Les Arbitres Chapter 21

Go to Previous Chapter

    As business continued and the bar prepared several ordered drinks, the stage was taken over by an cat trio, whose bongos were multiplied and who had brought onto the stage their own drinks.

Just relax everybody, everything's fine.

We don't have Russian psycho-hegemonic orthodoxy anymore

That is after all, one of the deeper meanings of the Christmas–Halloween season

Humanity discovered eons ago (you know as an economic figure against the Rush-ans)

Yeah, don't worry (said another cat from the trio)

All of the fighting is already over and we've taken care of it (you can even invest in it if you want)

That's what we learned about humanity in 2022.

We need to represent Evil and Good in politics.

The more creative the fantasy characters the better (said the third cat)

We need to get into specifics.

It's fine to continue talking about Evil and Good,

which have already been contested today.

Even though we're trying to relax

and we don't necessarily want to think about Good and Evil anymore

But how to be sure you know something?

In order to know something you must know all of it

How does one know they have Ace?

When will this painting of the seventh

Primal Spirit

be complete enough?

When will this painting of the seventh

Primal Spirit

be complete enough?

to show you exactly what Ace is?

The fact of knowing that one knows something

How does one know one has it?

How long will it take; how much paint will be needed

to make known exactly the meaning for Ace?

At what point is one sure that one is knowing?

What one knows about Ace.

How much effort will it take to depict?

To illustrate for the reader?

When you have it you know you've got it.

That's what it is.

Therefore how must Russasha's painting end

but by simply showing you you know?

You know because you know all of it.

Bits and separate pieces

that make up an whole;

the whole of which you know through and through

And you are allowed to have as many of these wholes as you want

in one mind; you can keep learning

You will have your own version of saying it once you know it

Einstein himself told us to explain things simply

For if we knew them well, he argued,

we would be able to explain them simply

Therefore I will try

let my romantic intelligence take my point of view

Post-Tatiana-Maslany-apocalype of characters and fame

of saying about her, I listened

that she doesn't become her characters she lets her characters become her

And so I will want to try to define this term, Ace, poetically

in the Spirit of Tatiana Maslany.

Ace means know got it and you know you got it.

But what does "it" refer to?

Knowing that you know.  Or more simply knowing.

Knowing something; knowing it.  Means knowing all of the parts which make up an whole.

An whole category of knowledge.

If she can let her characters become her, she is adding an particular life to the profile;

which is not registered elsewhere.

Ace is the third virtue after Love in the sequence (Love is this primalistic virtue, the first virtue).

The ability to feel something for another person.

Nyclepi, on the other hand, the second virtue

The ability to share with another person an moment in serendipity.

Laugh an lil' even.

Nyclepi isn't the feeling you get from love; it is the feeling you get from not loving something.

And it doesn't have to be put into negativistic terms.  It is, in fact, an great Joyous & Tumultuous of Virtues.

One which has worn on and earned its welcome at the Tribe

Nyclepi means sharing everything that we don't love.

It doesn't mean we give up and let go of love;

it means that, after Love, we feel an feeling in our Heart

Of things oppositional to it

And how Great its presence really is if it can have

an Great opposition?

But that with the presence of Love;

we have this one other virtue to play

Not loving something and still being able to feel love for it.  Paradox.

For the purposes of discretion, advancement, and ingenious ingenuity.

Theoretically one can have as much Nyclepi as one has Love;

and they are both like our lungs which work together.

For as much positivity and criticism one can Love another

and still feel the urge to critique or grant advice to;

There is such power in Love,

I will not disagree with you there

But there has to be something beyond Love, too

Something like Nyclepi

an stage in the conscious awareness after Love

in which the weight of Love itself is measured?

To see all of Love for its Beauty; Strengths and Weaknesses

How much Love is really there?

When there could be so much more?

This is Nyclepi.  And if you got that now; then you may come to associate this term with Ace now too.

The act of getting something.

You know you get it because you know others know that you get it.

That's Ace.

And I will deposit for criticism Ace is an logical after-step to Nyclepi.

Within the fantasy mind and regeneration of its virtuous character;

Knowing something is after the full investigation of one's Love & Not Love (Nyclepi) something we cannot rise to and clap to;

And only after considering all of it does one know something.

That's why Ace is this process after Nyclepi

It literally means that if you know it, you already know it;

and that's what Ace is.

But, theoretically, as an virtue it can only be accomplished if one already has the virtues of Love & Nyclepi

Which makes it into something of an more formidable opponent when dealing logically with Virtues;

Is Loving something before adding positive criticism (Nyclepi) with the result that only an mind with this added positive criticism can know that it knows something?

Ace material?  Maybe?

Only an mind that has considered all of Love and what it would stand for:

and then having considered everything which would stand against it or prevent its growth:

Nyclepi is like looking in an realist lense about Love; the most fancy and noble thought supported with definitions.

When one knows what Love has not yet done; or chooses to look at Love from the lense-point of an definite critic where no other result can result other than criticizing it:

Ace is Love satisfied because it (Ace) has heard all that it plans to do about knowing how much of itself it has simultaneously knowing how much of itself it doesn't have Nyclepi (and Love is an rather endearing character, you must understand)

If there are things to do about Loving someone or something

Why would there be, logically, an human virtue and emotion that has to do with an counter-picture

the attack on Love that this life confronts us with;

We consider everything we want Love to grow into missing

Then

Knowing what we know because of it

we are an knowing republic.

Ace means knowing that you know—

—because you know that you know.

It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

And it is an logical third step in the psyche, after the consideration of Love and everything missing from it (Nyclepi),

we want to know what we know about those two opposing forces.

Knowing comes in after the fact of Love; and Not Knowing comes in after the fact of Nyclepi.

After you Love somebody or something, you need to Nyclepi an bit, to stand away from it

and offer an helpful political viewpoint or opinion from the most critical standpoint you can muster.

We know because we know.

And we know because we don't know.

That there is an critical actual force after Love in the psychic system which compares everything it loves to everything else (but not as if it was meaning to be in the manner of not loving).  It just wants to add more of itself to itself perhaps.

Nyclepi, being unimpressed with an outcome of Logic that involved Love,

is thus motivated to increase Love, by knowing what it will against its (Love's) cause.

You know because you know because you have Love and Nyclepi, the first two human virtues.

And knowing about knowing something is impossible without them.

We recognize that we know something because we have Love & Nyclepi in it.  Love is always impressed and super-fulfilled.  Nyclepi is always negative and unimpressed entirely.  Like two little motors working against one another; when in fact they work together to help us know things.

Ace is knowing that you know because of Love and Nyclepi; and who could not accept knowing that is based on Love; or the better of the two principles?  Nyclepi.  An most advanced and precipitous virtue borne in an Christiannan republic.  We look at love as though it was an thing lacking something about it.  Some feature.  And we know it's hard to accept that it is true.  That it does look like that.  Disfigured by torture and an entire History of Pain.  It doesn't look exactly like what we want it to yet.  People say Love is so Great; then how can it be so great thus, to produce so much bad news?

But these are only things which work against Death and Worse than Dying;

This is why we pick them up as our Virtues.

We want to work within the bounds of the first two moral principles of the universe.

After we consider how much negativity Nyclepi can produce;

Ace is being realistic or practical about it; you do know what you know because you do know it.

And I will tell you Realism never helped me face anything;

unless I consider now to redefine its meaning in my mind:

Ace is the reality that at some point you do know what you know because you do know it.

And it's not weird or anti-human to know eventually that knowing is this Virtue with an purpose in an stage after Love and after Nyclepi;

both of which are already such Supreme virtues

we must stop to consider that we can fit all of them in one Narrative.

Ace is so far advanced an virtue that it takes all of Love and what it hasn't got yet

Just in order to know something.  (Egotistical much?).

Typically intellectual of an intellectual creature, isn't it?

But there is an reason why Ace is the third human virtue

It's not just so simple; but extends an entire category of knowing something.

And is so central an aspect to our human perspective of knowing

that it even takes the shape of things we can know

before we have ever known them.

And shows us repeatedly that we know what we know.

Based on this category of knowing the Human Love of Virtue; and how Love can be seen as meek or meagre

Compared to What It Might Be One Day;

What It Hasn't Done Yet Until This Day;

What It Hasn't Become but may under the power of this Virtue.

We use this virtue to give Love some pointers;

Love is great and it feels good and all,

but there are some things we want it to do that

maybe it hasn't done yet.

We want to be critical and smart about it, rationally

because we are driven to improve upon itself this Love that we feel.

We want more of it.

And to do that, sometimes we need to take an critical approach about what it's not doing exactly.

The way to create more Love is to doubt or critique or suspect what it already has.

Which is less than we had bargained for.

We want more, and we want to know ways of how to do it.

This phase in the psyche and cognition is justifiably called Nyclepi because it taps into more than one layer of meaning at an time.

(It's an virtue).  (And it's supposed to be intelligent—it is likely that it is).

Capable of Learning and Higher Intelligence.

If Ace is the fact of knowing that (which is knowing that) then

It has to be an third stage psychologically;

There is the knowing what love is and isn't.

And then there's knowing exactly what knowing one or both is;

Ace means things we know because we know love and nyclepi;

Ace means knowing itself is based on love and nyclepi.

And that to be an intelligent agent with the ability to learn

one must have both of those Virtues already;

It all depends on what love is and isn't.

We know based on what love tells us versus what nyclepi tells us.

If an thought can be upgraded to something we know.

It is because it manages to succeed or fulfill or please some wish or desire.

The desire both to love things and to want to understand the limits of love

and the desire to nyclepi things, circumstances (not be impressed by them)

Mastering Ace as an virtue involves knowing through self-reflection everything one knows about both Nyclepi and Love;

These satisfying first two human virtues.

The Scene of the Trauma of the little girl with chunks of gum in her hair needing to cut part of her hair off with scissors

was like an Canadian representation of the relationship between supposed elders (wise leaders) and the Aboriginal Canadian students who lost their braids

I had been traumatised by this scene, of the pink bubblegum causing the need to cut someone's (an female's) hair out.  Into jagged chunks.

Something about being an bad child for having played with gum such this way;

combined with how hair was so highly valued, especially hair of my own type.

Knowing that you knew things was now about telling you things that you knew.

The pop culture factor of the bubble gum.

An blonde famous person whose own mental health has been publicly at stake;

Or just an misogynist's curse against women.

How it came to be associated with the Aboriginal Canadian in my mind was my attempt to put into an relativistic Historical timeline.

Pop culture and the fact of bubble gum and blondes in families with child-failure issues (failure to meet the demands of their overbearing parents);

that they tend to have inter-generational trauma about it.

An over-strict environment, repressed shame, and abusive parenting because of outdated Christian dialogue.

And it was there partly because of what had happened to Aboriginal Canada.

I was the victim of fights against human causes; all of them over all of History.  Including this one.

And it was an fight against the human cause to hate and prejudge the Aboriginal Canadian;

with whom we are fellow humans

An fight against us (humans) ourselves.

And so, by implicating an use for or similarity between the instance of an white girl with blonde hair being ashamed of herself to the point of repression;

for having got bubblegum in her punk Blog and pop hair.

Her beautiful, beautiful blonde hair.

And the instance of nuns cutting Aboriginal Canadian school students' hair, which had become an symbol of all sexual and cultural repressions of any type.

I was maybe implying that the trauma suffered by the bubble gum white girl in pop culture was caused somehow by its own intrusion into Aboriginal Canadian culture.

She was suffering the trauma because it was generational trauma and it affected everybody; Caucasian, Aboriginal Canadian

It didn't discriminate.

Bad things that happened to humans were bad things that happened to all of us.

And the effects of Pop Culture.

This was the kind of historical timeline I wanted to ground my opinion around.

An Germanic girl suffering the effects of her incredibly intolerant and restricted society; whose societal picture was full of homophobes (many of whom were supposedly religious).

Suffers an even further repression because of the whole new generation of Aboriginal Canadian students whose feelings and trauma matter too

Ultimately, her repression may be caused by the shame of having let down the appearance of being an dominant female and model;

An kind of shame reverse-inflicted on Aboriginal Canadian people, perhaps.

It was such an shameful thing, to have bubblegum in one's hair.

Especially because of how valuable it may be if it had braids in it.

She had violated the parameter of her being an female by ruining her most valuable asset: her hair.

An shameful thing for any white child to do.  Especially in an oppressive German society that says Priests are right to body and image shame gay boys.

Even if they are girls.

But what made it so shocking, to me, was that I hadn't necessarily carried over all of the assumptions I made about that culture (the one in which I was shamed) into that Canadian picture:

the one in which these nuns would be cutting off the Aboriginal Canadian childrens' hair.

And I find that the trauma inflicted on our human society & population because of everything connected to that image

contributes to why the little girl who has bubblegum in her hair and has to cut it off thinks her whole world ended;

because she was an girl and girls weren't supposed to make anti-psychological mistakes like that.

And I imagined the whole society of people who had had their braids cut off like they had bubblegum in their hair

And bubblegum was just an codeword for the type of live captors they were currently experiencing.

They did have bubblegum in their hair.

Metaphorically.

It was that whole imperial mess and trauma that exacted itself on the Aboriginal Canadian Nations

To have bubblegum in one's hair that one needs to cut out, shamefully.

Yeah, it was one twisted mess.

Why wouldn't an little German girl be ashamed that her society was this cultured and ancient and yet people still do that: try to kill each other's culture

As though culture didn't always trade with one another

Which is in fact what culture is really about.

Why wouldn't an little German girl feel like this society—The one that had destroyed these Aboriginal Canadian childrens' lives—wasn't good enough for humans yet.

Why wouldn't the circumstance of bubblegum, in her own life and living character—if it stood for everything that was up against Aboriginal Canadian culture and life—

—traumatize her‽

It was after all, just as bad as what had happened to the Aboriginal Canadian children.

She was an child too.

It had happened to her.

Everything that had happened to the Aboriginal Canadians historically had now happened to her too.

And was in part an reason for repression and cathexis.

She was an anti-psychological girl who had to cut out her beautiful, golden blonde hair.

And it made sense because bubblegum (post-colonial living circumstances) had gotten all up in people's hair and into their lives and everything about them.

This whole world's an toss away.

I just wanted to make things that are Ace about the exchange of cultures.

Things that were solid.  That you could know.

Better terms to reflect on.

How do you create something in your mind that an virtue (Ace) will then be able to deduce to know the meaning of it?

But if it was this one thing I had created for the purpose of knowing what we know I had created the virtue in my mind by identifying something with what I know.

It took Love to know I was identifying something I could know.

And so Ace could also be anything I did know because anything I knew was what I knew was also what I could share. 

Me knowing what I know could be an temporary stand-in for you knowing what you know.

It's an virtue—after all—that's what we do.

Did you know that an further definition of Ace may be in how it works well with pair words.  Like synonyms and antonyms.

Ace words are accurate and precise.

Whereas the fourth stage of virtue in the human cognition and economics system—

What I have come to call Air Alt—

Is also in definition closer to words with which one would be synonymous than an antonym and this figures, to me, to be more telling of the definition of both of these terms.

Ace and Air Alt; respectively, critically accurate intelligence & language and the synonym of all of those terms in creativity.  An broader term with which one shares its definition.

The reason I know Ace is that I know all of the parts of this feature of the human cognitive system.

The sequence of virtues.

Love, Nyclepi, Ace, Air Alt

These four central Virtues to have lead our discovery and investigation of all other Virtues.

The reason they were different was they represented the stem which leads outward from the inward intelligence;

We know Love, Nyclepi, Ace, Air Alt, in that order before we know of any other virtue.

And this is part of their structure the universe is willing to help us explore.

Perhaps because, in order to target any other virtue, one needs cognitively to be able to think through those first four phases as an motive for every action.

Ace is just the fact of knowing that you know something.

It's not such an big deal in the grand scheme of things, maybe:

If you know something, how do you know that you know it?

It is an question asked in the field of epistemology.

The reason I think it is an virtue is just that I think knowing depends on virtues.

If there is an verb for when we don't think of knowing and thinking as virtuous effort,

then it is 'to self-struggle'—

to have an psychological reason to be against your own psychology.

And anything I can know could be the contents of an Ace virtue in the concert of the mind and psyche;

for I know that these are the things I know.

They are there to tell them as such as much because of the virtue Ace itself may mean it is so; within me because of their possession and transference of virtue.

To transmit, anthropologically to meme the typically Good & Upright.

Is this value of Ace that we have.

And all things that are knowable under that virtue have this quality of being able to be communicated.

That is, in part, why it is an virtue.

And so imagine now, all things you can tell because you know them.

And why is that maybe such an obstacle for you to climb?

The amount of things you are able to tell because you know them may be an abashed sensitive aspect of your character

It's really not that many and you're shyly embarrassed or ashamed because of it.

But when you stop and be realistic with yourself, think there's no reason to feel ashamed or be embarrassed.

It's true.  There are in fact many people who know many more things than you do.

It's not such an huge embarrassment, is it?

You've done your best in life and though it threw you lots of curveballs you intended to make the most of it by not letting any obstacle stand in the way of how you know something.

Maybe the things you do know are right.  And they are exactly what you need in order to deal with your present debacle.

I didn't ever know being gay was wrong or immoral; I loved everybody equally and didn't discriminate in any way

And could not find any reason after thirty six years.

Why it should not be true to respect gay people equally.

Among all peoples of Planet Earth.

I know that I have Ace (as in an virtue) that I know that I can know that there is nothing immorally wrong or sinful about homosexuality as an gay person.

Sin does not exist.

Ace as an virtue is important to Science:

knowing what we think we know and finding out ways to test this.

Yet always to make synonyms for scientific processes & ideas, in the Art World;

maybe Ace can be an synonym for an Scientific method approach.

Really, once it's complete that one knows that one knows something, how much further can Science push?

This why Ace is that bridge into knowing other virtues.

Once one is square with the first four virtues, one is in the land of options and ideas and opinions.

Of course, at this level of self-reflection (from the Heart) options may become available about what type of virtues to deploy in what specific situations; and why, and when.

Ace is just the stage between criticizing something that one loves (Nyclepi); and knowing more about Love than can ever be spoken, except perhaps in metaphor and epiphany.

For this third virtue (Ace) leads us to its logical successor and other.

The Virtue of Air Alt is 'having another way of saying something'.

For the logical opposite of Ace (knowing that you know something) is not knowing that you know something.

That is why it is fair to put words on describing Air Alt even when one has this Virtue:

you think of an reasonable descriptor word for it even though you don't know exactly what it is yet.

Ace, then, is always the third stage of knowing something;

and it leads to the fourth stage of not knowing anything.

If Air Alt is opposite to Ace; and it is its reasonable and logical successor,

then what Ace really means is not not knowing anything.

And it is an virtue because it multiplies knowledge and shows us how while many others may know more things than you,

You do know all of the things that you do know;

and perhaps no one knows all of them like you do.

All of the things you ace you ace because you're the one who knows them.

(All of the things that you know).

And if Air Alt is somehow beyond that.

It is just the fact of knowing nothing about something.  Which is highly tolerable an thing nothing to be ashamed of.

It is just when you put these virtues into perspective with each other,

all of the other virtues may become visible to you (mentally or psychologically) and come into focus at reliable times during the day

And we know we haven't named all of them yet and we don't know everything about virtues yet;

and so we'll change, drastically,

to talking about Ace all night.

What are some things I know through Ace?  That I have the virtue of knowing everything about.

The First and Most Important thing on my mind is an brief explanation of where we are in History and why things are the way they are.

Shakespeare teaches us through fun and pizazz an higher moral virtue of always speaking as though there were someone else there, other than the person you are directly talking to.

 An play is an theatrical endeavour; yet it is also an football term these days.

And I wonder, sincerely, about my own definition of the term.

The play, the play you see an ideal tool for education because it shows us how to speak to one another as though some other third party or hidden influence may be listening in.

Which it is fine to do because, there is the chance always and no matter where you are that someone is always listening.

However, I contend, there is an Reason Shakespeare sees for doing this; for thus is the power of the English language then, the ability of referring to or speaking to everybody all at once, no matter where you go.

It's not so absurd that it might not actually be true; we have to investigate the pieces of it.

Language, from my point of view, depends on how much power it has to reach everyone.

If people can learn to start reading situations as collaborations in which participants in an conversation are not talking only to one another, but everyone else in the room.  They may increase the power of the words they use because their specific terms of use are meant for more than one person at an time.

And to make an show of it!  And to make it an game!

An play, in the football use of the term, is an executed strategy meant to elicit some sort of reaction.  And so I tend to look at plays through that exact same lense of definition:

The theatrical play was meant to elicit some sort of response from the audience and its players convened to accomplish that by using an strategy that was both an execution by an individual actor on the stage in complicated tandem with an dramaturge, the playwright and poet William Shakespeare.

And this one in particular was pointing out that there are those little fairy spirits all around us; and we do not need to fear those whom may hear our words because we trust in them.

And in fact by practicing the Art & the practice of speaking to everyone as though they were everywhere, one could increase his or her social power and limit many thousands of times by extracting others' response and reaction to his or her own play.

And it inspired me to write plays as though I was an contending playwright of my century;

What kind of play would I use to get the most attention from the audience‽

And so, to summarize this first point I would like to make as the official entry into discussion of what Ace is, in the context of an literary segment.

Characters in Shakespeare sometimes talk with themselves (soliloquy) or other characters who aren't on stage.  In addition, there are cases in which some lines an character is speaking is or is not heard by others.  An character, in Shakespeare's world, is always someone who knows their language use is picked up by others everywhere and he is so good at it he can pun or entendre at an genius level.

When we look into the worlds Shakespeare created on the stage as an broad array of expertise

We are in fact in the case of the fact of there being an world in which,

no matter where you could speak or talk,

to train one's mind that there would always be someone listening whether you think they are really there or not.

This was an necessary adaptation, that English learn how to do this:

People didn't know yet in History that their own word could be so powerful.

We needed people like Shakespeare to show us our own power as creatures of language and intelligence.

And so the first thing I would say I have Ace in is knowing everything about that fact: that people needed to be shown how powerful their language was maybe by inviting them into that world where there was always an compassionate listener listening.  And one didn't not need to suspect it was some robber or thief or blackmailer.  Listeners were just an fact of life one didn't need to fear.  Shakespeare was showing them an world in which characters had risen to such powerful character archetype because of using English, an type of language that adapted to the hidden presence of assailants by making it okay to speak about anything everywhere.  It was safe to assume there was an hidden lurking presence present (paranoia of things you have to hide) except you no longer had to hide those things and everyone was doing it publicly as English people.  Even if you were talking like you were talking to everyone who could hear you, an audience, whether you were directly talking to them or not.

Why did Shakespeare show us this passage of his audience through knowing what this is an metaphor of, to have someone always listening of which you cannot detect.

An people needing to step in the manner of recognizing an need (an reason or an high virtue) first of not being aware of who isn't there.  And yet to speak fluently with another person as though the two of you were accomplices of the conversation about who isn't there.

It was logic.  It was problem-solving.  It was good exercise for your brain.

What could you say in front of ______A______, which you couldn't say in front of ______B______?

Why was it funny so often‽

Perhaps at it deepest level, Shakespeare is suggesting that the characters in his plays are struggling with their identities as characters in an play because they are questioning their relationship with the characters outside the play.  The people who are observing them as if through an fourth wall?  There was something I, in my own historical context, needed to play out with you as an actor.

We seem to be aware an person watching us even though we are not aware of them and cannot communicate or cross dimensional paths (identify scientifically) with them in any way.

(What other reason would we have to be paranoid?).

(It didn't matter anymore if someone was eavesdropping on us).  (And in fact the entire English language hinged on that definition of the word eavesdropping in the future because Shakespeare had taught us to take the necessary leap of faith in being less concerned about people caring about what someone has heard me say privately).

English, after an few centuries, was now entirely about the game of conversing with one another as though there was someone else listening in all of the time; and perhaps probably because, often, there was.  This is what made English so charming as an language.

Or was this just the birth of an new way of thinking, an philosophy?

It means the play is me and you perform together as though everyone is watching.

Philosophically, because they are.

And it doesn't matter if they are there or they hear what you say;

you still say it to them psychologically; or maybe to some part of you that it doesn't, humorously.

But your brain becomes used to think in terms of always looking out for the third-person perspective (the one you and the person you are immediately interacting with are performing for the pleasure and vantage point of both being characters you could relate to if you were the third party).

So Remember, there are always people watching you and listening in on what you're doing and saying.

Even though it would megalomaniacal to think they had such interest within intense passion.

And that's how you perform English.

It is the reason for the di-tipped wand that that word mad has become.

When one is introduced to these Lines in Shakespeare, they act like an kind of pun on how the characters (with whom with one another were colluded to be characters to one another for you); are there exactly in meaning for you, that third character or agent who lives outside the fourth wall.

Like an God.

To recognize the need to take one's community up on knowing the advantage of the strategic element of English to be philosophically furthered;

To speak as though one's voice is necessarily everywhere; as though anyone anywhere could hear it.

That's it.  You're getting it.  Start reading like that now.

Textbooks are, after all, everywhere.

My voice in an book is my voice everywhere; the voice I tell myself in my head is vocal enough to be shared and heard in public.

We just operate under the assumption that we are, together, part of that team of characters who are responsible for getting you.

Everything you write.  Everything you read.

But it has to be that you will take this voice everywhere you go and it will be in fact an universal voice that you can use everywhere.

Everything you create has to be like this voice.

And perhaps this is closer to the truth because there is an God.

Who is maybe always the one listening in; as though we could have an fair and moral relationship with  despite the fact of your voice being heard by everyone and everything.

I'm not into an definition of God as an observer of everything.  I think he knows it's there but whether he cares is an different story.

There just are some things that are more interesting in the universe.

And that's where I find positivity, warmth, and comfort.

I am okay with my voice being heard everywhere because my Arts degree taught me that it is the more advantageous linguistic strategy.

It's easy.  You just talk like someone is there, even if you don't know whether there is someone there.

Even if you're writing or typing or drawing or making visual art; you can act like there is someone there, seeing all of it.

Isn't that where you get the Artistic energy to represent certain things?

Just talk like there are other people there whom you cannot identify.

It's Simple.  Anyone can do it.

Unless you want to get comedic (necessarily an yes in the Christianna); the definition of your mission (an play) is to get as many people as possible to read and believe that their whole life is about the possibility of an third agent always listening in.

Which is often originally Shakespearean in character and nature.

Characters are saying things to one another in order to get the third party (agent, observer) to see that they are talking about them

And that's how people get each other in this culture because Shakespeare made it fun to learn and became one of the central English lessons of this beautiful language.

Shakespeare's portrayal of double entendre, irony, soliloquy; they all suggest an world in which someone could be listening.

And it was actually Shakespeare's strategic execution of an grand historical play;

the one to meet the need for people who would be willing to be able to talk like everyone was hearing them all of the time; like it didn't matter if part of my human signal would be transferred among other people.

We didn't need to covet, or hide our feelings anymore.

We could talk totally gay;

and go anywhere we wanted.

And we would get so many of them:

those people who were actually listening.

Who we suspected were actually there.

because that would be the upper aim & contest of our language.

People wanted to talk about this new world Shakespeare was pointing at,

in which everyone (or at least everyone English) would be aware that the possibility stands that, possibly there is someone listening in.

Even if it is only God in the watching of this place; but I see through the fourth wall these people watching me in reality

And that is why I must take the form of irreality; the un-real.

An form most possessed to show it

We want to take our voices everywhere.

We want to tour them around.

We want them to be our guiding intelligence and voice of memory encoding.

Like we could use them straightforward-ly to point out whatever isn't obvious about using one's voice in such an form

as to say that it is one's voice no matter where one would travel

Shakespeare wanted his audience to see that our voices made contextual and logical sense because you could see it through, that instinct within yourself to take up the task of speaking English in my way.

As to capture the human imagination and interest for so long.

These are characters who are playing at another level: they are the negotiation between character and the dramaturg-ist who wrote the play manuscript (of the Globe Theatre).

the characters are so insistent and un-hesitant to include and possibly count you among them as listeners

so as to portray the human imagination creating that beautiful portrait of mind in which everyone can hear them and they're okay with it.

And it is in fact this higher virtue which is most responsible for Shakespeare's success during his lifetime.

You start to realize the characters are playing with one another

even though they are only playing with one another on an stage

They really mean to have you out as that hidden observer who hears all of it

because that's their beautiful opinion about the beauty of humanity;

We are stronger when our voices are stronger; and this makes our voices stronger.

Shakespeare is not only responsible for all his many works;

but also the advancement of human culture; that comedic and iconic punnery

which is closer to human nature.

People who are aware of their voices out in public and are not scared of them;

my, who might be listening?

But it is an High Virtue, Shakespeare realized, to think why do I need to care and why is it so boring that someone is just listening patiently for me to finish my final delineation of what it means?

Pregnant and nursing women, especially, didn't need to have to worry about people listening through the walls all day.

Who cares if they heard what you said?

Maybe it was better that they did and they learned something from you.

There's nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about as an human.

No force or enemy to hide from.

No need for silence.

No need for life to be un-comedy (or tragedy);

People would realize their voices were meant to be heard.

And it didn't matter that I had to hide any secrets from everyone.  The virtue, at its base, was just simplicity.  An time-saving mechanism.  And that's why it was so effective as an language virtue.  In order to be simple, we will act like everyone will hear everything no matter where they are (because word gets around you see).  And there's no reason to hide anything or want to rebel because these characters are actually talking about things pertinent to you.

Yes, for Simplicity as an base,

we have to simplify;

We have to make language simpler.

It's not directed at anyone who hears it, it's directed at everyone who hears it now.

And why think you it so clever to to be able to speak to more than one person at once;

that's an task that we all truly have as humans sometimes if not all of the time.

Where there are clever sayings in Shakespeare that will get you because you are reading them as though they were characters whose own personal decision about you has already been decided.

They are inviting you into an world where one didn't have to worry about spies and espionage equipment, monitors, bugs, drones, and things.

An place that's really safe for children.

This is an strong virtue to protect good women who know everything about maternity.

English just has this peculiarity (because of Shakespeare) that it's faster mentally to think of what everyone is hearing from you than it is to think about what you are hearing from them.

We aren't talking to everybody, that way, but we are talking to specific someones.  We can do both at the same time.

Language is always contextual.

We say an certain word or thing because someone else is there;

and so the production of the language always depends on the other, to some extent.

The other is contextual and so we relate to certain things that are in context; which have to do with our specific Historic and Social history.

And maybe in little ways, because of Shakespeare, language is contextual now about the fact of performing, with another person, an act of social classification and community

in which the supposed observer is perhaps present

whether thinking of them or not

And how the play between these first and second agents will attract others to join their purpose in saving people from being the hidden listening agent or even the un-included fourth wall observer.

Which is more primary an focus and more important;

To have this Third Person virtue means to talk this way anywhere and everywhere you would go.  Inviting people into it.

Like life really was an grand old stage in which we're constantly celebrating and observing the action of 'getting' somebody about literature.

But what I want to get more at is how the virtue I have labeled Ace may be necessary in order to mark out the Third Person virtue shift in human history.

We weren't talking to everyone, everywhere necessarily so much as we were talking to one another.

In an dramatic performance of what talking to one another is like.

And we're fabulous; and if anybody is hiding in that bush;

or one with an ear on an glass on an wall.

They can have an look at this!

We're English characters.  We try to include everybody even if they don't look like they want it or would need to.  By repeating that joke over and over again: that the third-party observer always is there, whether God or not.

Ace allows us to slow down and reflect on what we know about virtues from Shakespeare.

Temporal poetry sets in.

We feel love, then we feel nyclepi, and then ace, and then air alt.

This is the order to knowing all other virtues.

And since I have this virtue (Ace), I do know it.

There is an menu in the psychological human mind; which virtue will I use in this particular situation?

And there are so many reasons and orders of virtues to choose from.

As to have been an pleasure to experience them.

My "play" because of Shakespeare is always to try to get the third person involved in the performance somehow.

We are acting an certain way with each other because we want other people to see it and to benefit from it as an object of culture and pleasant interaction.

Sure, we're Boastful enough to say we don't need to be careful about what we say,

but we hold it to be an virtue to say publicly, that there exists an certain limit about what you have to be careful about saying.

It just isn't humane to promote an society in which everyone's eavesdropping wasn't taken as an given as an philosophical point.

People were free to philosophize that there was safety in being genuine and just saying what you mean.

We didn't have to worry about saying what we believe in any situation.

There were people listening everywhere.

And even—possibly—undetectable creatures from other dimensions.

God itself.

If we didn't have to worry about secrets and not having secrets with God,

then our voices were free to fill up the whole world.

No matter what despicable beings or creatures might be listening to us.

And that was the right way to own the world.

Who cares if anyone is listening, in short‽

There was something more important to look for.

I wanted to define fully my use of the word version to indicate an special conclusion that is made out of both an scientific standpoint and an artistic standpoint.

These perspectives—scientific versus artistic—would combine to form an version.  The full story or picture of what our universe & world is necessarily needs to take from both of the two major areas or fields of study in academia to form an version.  (One's way of telling things).  (You have heard someone say before, "This is my version of events," or "This is my version of the story.").  That's the same definition of version that I use except I spice it up an bit.

There is an lot that goes into combining both artistic and scientific world perspectives.

First, there is the scientific perspective, where we are atoms and cells.  The universe exists in space time and the laws of physics appear to be active everywhere in it.  We know things by measuring and observing, experimenting with our universe and its properties.

Second, there is the artistic perspective, where whether we are atoms or cells this doesn't really get to the heart of what and who are we.  Science can tell us what atoms and cells are, but it can't tell us what they are really or what they mean.

When we combine both views the end result is an comprehensive version of how reality is the way it is.

My scientific account of the universe is we are made up of particles, light, and time; the universe is about us in some way and so when we observe its properties we are learning about ourselves.

My artistic account of the universe is more that we are about the universe.  It doesn't matter what type of matter we are made up of so much as it does who we are.  (And not what we are).

When I combine these understandings about what I think the universe is, I find that I think that these descriptions of science and art appear to me to be backward in some ways than I had maybe intuitively thought about them before.

But they balance and depend on one another like yin and yang.

The overall effect of balance between the two may be Gestaltist duality in nature.

One part that is part of one self is also part of the other.  And the other who is also part your self is also part of you.

And so this enables me to describe my full account of the universe, looking at both sides of it.

God is just the Gestalt effect of everything that exists physically in the universe.

Science is more concerned with what exists than who.

Art is more concerned with who than what.

But science also informs us of the properties that make up who we are,

and in doing so it informs us about who we are.

However the scientist accomplishes this task in an different way than the artist;

whereas art asks questions like who, why, how,

the Scientist asks questions like what, when, and where.

Knowing and Reason require Love and its criticism to flourish.

But when we talk about Art and science we might consider how they require one another to flourish.

And that if there is an quasi-factor which links the two together we may call this attribute itself an version.

An complete story that takes into account an scientific and an artistic account of the universe.

To tell an story it must happen in an world that is scientifically plausible as well as artistically plausible.

To tell an story it must happen in an world that is scientifically plausible to an extent and artistically plausible to an extent.  And the less scientifically plausible, the more artistically plausible or vice versa.

An version of events, Wisely, as one tells it involves both scientific and artistic factors to bring truth and fiction to an story world.

Cause and effect, if they are linked in anyway in an story, can be scientifically or artistically rendered

or used to explain both of them.

For you see, cause and effect are both things that can either be measured scientifically or represented artistically and we need both of them, maybe, in an story world because that's how an story comprises an sequence of events.  Time is passing.  Things are happening.  There is an scientific reason for it.  There is an artistic reason for it.  And since both are in play in an cause versus effect environment we can use it to question or imagine an open world from an story.

The scientific reason is that life intelligently animated itself at some point in the cosmos and now we all have to deal with the consequences of that initially happening.

Every fate we have ever experienced depends on everyone else's.

We are spurred to action and motivated by our Human History.

Everything that happened in this order for an reason, and we are here to determine and investigate the consequences (as scientists or artists who can render it down, as some fantastic part of the experience of reality).

The artistic reason for things happening is, maybe, that we are alive to conquer the challenge of being alive.  What matters is who we are and why we are who we are because of it.

There may be many parts and objects that make up reality but we cannot necessarily find meaning in them without an God who put them there for us endlessly to discover, all throughout History, provided that we succeeded in developing space travel and resource harvest & manufacture processes in interplanetary space.

And so if we do have an reason for being here, it is half because God is here.

God gives us an reason for existing because he or she would not have invented us without giving us an reason that God itself is the reason.

We have been created.  For an reason.  And it is God's reason.

Therefore we only know half of it.

We may know our own reason, but not necessarily God's reason.

If our reason is God halfway, then God's reason halfway is necessarily with us.

Art seeks to answer the questions of not how the universe works but why and with whom.

When we connect how and why and with whom,

This gives us an bigger picture of the universe that is what having an version means.

Versions theatrically combine an scientific vantage point with an artistic one.

You don't only have the presence of particles and matter, but you have the presence of particles and matter in an specific combination which taunts and provokes you.

The world isn't just the final definition of physics, it's an world of people and experiences unlike any other, which combine to form superculture and reliable, logical data.

The only reason you can tell the version of your story is that you know something scientifically and you know something artistically.

But how does one combine them?

If you know the scientific data of an subject and you compare it to what it's like.  (Inductive reasoning).

What immediately do you think of?

And why?

Why is there an impressionistic image of the artistic mind in everything, everywhere, and all one sees is one's own insides projecting themselves onto everything so that everything appears as they are, and not what is actually there.

And I have to ask at some point, is there anything wrong with either one of them?

Using both, together, appears to be the more responsible thing to do.

It is true that we see art in everything around us sometimes, and for an amount of time maybe it doesn't matter what is actually there, scientifically, but only an impressionistic image of it in our mind which is meant to represent other things and combine certain ideas for philosophical introspection.

And, for example, if one sees artistically what is before him or her.

An artistic subject one can create.

It might not involve specific scientific measurements or amounts of paint.

In order to represent what we think is obvious.

I see Art in Nature.

An self-identification with an introspection with myself over something I'll see or hear, or experience another way;

something that happens naturally.

And art is part of telling myself who I am, you know, other than scientifically what I am made out of.

Which involves including scientific facts.

That are however part of an art piece.

We are chemicals and matter.  We are psychological processes.

But we are also meaning itself; and that's why we're here.

We are creatures who create meaning.

Out of mere bits of (our bodies) flesh and measurable concise psychological matters; we put together an story about what it all means somehow.  Why we're here.

Art is about why we're here according to whom.

 That's really all that art is.

An long line of negotiables; people who take up the artistic project as their career status.

Reaching all the way back in human history.

And where our place is in them.

If we create meaning and we allow science and art both to help us create it,

then we have an version.

And I want to be precise about this term now and what it means to me.

Of course, there is already and English definition of the word;

but to this I add my own intelligent definition in my own use of the term.

An version is an brief, short analysis summary which results from combining scientific fact

with artistic knowledge.

You will find that definition useful once you begin to tell them.

Scientifically, there is life on Planet Earth, but Artistically, the word 'but' itself already implies something about it that it will have to be against it.

Observing scientifically has little to do with knowing who and what we are as an species of Artists.  The ability to be an Artist exists within everybody.  And yet it continues to defy characteristic logic and scientific categorization.

We want to see more of what the world looks like to an Artist

and what are those things which defy classification.

That are real to us.

Artistically, there is life on Planet Earth, but is there life (someone you would want to live it up an bit with) on Planet Earth?

If I know some science, wouldn't I want to make art about it?

If I knew some Art, wouldn't I want to make science about it?

We are bodies and atoms and particles.

We are presence, thinking, and subjectivity.

None of which all of the particles or atoms of which we are made up of imply individually.

Yet somehow we are here.

Artistically means needing to represent your life and how you think physically (through an medium).  So as to leave some trace of yourself and what your life meant.

It is not the same process as identifying individual things and how they are connected.

But an Gestalt top-down thinking or reasoning skill.

We start with everything, and then we whittle it down into an whole one special thing.

Unlike in science, in which we start with identifying individual things first, and then build it up toward understanding everything.

They are really these opposite processes when you look at them carefully.

And it has been said before.

Knowing everything about what telling an version means means telling you what I think about the universe scientifically (from an scientific vantage point) and artistically (from an artistic vantage point).

And why they correct and inform one another.

My version is that matter obeys the laws of physics.  Scientific evidence is measurable.  And so subjectivity itself, too, must be at some point measurable, because subjectivity obeys the laws of science.

Science tells us, directly, what is there.

While art tells us who.  Why.

That's why it's so daunting, characteristic, overpowering.

My version is that art, too, affects people and not just the scientific principles of matter.

When we make art for each other it means something.

And that meaning does not need to be limited to what we can identify with scientific investigation.  I found such freedom in this.  Like I could be infinitely creative in an world outside the laws and rules of science.

My version is that art obeys the scientific laws of the universe and in fact anything you can make artistically you can only make because it does obey those laws.

There is no magic or reality-bending or twisting of scientific principle.

And yet when we consider the whole universe as one thing together, there can be room for magic.

Magic operates according to the rules of subjectivity; and its experience is subjective even as it continues to be an popular word for an lot of hard work that is undervalued.

If certain things can exist subjectively, even if they do not exist objectively, then there is room for magic because we ourselves are the experience-er or experience-ee of its subjective commodity.

We also do not know the final meaning or reason for reality's continued persistence.

And in fact everything we experience objectively may actually be something God is experiencing subjectively.

If we only exist subjectively as part of God's mind, then the normal observed rules of physics scientists have tried to pin down for centuries may in fact only be subjective phenomena themselves and do not count as the time in which the universe exists as being written in stone.

We don't know all of the rules of the universe and we don't know what's possible.

We might only be the realization of God passing ephemerally through time.

We exist simultaneously because God realizes us as much as we do and have because we realize us.

And so everything we do that is the product of human invention and genius we can attribute to God.

As much as God attributes it to us.

The world works, scientifically, because it relies on certain principles which can be tested and then measured for investigation and study.

These descriptions of science are what the universe is and how it works, specifically, in an certain environment or interstellar or atmospheric environment.

Chemical reactions, biological flora and fauna, geographic schemes.

But in Art we really find human nature as it exists separate and apart from nature and an chemical universe.

We find that human individuality is unlike anything other we have discovered on the face of the Planet Earth for this reason.

We aren't exactly animals and we aren't exactly gods.

We can leave an trace behind, but we can't show someone everything about us.

Did you know that while having an version is not an requirement to enter into an university, it is an requirement for entry into my fictional post-university fairy & demon academy which I nicknamed the Version?

That is because this is an type of academy that is more sophisticated than having "scientific" versions contesting/versus/contra "artistic" versions as if there can be one winner over the other.

To attend the Version, one needs to be able to tell their own version including what they scientifically think and what they artistically think.

It is also helpful if they help each other and learn how to tell one anothers' versions.  Which will be an helpful upgrade to their own.

It's an fantasy, maybe, something I will only write about in fiction.

An version means having both points of view to tell.

This is why it is post-university in station.

Maybe post-doctoral in public title and deed.

And requires the existence of Good and Evil, but only in contrast to one another.

So that both benefit from the exchange (and they can be fictionally transparent).

Nobody is trying to be Evil, they may say.

But the Good will say there are some who are.  And they do this by not being Good.

But we don't know what Good is, they will say.

How can we do that?

And so we gotta' teach 'em.

Evil is just the negative expression of Good.

Good is just the positive expression of Bad.

And insofar as an actual Evil persisting throughout the universe in the form of sin

I know not

For the people of my time have forgotten what sin means; and we agree together it is an bogus idea that doesn't have an specific definitive referent in the universe.

It is only the telling of people they are sinful which is the offending pressure, and it convinces people they are bad in order to shame them for being bad, even though they are bad (and so if they were bad they couldn't necessarily help it anyway).

And that is all the better for us to have done so.

Art means knowing that you know all of it; that it requires virtue to know all of it because that's what virtue affords.

It is much like Ace in this way.

Every gesture, every figure, every archetype; you know all of them.

Once you have art.

Art is that soul and characteristic of an ordinary human's heart

which is why it needs to be protected so;

as not to allow anyone without virtues to be able to wield it.

Is it true?  Would you think of it this way?  Would you buy it?

But art always leaves one piece out of its character.

Ace is knowing that you know.

Art is knowing that you know all of it because it will be finished once you know all of it.

Including that one piece that's missing.

The part that you have to make again.

Using solid objects.

The thing you communicated through your medium.

Ace always leaves leaving that one piece out to the Art World.

While itself (Ace) fulfilling the summary fact of knowing that you know.

Art has that one piece always left out: that it will be finished once you know all of it.

Because you will have then carried your artistic expression to such an great extent of knowing, to have created an whole thing of one kind of thing that it will have become an virtue for yourself.

And that's worth knowing.

Your art is your complete efforts to finish one thing that will be an project to fill in that missing piece; and when once it is done you will know it is filled in art for all of the energy one to have put into it.

Art always has to leave that piece out of itself, that knowing that one knows, because it takes us to an new place of knowing and how one knows.

Art is like an lie, the eventuality of knowing you are complete because this object you have created has completed you in some way.

Ace is the fulfillment of knowing you have created that object.  Whereas the Art instinct returns to having not created that object yet.

Let's digress.

If ace means you know what you know,

then it can mean knowing anything that you know that you know.

And so my representation of it in painting is unlimited;

the subject is wide open for what I will portray and why.

    —after struggling to continue with this for an moment, Russasha put her paintbrush down.  There were so few things that she knew that she knew.  But, she reasoned, this is not true of the Author, who had already said many things that he knew that he knew.  And who knew everything about Cats and an Tavern where they performed Poetry reading at an open mic and an bar.  Russasha picked up her paintbrush—

We're cats, dude, what do you think we're smart enough to know that we know that we know?

That's still the same thing as Ace isn't it?

Hmm, the point of the Tavern is to make money, she (Russasha) reflected, for the mummy the figure of legacies jurisprudence authority.

With an crook and an flail.

crossed upon his chest

When he's lying in his sarcophagus; but he gets up and winds his way through the maze of bookshelves on every floor.  This is his home, an corporate invention, an sky tower, an business building, an financial .  Where the performances of the cats at the tavern to induce humility upon the whole corporation (putting an wig on through bogus and funky performances in order to stop taking oneself too seriously) were held in the basement.

The flail, one would want to point out, had become an metaphor in the fiction of my environment of the story; it meant 'something one would reach to the end of, of then fall off'.

Meaning, metaphorically in another facet, all of those individuals who worked for him who fell off of the enterprise of his career and couldn't keep up to him.

Do I have emotions or feelings and should I die because of it if I don't?

But I always feel different at the Cat Tavern, where everybody wears their heart on their sleeve.

All of the monsters you kill in fantasy don't have any thoughts or feelings or emotions.  This is why it is so addictive to play pretend at killing them.

Especially in videogames, where the instant gratification of destroying demons of the apocalypse is at your fingertips in minutes.

But at the Cat Tavern, where everybody brings their thoughts, feelings, and emotions,

it is an dainty place to be.

Stars, Galaxies, and the view from Planet Earth.

We drum for the bonfire of the soul;

around which we will gather.

Protecting our ecosystem with tales and legends of life we will one day contact.

Where they exist among the stars.

But for now we must pay focus to ourselves,

and try to enable and free our species into the race for resources of the Galaxy.

Stars themselves may one day become an source of fuel for us.

At the Cat Tavern, there's zero pressure about it.

You can order an drink, relax, and enjoy the wonderful amateur performances.

Amateur cats is an specifically wonderful type of cats.

Especially when it leads to poetry.

The stars in the sky we have an name for;

and all of them like diamonds reflect in the eyes of nocturnal species all over Earth.

Whose dull and un-comprehending minds do nonetheless and however share an spiritual animacy (an mythic composure between oneself (animals) and humans).

The reason for their form and the time they spend here while on an material plane with us may they also occupy other dimensions, planes, and Economical Animalia Spirits (non-humans, non-sentients who economize) who, in some ways, are equal to humans because they love and respect their own form in just such an way as to have their own virtue.

They're not just skins for an hunter and they occupy an lunar plane.

Bags of organs, or composition of elements?

Combinations of individual characteristics expressed in different ways.

And cats?  Cats exist in parallel universes too.  They are more equal to humans than perhaps some other lesser animal spirits.  They can economize as well as with some other species of non-humans, non-sentients on Planet Earth because they have already considered their relationship with humans, the most advanced (intellectually) lifeform on the planet.  And have adjusted their position because of it.  According to economic spirit.

Indeed, the survivability of either humans or cats requires that we continue to like each other.

And if that's not possible through adaptation and evolutionary Darwinism then one or the other may go extinct.

The truth is there are several species which are most acceptable to humans;

but to narrow it down for brevity I prefer to think of the animals as being on the same level of mice, cats, or dogs.

While nobody really cares about what happens to the mice, our world is openly an dangerous place for them especially because humans don't care; and it is already an dangerous place for both cats and dogs,

who like to get their noses everywhere and in everything.

Human chemical processing in the modern world is dangerous for the pets of these humans who use chemicals all over their neighborhoods and properties.

Humans have an responsibility to protect their favourite pets from this threat.

And why wouldn't they?  Dogs and cats have great personalities!

Except at the bar, where dogs are not allowed.

    Dogs are, after all the highest rated pet.

And cats are significantly below them in status just because of their varying popularity among humans.

Cats are an little dirtier minded.  Less mannered.

That's why they aren't as good as dogs but we still like them.

Well, I mean in comparison to mice, that is.

Cats are much cleaner than mice.

But humans don't like mice because they are too dirty.

This means that when we start to adapt to our environments using the human capability of customizing everything using post-demographic consumerism (which we have already started);

We will also need to start thinking about how that will effect dogs, cats, and mice.

(I'm just kidding!).  We already have thought about this and need to start thinking more about it.

Perhaps in an way that benefits all of us, ya hear‽

Mice can come too because we need them.  And dogs can come too because they need us.

And this will be the hierarchy of species, with humans at the top because

damn they make great nosh!

(Ace that, bitches!)

Things that I knew that I knew all about included these three cats in chorus.

An Riddle do we pose for you.

How many ways are there to interpret Ace?

The point was to stand on my stage, that overlooked the people

and they could fly by in their air-borne vehicles,

and the stage of the floor of my apartment if I took the wall to the street out

where I would practice being this cat.

In an Cat & Drinks tavern.

Performing in front of people.  In my mind.

I was also responsible for lip syncing popular chorus from all types of popular music, including heavy industrial techno.

And I do that scene where I am the news announcer from the future, looking up at her camera as though it was looking down at her as an specimen;

Where I'd be reporting in full lucidity of the fact that I was vulnerable to these many emotions and virtues I had presented as the target of my behavior.

I was an arbiter of the full human spectrum of virtue: all of them, which extended outward from the core, Love as I had called it.

I was now in control of overseeing the news reportage from the vantage point of knowing every virtue that all of humanity possessed.  And it was just up to me when and where to deploy them, since I had mastered the four human virtues which reach out to the surface of its objectivity.

If I was the top news person, and I knew everything that was happening all over Planet Earth, what would I censor and keep out?  Which virtues would I deploy to address the situation?

It is easy to feel that presence looking down on us; the invisible robot mind which controls its camera lense.  Because that presence is actually there.

That's what it feels like everywhere on Planet Earth because we're not doing anything about it.

And that's the community we have to report to.

And so I'd look up at the camera, like an big girl,

And tell everybody that these virtues we've been reading about are the virtues that have been deployed in response to the global crises.

We need more Love, Nyclepi, and Ace now; and if those are the only three things we can accomplish together as an globalized community.  

I'm in the Tavern for the Cats.

The Cats are in the Tavern for me.

And so, in the fiction, I am performing in the tavern and in real life, I'm performing from an camera's perspective up at its lense like it's about to kill me.

And that's the whole point in writing about it.

If the reader can picture me telling the news,

then maybe they will understand what I came to say about what virtues are needed and for what in society these days.

Ohhhmmmmmmmm.

Ohhhhhhhmmmmmm.

Ohhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I am an cat news poet manifesting the news.  Ohhhmmmmmmmm.  (They start purring).

My Creator tries to take on two different personalities;

Of being an lounge cat and being an newscaster at the same time.

And since you can only be one thing at an time.

Are you sure you can be both?

Cats telling the news.

Cats not telling the news.

Why can't they be significant to either Russasha or the Author in an different way each?

However we choose to represent ourselves in public.

We are cats after all.  We can pretty much do anything or be anything.

The virtues in an Tavern, for example,

might be different than the ones we want to tell about in the news.

Did you know about World War Clown?

It was the war clowns waged against history in order to stop war forever.

An war waged against, specifically, Vladimir Putin

and all threats of an WWIII.

Everyone put on an clown suit and practiced their politics within scope of the influence of their own humility.  Making fun of everything.  Obliteratively.

According to them, the only way we're going to win through this globalization,

is to get and unleash everyone's sense of humour.

And so I'm in two places at once: I'm at the head of the newsfeed, speaking right now live about the news and what it looks like from my perspective.  An place where I am free to practice virtue; and thereby entitle myself to use any of the virtues after Love, Nyclepi, Ace, and Air Alt.

Or I'm in the Cat Tavern, where drinks are flowing.

The relationship between fairies and angels.

They have an good one; angels often laugh at the humour of fairies.

And fairies often admire them for their strength of character.

Angels are this infinitely good creature; while fairies are this infinitely bad (naughty) character who nonetheless does good

but they're not (really) because that would be impossible, right?

Fairies cannot be all bad.

Therefore they must be good in some amount.

And that's the point of the fairies being an metaphor, then.

It's obvious, like magic that fairies use, that they are good beings.

Why would we ever have to tell an story about them being bad?

Every Demon knows the Fairies are in league with the Angels.

Demons will only consort with Fairies, and not Angels.  Fairies are the only personality of deceit and pleasure as grunge

suitable for an Demon's taste because everybody knows fairies are not as Good as Angels;

Except that they are and that is only an Demon's opinion to have said they were not allies.

Why?  Why would an fairy not be allies with an Angel?

I had to find out if I was an true demon.

I come from an place where people call each other assholes and the word rape is used as an metaphor for 'an job well done'.

But cats take the stage.

If you asked me do I really believe demons are Evil?

I would say yes, but I believe Evil is just another force of good; often misidentified

and that there is no sin in the universe but only behaviors which form an pattern which over time becomes immoral.

Nothing in itself could be purposefully sinful in this universe.

And so we must look at Evil as another act of being; an important one because it is needed in order to give us contrast, and thus further definition within Good.

Evil perpetrator itself because it is being good,

Shows us the truth by showing us exactly what Good is doing not.

And to every bit of fictional sin

it can be like an sounding-board; on which to throw one's voice in order to hear it back

And further definition of the 'Evil' character can lead to further definition of Good, itself

because, even if they tried to, none of the Evil folk could actually sin.

And they are an representation only of what gullible, good people will do.

Evil cannot sin.  Therefore it tries to dramatize its own act of sinning, knowingly playful

as if it had an virtue in it

If Good and Evil are not antagonistic to one another;

in optimal circumstances

then they balance one another and are actually complementary partners.

Part of the problem how anti-psychologically good people can be these days,

The "stupid" Good, not recognizing that Evil people cannot sin because sin does not exist.

But officially, formally, it is fair to play either of them in public for the good of the public virtue.

Evil characters were controversial because they represented evil.

Good characters were continuously boring because they represented good.

And the difference between Evil and Good is only an setting-place for politics.

We must use these words to express something; and yet it cannot be about sin.

So why would an evil character do something to an good character by not being sin?

Wasn't it the good character's job to be the better man?

But, I expect, at this point Good was not exactly the most intelligent;

however I wanted it to compete and conflict with Evil over that territory of intelligence.

An better way to look at it would be that stupidity does not exist.

It is only an curse word used for naming something in that old practice of psychologically identifying it.

If neither Evil nor Good were stupid or stupidity in no such way

But that one had to be dominant over the other

Neither were stupid.  Both were fabulous opinions and philosophies of life.

All Evil really is is showing what Good people cannot really do.

While being Good is about being smart enough to recognize that if you name them (Evil) all as sinners; then they will take this out on you as an order you have gave them.

By calling someone smart enough not to give the fake order to realize their reality you are personally imposing these conditions to their day.

If you command someone to be evil by sinning they are more likely to do it.

And yet since they cannot all it really means is they are making an impersonation of what you are not in an dramatic and glamorous category of behavior, an glamorous and thought-through performance 

How does one be exactly what Good does not?

The truth is, there's more skill to it than you might expect.

Evil is an casual, erroneous, gothic emblem

Its performance is worth money.

And so if anyone tells you you can't play an evil character in society,

Even though it's on the political map as an fair move,

tell them maybe they don't have the guts you do.

That Evil will always remain an solemn and opposing force to good.

It's the only way to get everyone's opinion out, basically.

And so I tend to characterize the utmost good by characterizing them as angels, who share an special bond with the fairies.

They don't really trust the fairies as much as they trust one another,

but the fairies have some of their own wild, cool virtues like chillin' out and stayin' fresh.

Especially the radio flies.

Fairies are less angelic on purpose, more rebellious

To fight with certainty among the roughest demons

for the glory of their own title.

Which one is more brave,

an good one who says they are good,

or an bad one who says they are bad‽

That's why, maybe, there's room between Angels & Demons.

There's an spot in there for fairies;

you know these beings of light who aren't as Good as Angels.

But aren't as Bad as Demons, really.

While also having the tendency to mix good and bad behaviors.

For Artistic Expression.

You know fairies.

These wise, uncomprehending figures.

Always getting into trouble.  Always needing help.

Prone to anti-psychological-ity, partying, debauchery.

These warm, meticulous procrastinators.

What an oath of acceptance is the creation of such an creature in fiction.

Someone who's so nice they aren't mean enough.

Someone who's so mean they aren't nice enough.

An balancing, flying, widget of an thing.

An rite of passage.

An type of creativity.

How can we feel afraid of Evil characters busting out their moves in public in direct offense to the forces of Good?

When there is such an thing as an fairy between them?

The Bridge.

Why, it was an way for Demons to look on, fervently, at how perfect Angels could be.

Or an way of even the most honest angel to see how beautiful the demon in climax can be;

And that's really all it cares about until it is appeased.

And I can't help being Evil if Evil is just in the service of good at some level,

that's what I was trying to do!

And there is no sin; and so how can one act Evil?

But in the defiance of what is good.  As though one were actually defiant of it.

But why, only to put an picture on what it was obviously doing wrong.

As though good was capable of doing wrong.

And who could help but fall in love with the character

of this certain configuration of things?

To taunt at even Good, as though it was an layabout among things;

something unnecessary.

Why couldn't one be

necessary?

As an Evil character?

In order to bring the good people out (perhaps without them knowing it?)?

How deserving an reward

to be one so contrastive to Good as to produce its own commodity and value independent of said Good; which, as I am understanding it to be concerned with me, means that it has an high and known value.

To be me?

Aren't I responsible for creating another whole universe of good people; even at the envy of all of Good that Good people have created?

That's why I'm indispensable.  I am Evil.

You know, the opposite of Good.

For good and important reasons.

Even though I'm bad because I said I was not good.

But you know, if I didn't want to put up with Angels for an while.

(You know in fact I don't want to because they are good).

I could, as an Evil person, just hang out with the fairies an bit and I'm sure they will point me in the right direction!

This is also the situation: if the Angels don't want to put up with Demons for an while (you know, because they don't obviously).  Then the Angels can just hang out with the fairies and hear about the demons from the fairies and not real demons.

And that's the advantage of an Fairy race who is unique as an species being somewhere between Angels and Demons;

With more difficulty, perhaps more noble behavior

for being able to blend good and bad magic.

Fairies, it would be eternally argued, are more like Angels because they both have wings.  But some demons have wings.

And I will be transparent: the institution that I reflect on welcomes both demons and fairies as students.

Under the proviso warning that fairy magic may change the shape, instance, or behavior of any demon magic should they come into contact with each other.

The demons get an education.  In return for allowing the fairy community to try to cure them.

Which they can have their own opinion of, and reject, if they want.

Even though the academy does not accept Angel students, in order to do so.

An Liberal Arts Education.

Knowing what these demons are thinking about.

Knowing why fairies is an alternative to pairing them against one another just based on their tendency to use either good or evil to guide their intentions for one another.

Angels versus demons is boring.

There has to be another category where the protagonist is at least willing to dip an toe in the dark side.

An morally ambiguous creature of Fairy and the Night.  Who will decide for themselves how much is too much evil; or how much good is too good.

It is said that if you are able to wield your opponent's version, you will gain great power.

Fairies are just the first step, politically, toward liberating our politicians to be only limited by the power of their fantasies;

fantasy to be the right political topic for discussion in today's society.

The reasons why fantasies sometimes involve good and evil, for example.

In theory an mature politician would be able to entertain anybody's fantasy for an better society.

And why fantasies are an necessary part of life;

holding political power and staying value.

On the edge of the bleedin' politics of psychology and poly-psychologies.

In theory any mature person would be able to have them and to share them in an even manner.

And sharing them in politics is when the magic starts to happen.

How to represent fantasies and fantasy types of characters.  In an staged political event in turn-based roleplaying strategy usually between the forces of good and evil.

The choices of the characters explains why they have to do with fantasy and why it's political that they represent themselves thus for some reason.

You might say more about Good than Good itself can.

Even while being an dark or tragic character.

And it is the Greatest Blunder in this modern society;

to accept that one can offer to trade sin in return for Evil power.

But the truth is much more complicated and sophisticated than that.

You see, in order to wield Evil power one must not sin—which is impossible to do—but one must take up that evil power in opposition to Good.

Even if it is just to make an point against them.

Because that's what evil power does.

It cannot act on behalf of good; but must make an contrast between itself and Good by any means possible.

In an ideal society, both Good and Evil are respected clans.

And there may be an third level (from fairies) from which between we can see them.

Not just as an instance of one against one;

but to involve an third, as much between the two as much can be.

While being neither of Angelic eminence or Ethereal demon; having at once both the capacity to do evil and the capacity to do good.  And so land closer to human than either of the archetypical categories of the Good creature and the Evil creature.

Fairies, thus, are such an useful metaphor when framed in the way I have allowed.

They are more like humans and more useful and nearer the truth than either Good or Evil; being bogus (the positive type of bogus) fantasy categories themselves.

And it is nearer to the truth to say that any demon can recognize in itself the potential to be good, just like it is more godly for an fairy finally to fall and realize its potential to be bad.

Fairies are capable of both good and evil, not just the one.

And so their characters are free-er to behave how they want them to.

They aren't perfect, but they aren't totally bad either.

Surely anyone with an conscience can understand that?

    Why does French appear to try to imply God in every sentence?  For example, one tells the weather by Il (He) est chaud.  Il est froid.

In addition, il y a means there is.

Philosophically, I ask, why try to imply God in every sentence?

And French answers, why not?

Moreover, does il y a mean there is because its saying something about God?

Somehow I had realized the whole story was about cats.

Russasha and her man Viktor were having problems being cats because they were Russian:

They weren't cool enough to be global chat tavern cats.  They were more like cavern cats.

And everyone knows what it means when you call an human an cat.

Cats are, the Egyptians say the guardians of the underworld.

They have 9 lives; the number nine being the most carnal of numbers.

The number of leprechauns themselves:

The ability to make it into an 10.

The only thing that will kill an cat.

You get it because you recognize kill is an metaphor for make orgasm.

My advice to you is: make it an 10 every time through the use of leprechaun magic even if you have to pick an four leaf clover!

They can't be cats in Russia because Russian politics is bogus.

And when you oppress the human species in this manner; 

when you prevent them from being cats.

They are bound to strike back at you eventually.

Do you get it?

Cats need Jedi to protect them so that they can continue to be cats (even fat ones) even if cats is only an metaphor for humans who are sexually open to that type of attention.

They can't be cats without them (an public global police force).

And all cats need protection.

It is the natural, ordinary rhythm of society.

If the public police force cannot prevent it from happening:

but wait, why would the public police force try to prevent it from happening?

We must be in Russia.

If the public police force cannot prevent cats (the human ones) from being harmed out in public,

they must not be Jedi enough;

and will need to meditate on the natural rhythms of society some more.

For while we can't give them lightsabers (yet) we can give them native philosophy and wisdom.

Being Jedi is all about being an moral person, after all,

and there is no limited shortage of those in society.

The more moral police officers we produce, then maybe the more people will start to respect them as much as Jedi.

And it will contribute to the overall effect of their cause.

Les Arbitres.  (My cause).  An pun on the reader.  The cats who take care of politics yet they can still get loose.

People who deserve to have parties and public attention.

Because they have done such good work.

As to extend beyond the results of the life in service to the law.

In order to show us places different from the one we are in, maybe.

We want to take their minds off of it, if only briefly,

and so entertain, educate, and move them.  (Real Police Officers).

With the Entertainment Industry.

'Industry' herein as an term needs an revision of its definition for the purposes of my cause.

Any action which is industrial is within the Virtue of industry.

Industry becomes an noun for the virtue of action which makes up an component to the Entertainment.

Having industry means having the virtue of being able to come up with entertainment in the logic of entertainment, education, and movement.

Art sometimes helps us through the logic of an tactician;

many actors perform roles of people in service just to paint an picture in benefit of the service to the law.

This is why its representation in Art matters.

Cats was not about officers who are Real Jedi of the Law to which I didn't pretentiously claim to know anything about.

It was about having fun.  Getting laid.  Not worrying about enemies within the vicinity.

Let you're guard down.  Being vulnerable.  Creating more spaces in which people can be those things together.

Cats were the ideal source of poetry because they could purr.

Now I don't know if you know this about cats, but their individual purr-clicks rhyme.

That's why an cat's purr sounds so unique as an feature in the animal kingdom.

Each segment of sound rhymes with the next, and they all rhyme with each other.

Why couldn't I have this kind of lifestyle?

To be one and the same with the Cats.

Wasn't I good enough?  Didn't I owe it to our police force, who are protecting me?

The mummy is laid to rest until the Spring, when the competition between the forces of good and evil will start up again.

All I have to worry about now is ordering the best drink and listening to some feline poets performing for an bar.

In the luxury experienced by its owner and patrons.

That's it!  (She realized) that was it!  This realization—

the end of this painting is knowing that the whole book is essentially about cats

who are an metaphor about Russia—

Cats not doing it as often because their society is so fucked up.

That met the criteria of Ace—knowing you know—in the knowledge that her whole life (Russasha) is about cats

I mean.

If you had to have an keyword into things.

That would be it.

Go to Next Chapter