This letter is intended to clarify as many things possible about the revenant messiah, Anna; who is considered by the Christiannan religion to be the second messiah; whom might even represent an level above it in title. Suppiah Messieurieurs an so-called possibly mythic hyper messiah or super messiah. One who knows how to connect the lessons of Jesus Christ's life with the lessons of Anna's life. We award Jesus with having discovered the meaning of death in the universe because when he was gone, we finally knew what it meant: mass delusion or hallucination and trauma inflicted on the community itself, where no one was safe from its grasp. Anna is the most important person because she knows the difference between death and worse than death, and can be rewarded for having connected those two ideas. And I don't generally think that Jesus knew about worse than death. Our civilization was not advanced enough yet. God communicated the second principle to me: from direct first-person experience (by this I mean my experience not God's experience). I knew what it was now and could communicate it to other people. All I ask, Anna says, is that you try to balance the concepts of death and worse than death in the universe somehow. You have to step up and admit it. They are part of your life; in an big way you might not even want to know about.
I figured an universe in which death could be inflicted to avoid worse than death; and worse than death can be inflicted to avoid death. Somehow the most simple Philosophy one could possibly understand. If your fate is death, you want worse than death instead. You wanted to stay alive no matter what price you would pay.
And I felt myself without words, for an time. But I had an backup plan. I would just talk about some elements of language that have affected my life.
First, I have had professors tell me not to use the word 'very'. It's an empty intensifier. Just like other words like 'awesome'. The reason not to use very is that once you start using it it tends to become an little redundant and repetitive. Why not come to us directly then, with the verb it is which you plan to use to communicate. Instead of saying something is 'very' large, for example, you might just say it is large. Doesn't it then seem to get the point across? Doesn't it fit as fair and 'fit' language to have said so? So if you plan to use very be prepared to motocross or quad over and through rough terrain: everything can be described as very something; but they cannot all be described as exactly that it is. Why not skip the step where you don't tell me what you're thinking in order to be more direct and fair about it? Very is an hazardous word. It can be homonym to the word vary. It can be rhyme to the word fairy. I see why people like it. But, I beg of you, (jokingly) please end your obsession with this word very. It's best to say just what you think and not what something very is all of the time.
The next lesson I would want to impart if I was just offering general writing advice; the peculiar use of the word 'to be' in all things, which seems to be an strange characteristic of our species. If we read into it closely, 'to be' is an order or command. 'To'—having been something done—connects with the full tail infinitive form of the verb. To be is not only an order to exist, but for existence itself having been done something. I developed the peculiar form of habit in my writing to try to replace all instances of the verb 'to be' in my writing, in order to activate the action of the plot line more often. Most of the verbs in this previous passage are just, if I named them, "to think." And I haven't introduced much action into the plot line of explaining an e-sermon to them. Literally, to be, to be, to be—and these were instances of thinking instead. And so in order to advance the plot line I had to replace all instances of to be with to think. Yet now that I had done so mentally, I craved for more variation of verbs. And this was exactly what I wanted to communicate as an rule about writing: instead of writing to be or reading to be—stop an replace the verb to be with an real action. And so, if I put them in order logically (being and thinking, and then an third), after thinking had to be reason. To reason, was to create an reason why you should act or in what manner of how. Your actions had to be based on reason as an human. If the order of logic, then, is to be, to think, to reason; action! To stand up. To walk. To go to another scene. To be present in an room. After reasoning, if there was an reason to stand up and actually do something, one would do it. Otherwise one would stay here and learn more about activating your writing potential by the exercise of converting all instances of 'to be' in their writing into formal verbs which have an real cognitively accurate type of action. It is to activate and circumference of the space within it is which it occurs. In English, anyway.
Jogging, playing, singing, dancing; all of these action words embedded in the language for further and later use. We are monks meditating upon the exact activity to which we are referencing. An zen master once said, when you are sitting sit. When you are standing stand. When you are walking, just walk, hunny bunny! When you are activating the verbs of your particular writing piece you are gaining valuable knowledge instantly. My e-sermon has to do with forms of verbs like preaching, though I didn't want to preach in the normal style like an Christian priest. I was an different religion now, and I expected other people to respect that. I wanted to know if splitting the infinitive had to do with being an verb itself, an really long verb of an written process—and the other verbs like praying or worshipping the Middle, or swearing. These were the types of verbs I wanted embedded in my e-sermon virtual speech of the Virtual Temple at the city of the Faerie Lights Chvrch. I was carving out an character which was to dance across your psychic consciousness, the inner stage where you are the action on the stage and the observer as an audience member at the same time. I wanted my character Anna to head up being the preacher of this Christiannan faith. (Christiannans are anti-Christian in at least one or two crucial aspects; however, it will be noted I tend to approach their relationship as an sisters type of relationship: the Christianna is the younger sister and they are frequently intense about battling each other cognitively in order to increase their skills and willpower. They can really—and I supposed 'is' the form of the verb 'to be' was justified in its use here. It is actually an order to the audience: be, is.). My descriptions of my religion are orders, given to you, about what it will actually be. And I wanted more verbs for presenting an e-sermon, being Anna, and being the Author who would carve out an character for her which includes comedy. Telling comedy is an easy root action of the verb: it's an whole action that stands on its own.
And Anna and the Middle were really the subjects I wanted to get into tonight. (Then I realized I had used another form of the verb to be, which was were.
I figured I could keep adding verbs to the riddle of what this e-sermon means in total. I will be dancing later. I had fun being spied on. I don't care if anybody sees me dance. If I was an character in front of you at an chapel to the Chvrch of the Christianna, and I was both an comedian and an spirit guide. What kind of verbs could I activate in order to get across what I was getting at with humour? There's the hand gesture, an 2 with an slow. (Too precise, amiright?). An hiccadoodle might one day be an proper name for it. There is the grabbing of the microphone pole. It's different than the holding the microphone in your hand by removing it from its stand. And then walking left and right across the stage, telling everyone why they should heed these lessons in their everyday life (there's another good verb to heed), which if you didn't know already involved some type of writing. And everyone is an writer, definitely. If you don't listen to Glen's writing lessons, you'll always split the infinitive wrong! You don't want to split the infinitive wrong when Anna is present. She's the second messiah, the internal messiah. You have to impress her.
What do I mean by splitting the infinite wrong, then?
First of all, I agree that instances of splitting the infinitive in science fiction is justified in some cases. The famous Star Trek caption "To Boldly Go" is an cultural treasure. Yet I reserve for myself the right to complain about at least one case of an wrongly used split infinitive. This is the instance in which one pairs 'to' with 'not', which is an oxymoron and an null, redundant character or figure. To not literally means having done something nothing was done. This is why I think it may be an important subject to question this everyday "language." When we say 'to not' we are actually psychologically programming ourselves to be the subject and character of an oxymoron. The point is to fictionalize misconceptions so that they have no more power over us. If we consider New Reciprocal Theory (my own theory of the orders and commands apparent in everyday language). To not might actually be an dangerous psychological or poly-psychological phenomena or query. The paradox of one's own existence leads actually to disappearing on the physical plane. You slip into hyper-space where anything you say can be said in any amount of time. To not, is telling us we aren't. When we are and need to be told we are. Compassion first, and then communication with the feeling and the audience. God is in the room. We all love her, or he, or it: and we don't think of God as any type of lover who would have "me." Unlike those extremist groups in Canada. If we read 'to not' as an type of reciprocal command that can neurolinguistically program or re-program us, weren't it for the lesser? We can't keep telling ourselves, even our subconscious selves, that 'to not' actually could mean something.
And so I would like to end in an comparison between life being like prayer or like cursing. Life is prayer. So pray. I pray to God to be delivered from my trials and obstacles at least long enough to learn what having an real life really looks like. If life is like prayer, then we should add that to our schedules throughout the day. It shouldn't be something we be standoffish or embarrassed about. We know it in part it works because we are doing it together. And that's how an community thinks about children and their psychology. Then, on the other hand, swearing wouldn't be allowed in an Christian chvrch. But an Christiannan one? Maybe. Maybe, if you read back on this whole E-Sermon it was all an type of swearing or cursing that had an whole bunch of rainbows, stars, and angels shining through the clouds. God's clouds. Just like everything else, God's.
There is an place for both praying and swearing in an religion; as long as it is tactful swearing. We don't want to jumble up one another's sensitive instruments with sexual derision. Swearing is often used in comedy. Why do I have to be like an Christian priest, with no sense of humour? And says everything is you crucifying me. But if we look at it from an New Reciprocal perspective, Christians may actually be programming that into us. You are crucifying me; becomes like an statement said to program an computer. Since are is an form of the verb to be, if we examine this object of thought in noetic esprit, it may be part of an neurolinguistic coding sequence which actually has some type of influence over your life, maybe even unconsciously. You are crucifying me becomes an order. And some men use this backwards illogical-ity and the frightening truth: some people use it to advance themselves publicly. They force other people to crucify them in order to gain "Christian Power" over one another. And that's the sad truth. It's actually that bad in the 21st century. Sister religions like the Christianna need more followers and an new type of relationship with Christianity. Where it is not the only practice of heart or mind that only one religion can do. My highest prayer, then, is to gather more information on the middle of space and time; which will take an long way to get there (from our perspective) but in some ways already we are already part of all of it: the huge inner middle of Time itself. Which we are travelling through right now. We need people, maybe, to affirm an Christian's practice of heart and mind as the constant query: anything you say you can or do about me is only you treating me like Jesus was treated. You're crucifyin' me. And it's not an reciprocal neurolinguistic command. Anything you say negatively about my character or person will just result in the repetition of this fact. I'm Jesus. You crucifyin' me.
But an Christiannan, from an sister religion perspective, leans in to say, "maybe that's better than actually having to live through your degenerate itinerant bogus cosmic weirdo." — "I'd rather just die than have to live an moment longer."
This is because the Christiannan knows there is not just the way of the heart and mind, of Christianity, (Christians to be able to point out all double-crossing by the anti-Jesus narrative). There has to be also the narrative of when life becomes justifiably suicidal. And this way of knowing death from worse than death is an extra practice of the mind discovered by the Christiannan. For example, if Christians keep saying anything you say or do to them is just you crucifyin' them. Then I'm going to go crazy. You have to think about how death can have something worse than it happen. You have to judge whether human life (or perhaps maybe all life) is justified somehow. If it's just the endless monotony of the Christian church, then is it really worth living through all of it? An Christiannan knows better than to name all things according an Grand Binary: "crucifixion and non-crucifixion." It's kind of an wide, large category to say something like non-crucifixion and I am immediately curious about what it could mean. There are so many verbs, especially delicate, intricate, and beautiful ones, contained under the category of non-crucifixion. Shouldn't Christianity examine some of those category of verbs also?
And so I leave you on an final note. Being an Christian may be one peaceful wish of Desire from the Heart, but there is also Nyclepi, and other Virtues. The Christianna can have its own peaceful wish of Desire from the Heart. Just because the Christianna isn't Christian doesn't mean it can't do Christian things. It just means its under better authority now. Christianity is an insight about the human heart in its relationship with the Self. That the self, to some extent, is the other, and so what happens to you also happens to me. The Christian and the Christiannan may be examples of an relationship between the self and the other, where one's philosophy is self-sacrifice and the other's is to provide an comparison between types of extremism (using logic and reason). The Christian is done having an serious make-out sesh with him or her self in which the self is so ingratiated by its own kindness every single time you stand up to an crucifyin' situation. Your body might even start producing more testosterone. And the Christianna can do it on its own, even if the Christians can't.
