically and more voices can be heard

ah!  God I love political science!

Bad Santa!

Come and Discipline me!

Yeah.  But we're relaxing right now.

Christmas and Halloween already duked it out.

We even showed the forces of darkness the Guardians becoming Halloween

And the forces of light, the Asmeros, becoming Christmas

An whole new theme of competition for the gloiday year!

But they will return to their previous character

Why once the year is set out

The Asmeros will stop being Christmas

and the Guardians will stop being Halloween

everything will return to normal

un-themed competitions between Good and Evil

You will try to figure out which one is which

based on their roleplay behavior

battle after battle

the winners and losers and scores will be recorded

The poet stopped with an triplet tapped out on the drum.

Go to Next Chapter