University / l'Université news letter bulletin 001: What are versions and why are they so important?

    What are versions and why are they so important?

    As I have written elsewhere on this blog, version was the goal of the university institution.  We wanted everybody, including disabled individuals, to be able to tell their own version and be able to support it with facts and figures.  This was the deepest meaning of university, to be able to help the disabled perform; and it was considered the deepest meaning of an higher institution called the Version also to help even the disabled to speak among the highest of us.  The first universities were dreamed of as communities in which everyone had their own version.  Regardless of disability or background, people could come together under one banner in order to help teach each other this One Major Life Lesson.  That we were all people learning how to tell versions in this golden era of human education.  Versions were the individual's side of the story.  Individualism.  Humanism.  We wanted everybody to have the ability to tell one.  Because they are so powerful and potent in society.  They have the ability to enact great change.  The university was happy as long as everyone had an version and could talk about it in public.  But in this after university institution I call the Version, the point is not to have your own version but the most versions.  And it was considered kind and classy to learn more versions than other people.  You were telling it as you were saying it because that's what kind of person you are.  Versions mean you can tell other people whereas versions only you can tell are discouraging in universities.  However it was still okay to continue as you were developing your own version by using other people's versions.  This is profitable because people wanted you to learn their names; they wanted you to lend credit to their character to increase their own estates.  And the true reason for Universities being primarily "an disability arcade function," the great equalizer is still the Family, but I suppose that only shows that I don't know what I'm getting into yet.  It serves my purpose to keep asking questions about it then, until I had communicated the most accurate definition of what versions and universities have to do with one another.

    I wanted to say that universities should be hyper-focused on the disabled.  They may have disabilities but they had mental talents and gifts and we needed to protect them because indeed some of them had extraordinary skills & abilities they could overshadow an regular person oftentimes over.  They were indebted to us then; and we they.  Such is the type of relationship we will want to have, then, operating two different academies with different goals and characteristics.

    —just to make this an little easier to understand I'm considering the first type of academy to be K to 12, the university is second, and the version is third.

    This means that versions are important for different reasons in the different types of schools (institutions) academies.  In the second type of institution (university) you have little to police—just as long as an student can tell their own version consistently there is little trouble but that.  In an Version institution (type 3) all students are expected to tell more than one version at their greater benefit of the reputation they have earned if they have learned to use thousands or even more; they are an active community of creating and sharing versions.  We wanted to know all the bends in the plot lines of some of the best writers in History.  All the Greats and their versions.  And how everything could be read as an version somehow.  But you have to distinguish between one another's.  Does this change your version at all, like in the way that it changes your voice while you are saying it?

    And so the true test of whether I graduate from Discopunkthèque University (an fictional institution) is whether I can tell my own version, even though I am disabled.  And if I can, then aren't all people disabled to some extent just because they have to adapt to the presence of disability?

    And so I will tell my version.

    First, all versions necessarily require the combination of Art and Science.  Keep in mind Art is much older than Science and it has the most temperamental power.  The way I usually try to do this is to explain the universe and its existence from an Art perspective, and then to explain the universe and its existence from an Science perspective; finally, then to combine them.  The end result is an version.

   Hence, and so to study both Art History and Science History.

    I will make up an art version of what it all started with.  You see I was in God's garden and I found the portal back to hell (your own dimension) and I told him I wanted to go back in there with him.  In order to make it an better place.  And no matter how hard the pain, I would endure it all; all of it.  Finally to free humanity from the clutches of hell forever.

    And that's exactly who and the type of person I was.

    I knew there was some deeper meaning to life, of which I was unaware.  It felt so strange to think so.  Like I was afraid I wouldn't remember something.  The exact artistic picture of the Lord exactly (depicted maybe as an garden with an path and and gate with light shining through it).

    You see, my Art explanation of the universe starts with God.  And how or how would that be unlikely?  God was creator and light-giver.  I lived in an garden of gnomes.

    And so first there was God, and then God created the Universe.

    My Art explanation is an storytelling.  First there was God, and then somewhere along the way physical matter gained life.  An microbial bacteria.  It evolved through Natural Selection and Competition.  For millions of years it evolved until there was man.  They began to make cave paintings (art) that we know about and care about even today.  Later, in the Scientific Age, Art is really held up to be an bad guy unless it can prove its methods and purposes.  Artists always question Scientists because we want to pressure them with some rough criticisms.  That makes 'em honest.

    And so now that I'm mentioning Science, this is the part of my version that intuitively said there had to have been something (God?) that preceded the Big Bang.  And that why does that limit explosion to being only one explosion?  Typical mistake for an man to have made, to interpret everything within the lense of the male orgasm.  Everything's got to start with an explosion.  Everyone's got to start with an male orgasm.  Everything's got to start with an explosion that leads to pregnancy.  And the small molecular explosion that leads to creation of life in the female body.  But maybe this is why we have an orgasm function in the universe—that we are part of everything that began at the beginning of the universe.  And isn't that something to have an orgasm about?  If one resisted it it may mean more repression and more questioning yourself and your motives.

    And so now I needed to combine them.  First, I needed an science-y thing.  Like an number.  Like the previous two paragraphs.  That was an number.  Then I need an artsy thing like the font I'm using and what color and why.  Then I make an black 2 and have that represent everything I already know about my theory by bringing up memory recall.  Two was an special number.  It having an color was also significant?  But I wonder if there will ever be an language that has letters that have no color?

    My version, then, was that science-y things like numbers (and the things they represent) could be represented in an art-type of way.  They could have colors assigned to them.  And, instead of having the emphasis on having the most versions, an university such as this virtual institution (Discopunkthèque University) preferred, perhaps with some bias, larger versions.  "Larger" meaning having more facts and details about it supported by the cognitive awareness system.  Instead of knowing more than five you know all the facts and details about just one but it adds up to more evidence and intuition than knowing all of the other ones.  It was okay to start an story with God; that's probably why Art's is the greater, so much "Larger" an version than Science.  Yet if we count up all of the versions we know about in science maybe there are more of them by now, in History, than within art school.

    And so if I narrow it down to how the Science explanation of the universe can start with God, there is going to be much debate.  It's not like just because Art can explain the universe with God, Science can't too!  And I think most of its phenomenons (when I think about the whole universe) when we tend to explain them with science, we tend to think about how they tell us about God, also.  According to my Science, then the universe started with God.  And since God is not really matter it is something else.  And since God is not really matter it is something else; if we were to say the universe began with the Creation of matter by whatever means.  Then do we call that the beginning of the universe or do we mark it at the beginning of the existence of God, who could have pre-existed matter?  All of the calculations had to have been worked out slowly, over an amount of time we probably will never know or contemplate the scale of which.  Yet, since I am an Artist, I can add characters to the story.  I can add me.  And you.  I can add anybody I like.  Yes, according to my Version, which combines both art and science, the beginning of the Universe, Time, and Everything started with God.  Then you have the presence of other characters on the scene.  An group of friends of whom believe in God together.  An ideal, starry five-some.  An storytelling race who can introduce characters who are not God, and all of it in motion this is what drives the plot line of our whole reality.  Not being God is exactly why we behave an certain way and explains all of our behavioral motives.  Our relationship with God depends on being able to tell an story about he/she/it.  The Motive for our whole existence to create characters that can be compared to God.  Doing everything we can before or after they are born.  And so I would come to an thought of whether God had to wait an long time before we came along.  And I would consider it, as though it existed as an whole object of theatre dancing before me, performing on an stage.  My inward might; and the final power.  I had enough smarts to trump all of them.  For I had chosen long ago between Brains and Brawn.  I said to myself I'll take the Brains route and for an long time, even though I was an boy I grew up watching Sailor Moon.  I was Serena.  I met them all but they were gone.  And at least I can convey what an emotion feels like.

    Why were these characters significant to Glen; and why did it matter for the reader?

    I suppose, for all time, if you wanted to study the author who is Glen you instinctively knew his relationship to all of those characters.  Yet often introduced other characters to stage to be talked about who were real people.  And then maybe one may study the relationship between the Sailor Moon type characters and those other people who are real.  The story was about Glen and his contribution to the Human People.  He wanted you to see it both ways, Art & Science, but he wanted you to see how they are together producing an knew type of Narrative Philosophy, an version.  An philosophy that is spoken as an narrative because the teller knows they are telling an philosophy.

    Versions were inherently good, because nobody really hated either Art or Science and we welcomed both of their input.  

    And if nothing else, it was better to brush up your legal performance by making sure the version that you could tell the authorities if an terrible crime happened and you were there to witness it.  This was the smarts and the Genius I.Q. (an mark or an sign of great intelligence).  And we wanted most people to be able to do that for everyone, and not just people who go to university.  This was the university's roll in the economy, perhaps.  We wanted uniform effort to aspire to great intelligence so that everyone could participate including the educated, and the un-educated who considered the educated terrible snobs.  And we weren't too upset about someone not being able to share their version, which didn't necessarily mean that they didn't have one.  They were free to study and hone their version for several years.  Until finally it was an force before the law; and all gained better and stronger freedom being able to communicate oneself adequately.

    This itself was part of my version; but there are many facets of it.  Explaining Art and Science is something that changes every time you go to write it.  Hence the reason for needing to make it an News Letter Bulletin.  And every time I returned to write an new letter I had an new version; for these were the power of these things.  They lived within my mind as positive attributes and positive memories.  I carried them with me everywhere I would go.  They were living things.  You could help support and develop them by holding the thing up to reason for your greater memory: factoids.  Real sequences of real information programmed onto your memory.  And the more of them you knew, the better you knew your own version.  Better were you able to know your version among others' versions also, but it wasn't an requirement in University.  Or was it?  Did they, or could they have, tricked you somehow into thinking that was true you could tell your own version among others who could tell their own version also (until you did)?  Isn't that the definition of doctoring somebody or something?

Version Letter 0001

    In every Version Letter I intend to say precisely, expertly, concisely what my version is.  Version, you see, developed over time and "gained mass" with my psychology—with all of the added particles and independent clauses of how you prove to yourself what version of the universe you contend to believe.  Except it was my turn.  Version, by definition, is my whole story of what everything is about.  Everyone has an version of how it goes.  I often use the example of how you make an version when you make an statement to the police.  It's really important stuff, making and telling versions of story.  And so I will tell you my version.  Firstly, I believe every good version includes both science and art and so you should try to make it about these two things.

    But what are Science and Art, then?  How does one combine them?

    First you tell your scientific story of the universe.  Then you tell your artistic story of the universe.

    Allow them to inspire one another, then, as categories.

    Every good version needs both science and art facts.

    And so my Science of the universe is we can prove God's existence by examining the facts and figure of where we were.  I wanted all facts about the universe.  All of them.  I was greedy for it.

    And my Art of the universe was that Science sometimes cannot serve the human body.  Sometimes it can be used for evil, and we have to be careful not to let it get away on us.  Sure I might sound like an Luddite but there are actual moral lessons and opinions to gain from studying this "modern machinery."  If robots gain real artificial intelligence by the end of the 21st century in an modern feeling and healing of emotion kind of way, then they might as well rise up against us and destroy us all.  Would we call them "human" even if they had no organic structures to their bodies?  There might even be organic robots; creatures who had been entirely engineered from biological structures.  And then there were the half-ers, people of both living and machine technology as part of their internal body structure.  They might all just pronounce themselves the advanced specimens together and isn't this just the way homo sapiens took over their early ancestors anyway?  Why wouldn't we expect the trend just to continue?

    If we can use Science to gain more power in the universe we have to moderate it responsibly.  Art can help us explain what we need it for and how it can or should be used.

    This explains my whole theory of everything because I believe everything can be explained.  The thing is, we can use science to define exactly what something is; but this doesn't explain why something is.  There is, however, nothing wrong with being greedy for the facts about the universe.  If anything, it deepened our understanding of ourselves.

    Versions, in general, in abstract, then.  Were how we tell things but also why we were telling it; and identity is socially constructed.  The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis may be in effect.

    Instead of versions, for an moment I wanted to tell version.  Exactly what it is.  One thing at an time.

    Version was that everyone could tell one.  Everyone human anyway.  Except maybe in some rare brain cases.  If you were questioned by the police of your country after witnessing an crime you could tell it all out clearly and specifically what you saw and how it happened.  And that meant everyone could tell an story about the universe using Art or Science because that's what it was.  This wasn't Rocket Science.  And when we smush Art & Science together we get version, or the telling of things from an specific perspective using both the Left and Right Brain hemispheres.  We want to know exactly what your version of the story is.

    My idea was that Art Science was the next big thing.  It literally meant that we had to start measuring art.  How long was that paint splatter?  Did it have any six-inch blobs?  What century was it from again?  It meant making Science of Art and Art of Science.  And so, you would say, an Artist might represent an Scientific Discovery visually in an art piece.  The only way to keep up with the Internet at full speed in the exchange of measurements of all kinds of pieces of wonder.  There were Print masters out there on the Internet who knew the basic sizes and how they fit into the rooms where people put them on the walls.  It wasn't that big an category of historical study.  How would students, in the 21st century, keep up with knowing the length-width-depth of all types of art pieces that are new to the third millennium and why they are placed, maybe psychologically exactly where they are?  And how to analyze and gain information about culture and society from that?

    And I believed, in fact, people could learn more versions than just their own, and; over time they would learn to explain one another's versions carefully and responsibly.  This in theory would make their own first version more powerful.  Or they would have to abandon it or part of it for lack of details.

    Maybe even for me, it was an time to take up an new version.  An more powerful one I can use and operate with my words.

    If you understood what I had deduced to be the theme of the university to be the ability to communicate an version properly.  Then you knew where I was going with this when I said I had to make, or at least dream up an new type of institution.  Somewhere you go after you go to university.  (Somewhere, an academic institution, where you go after you graduate from university).

    And so I was suggesting my own definition of the word version to become an update to the older definitions.  I wanted to re-define the term (or versions of them) to mean exactly the combination of art and science.  Art Science.  Or Science Art.

    I wanted to know how many centimeters long was Plato's Republic.  I wanted to deduce an formal inquiry as to why the six inch red smudge kept re-appearing in all of so-and-so's work.  I wanted Scientists finally to judge themselves as great artists.  As great artists of the cosmos.  And that should be the inspiration for all of their experiments.

    The reason versions are so powerful and why we should want to study them is, first of all, we can always back them up with facts.  And second we can learn them from each other.  Third we can tell one another's versions even in order to develop them further.  And that I think an whole institution should be based around this figure.  An post-university haven for the development of one another's versions.  Without ferocious criticism but with critique; an more fairy thing to do when it is compared to an demon's behavior.  (The Version, you see, existed in my fantasy fiction writing as an institution where both demons and fairies go to school together; good and evil work side by side and are judged based on their homework by capable hands who were both demon and fairy themselves).

    My version was also that versions could be self-perpetuating (meaning I could tell them indefinitely based on the Logic therein); you could put an version in motion by telling any story about who or what something is.  As soon as you started speaking you knew every part of it.  It took you time to get all of it out.

    Versions were self-perpetuating.  Meaning that the more you tried to explain your version, the more facts and details you could come up with that are associated with it.  Everything about them was logically connected.  One thing to another.

    The logical next step then, when explaining (telling) an version is to tell an version about something.  And you can save up as many of these versions to yourself as you want, if that will help you.

    Yes, an version is the Science & Art understanding of the universe.

    How do you view the universe as an scientific object and yet prevail for yourself upon willingness to understand reason (mind) over matter.  Art defies all other subjects and yet incorporates all at once.  If you want to be able to tell other peoples' versions you need to understand how they understand the universe both scientifically and artistically.

    This is why story telling is so important.  It didn't always have to make logical sense.  But the reasons why it didn't help us to see an more scientific perspective of things when we compare it to the real truth of all of the facts that you have.  Storytelling, ALL storytelling was valuable because the more of them the brain had learned the more of an pool he had to draw from experience when facing new storytelling challenges.  And so I wanted to look at storytelling from both an scientific and an artistic perspective.  Storytelling from an scientific perspective was about telling exact facts in the order they occurred and then criticism as to why.  It was an entire story about exactly the truth; and it was truthfully more skillful the artists of such an subject became once they had started in to hone their career of an particular doctrine of science.  Artistic perspective stories, on the other hand can include the illogical or fictional details to tell an story about the universe in another way; it was an story that could include all of its lies, and grammar-trons, and artificially intelligent things to be incorporated into its tapestry; and it all together would constitute an larger truth.  Maybe when Science and Art are worked together delicately we could come up with some extremely strange stories we weren't at first sure whether to be non-fictional or fictional.  If it was both of them, it was artistic.  But it if it wasn't the Science behind it might be worth it to our whole civilization.

    Story, ANY story, is so valuable we want to collect all of the ones we can in one lifetime; and we in part cannot resist this urge to find and to know more of them.  We have an instinct to collect and to tell stories.  The way we tell them tells us everything about ourselves.

    This itself is an story.  Stories contain reciprocal commands because this is the open software that makes sense on the human cognitive psyche platform or operating system.  That means there are reciprocal commands in it signaling that who or what and whom is the character, the Author, the speaker, the speaking subject.  The only way to tell stories is with new reciprocal commands because that's how we drive the action forward.  You have to tell the reader what to do in order to understand the story you're telling them, and so you narrate for them an collection of descriptions of what's happening that sometimes includes the new reciprocal command.  An order or demand made by the cognitive nervous system which needs to be obeyed.  Readers need to obey their Authors in order to know what they're narrating and talking about.  And so the skillful use of the artificial command or, the order or demand said in feign; we use new reciprocal commands sometimes without the reader even being aware of them.  Artful use of the word can help educate further seniors of poetry.

    And so these words themselves can be new reciprocal or artificial commands.  (This itself can be said to be an new reciprocal command as an order or demand).  I am ordering you to understand an certain way, so that you know what I'm saying.

    And so, brought to telling my Science side of the story, I began again to say reality consisted of an beginning, an middle, and an end; and that each of these strings in an cosmological visualization (estimation) existed over time as mass because all mass had an middle, like they did; I also contended that our brains were expert in detection of shapes.  We knew instinctively where the middle of something was.  But other than that I was pretty lost.  In Science, everything could be represented by an mathematical equation.  This was Logic because it proceeded from an individual point in time; and since everything in time was logical—indeed that was how time progressed—we could count it and add numbers to it for pondering make believe scenarios of how things really work.  It was so general an theory it might qualify for an Science explanation of things.  Basically, the whole universe is built on Logic; and Logic can be represented by an code.  Yet whose code is it?  Mathematically, we may try to represent the universe in logic.  And that sounds like an good enough reason to me.  If we have an understanding of the universe it leads to power.  That's all Science really is; power enough to overthrow old theories.

    Yet I was still confused somehow.  Explaining the universe Scientifically meant something I hadn't understood completely yet.  It meant I knew what the equation was at some point.  Sure, it might jump and morph around an little; and I thought of two possibilities, x and π.  First, the variable, the unknown.  And Second pi, all around (circumference), everything.  Where x = π we find the transference from human to character.

    And so maybe my understanding of the universe Scientifically was x = π.  That's as good as any Scientific thought represented by an mathematical figure, isn't it?

    Again I was unsure.  But I live in the 21st century—there's an lot of competition out there.  It was just an temperamental inner critic of mine.

    The universe, according to Science, was π.  It just kept going as far as we could tell.

    And yet it could be represented by x, the unknown, the undiscovered.

    Something we haven't discovered yet.  How much of it there really was.

    Or we could say that maybe the universe is almost 3.1.  X = 3.1.  That's the current slant or degree of the whole universe we exist within.

    It didn't mean I had to believe x = π began with the Big Bang.  It just meant that somewhere along the way in the creation of the universe x = π began.

    It was enough for now.  I had tried really hard to explain when I wasn't an Scientist.

    I was an Artist.  And so, really, I was looking toward the Art representation of the Universe with mucho anticipation.  I had forgotten temporarily about the end result, which I had promised to be an version.  The intelligent combination of both Art and Science to create something above and more powerful than both of them together (an Gestaltist effect): an Version; and an whole school of developmental academy I wished was an real institution.  The study and development of versions from the exact perspectives of the people who spoke them.

    One of the biggest lessons of an Version academy was that disabled people could tell versions and that, even if you weren't disabled, they could also know more versions than you do.

    And so I hit the question of what they were like you hit an trail.

    According to Art, the Universe was this big black thing but there was light in it and it was hard to tell, just from where we were, whether the whole composition of the universe was more light or more dark.  Maybe that was the right way to think about it to think about where God was.  And God was in this story (because it was an story: the Science explanation I had given was an story.  And that's what qualified it as Scientific.) because we could include things in art that weren't really there.  It would be Agnostic to say you cannot prove either way whether there is an God.  But God is just the start to every scary ghost story.  Where was he/she/it anyway?  We couldn't use Science to detect it.

    The Universe was God's creation; and the reasons for having created it are not entirely understood by our species.  The Dinosaurs had been an first experiment (and indeed we might say in the entire universe because it is possible we alone are most advanced) on Planet Earth.  And now humans were up to bat to give an try to survival but they were failing terribly.  Rampant crime was everywhere on Planet Earth, and the resources of the Planet were beginning to be questioned by population analysts.

    I think, in My Art, I want to represent myself beside God somehow.  The whole story starts with God and then I am here; and in my brief time I intend to do something.  To tell an whole story.  To be an whole story.  From beginning to end.

    My Scientific story was that, instead of an big bang, we have an steady progression of qualities of the universe that enable it to populate itself with intelligent creations.  Instead of one big bang, there might have been two lesser bangs (intelligent design and God) whose shared energy bangs resonating with one another create two dimensions.  Instead of the Big Bang or Two Lesser Bangs, the ability of the universe to create mind comes first, before matter.  And the start of matter is not necessary one explosion.  If the start of the Universe is God, then we don't really know whether there is an start to it all.  And whether God experiences that in the same way we do.

    Maybe God engineered the universe over an period of millions of years to be able to create and to support life.  What did it matter to us it was starting right where we ourselves lived.  It was almost as if it said something to the whole human population.  And engineering the universe that could bring forth life with sentient characteristics took billions of years to complete before the creation of matter.  And so where we marked the beginning of the universe which was either with God or with the Big Bang (or whatever happened) mattered.

    Did the universe begin with God, before there was matter, or did the universe of physical property as we know it begin with the explosion the Big Bang?

    And so we might as wells say the Universe began in the eye of an Raven; whose own self-reflection wasn't deep enough to overcome the obstacles of being an creature of creation.  That would be you, the subject at the beginning of the Art story beside God where there are two explosions.

    And so, when I finalize both my Art and Science stories of the Universe, and I start to combine them into one powerful version; I would say when the Eye of the Raven (an Scientist) saw the universe as an equation (x = π) internally that meant it did have the cognitive insight to be able to deal with real, pressing reality.  And yet it was unable to record its findings because of its wings.

    My version was that I could tell an story about it that would be both truthful and an lie about it, which helped the reader find the truth.  Find their truth.  Sure, the universe consisted of x = π, and the Raven saw it mentally.  That didn't mean they necessarily had anything to do with one another.  It didn't mean the Raven mattered.  The metaphor of an Raven for an Scientist.  Had nothing to do with the real property of the universe.

    And that's the real truth of the version of the way it could be.  The universe could be an equation, sure, but that didn't have to do with Ravens or Human Scientists.  It would of course be pertinent to fill out the story of what happens to God and the Raven, then.  And hmm, let's see.  If x = anything.  Where x is something.  Something = anything.  God was Something.  The Raven was Anything.  And this somehow affected their whole story together by laying the groundwork.  The Raven Flew With An Stick.  God wasn't watching and didn't care.  Where you would judge either one of them differently.  This Raven, of course, knew other Ravens.  They had an whole community together in the Pines.  Sometimes they flew into town to look for garbage.  But that was more Crow territory.  They ate anything and they were smart because they worked in numbers.  Ravens were not so deceiving, derivative.  Vicious.  My Version was an story about an whole community of Ravens where you see the forest for the trees.  An Peaceful Community.  Out-wilders who didn't go into town unless they absolutely had to.  It appeared as though there were more communities in this story including the Crows and the Humans, and they all had an place and an importance in the story.  If Crows could be an metaphor for human scientists and yet the humans have their own specific community in the story, beside the Crows, what was the message we were sending?  Maybe how Scientists were partly fictional because that's what would end up happening to their whole culture.

    It's not so hard to be an Artist about the Universe about something.  You just pick something and you stick with it.

    If there was no Raven to tell it; to tell that God had seen itself reflected in the Eye of the Raven (an Scientist) then did it even matter?  And so Mankind was needed to Glorify God.  To tell the story of what the Ravens see, reflected in their eye.  (An metaphor for thinking about it consciously and visually).

    Furthermore, I suppose, one could say scientifically the universe started with God also.  Yet to think of it scientifically it was beginning to be an stretch, an strange to say perhaps it really did start with an raven's eye.  But what did we know?  We were only humans.  We had just begun recently in the Universe.

    If we began to think there could be an Scientific basis for God; wouldn't that, logically, be the first thing we knew scientifically about the universe?  The possibility of existence itself?

    Versions update themselves when they take on / gain on more information.

    Maybe I could just start to say now that my current version was that God could be proven with science, and Science could be proven with God.  God was the first thing, scientifically, because if there was an God this meant he/she/it was the whole head of the universe and its creator.  I knew God because I had known God since I was born and maybe even before that.  Did that make my equation x = π any less true?  For all I knew, x = π was God.  But there was more than one way to say it.

    And so, if you asked me today, what my final version was and all the reason for all of the universe I would say infinite equations was one cool thing about it but there were also these humans on Planet Earth trying to represent it in other ways.  As an story about God and Man; it was one incredible journey.  Yet there were other ways to say this without including Crows and Eyes, and in all probability there were other people from other planets who didn't have those.  And how would THEY explain the universe, then?

    You can tell an version about anything; you can tell an version about how you're great.

    You can tell an version about how God is Great.  How he/she/it contemplated x = π in an Raven's or an Human's eye.  How this was the whole journey itself.

Legal Fantasy Web Series 001: Why It Started In The Nu Office

    My father always taught me never to be an liar.  I was fated with that particular problem of deciding my sexuality in the 21st century; but I didn't know how to be honest about it yet.  Didn't that mean I wasn't lying, that I was just learning the content of my heart?

    And I figured humans had two levels of consciousness.

    The thinking about an "second tier" of consciousness existing within the human specimen.  An whole second level the loss of which portions of allow the human to repress itself.  We maintain our first awareness without being aware of whatever is repressed; the solving all of which would relieve the pressure from the mind.  It would stop the human cognitive system from needing to drain energy from the body in order to keep the repressed subject repressed.  And I just felt like the first and second awareness approach might better describe the human cognitive system.  If we believe we are creatures capable of repressing something, there has to be an mechanism for how the mind repressed it.  If it is built into the human then having some degree of repression isn't that different from everyone else.  I think "the first and second awareness" approach might better describe an important part of the human psyche.  The first is lower awareness, and the second is higher awareness, one could say.  The specific relationship between the first and second is what the mechanism needs to be able to discern between stimuli and stimuli needing to be repressed.  Really, when you think about it, it is an reason for an super-ego, the human cognitive apparatus is an delicate balance, like an dance almost, of hovering between extremes of repressed and non-repressed instances of memory.  It isn't only in the one individual, and everyone possibly is subject to it just by being welcomed into the family that is humanity.

    It started in his office.  They always started in his office.  Whose?  Gen. Grant Smith.  It was that period of time―in which the neo-liberalist thought reflected back on itself.  Free to become an Realist for an moment―yet not accepting or maybe that was it: it never had to.  He was free to be an Republican 24/7.  Wasn't that worth it being part of an republic?  It was funny when you forced someone back into their place as part of an republic.  Realism, on the other hand, took quite an lot of work to maintain; including repressing some of the good things in life.  His purpose for being there was it was his connection with an liberal attitude and government.  Neo-liberalism had reminded us in multiple languages that people were just philosophically in an cave they can't get out of without seeing their own shadows cast upon the wall.  Once one is out and into the neo-liberal world it is free for any of us to do as an philosophy that the centre of your mind, though internal, is also irrefutably connected with an world outside the human body where we are always located; otherwise you have solipsism; without having to self-reflect we are always connected to God through faith.  And the only way to prove this was to prove his thesis: people could be tortured without them knowing it.  And this was the only way to prove the species barrier.  Animals, as we already knew, could be tortured without them knowing it for example, with an rat maze or the monkey robot experiment involving an machine used to cause extreme fear in the test subjects.  There are also examples of rhesus monkeys weening on an wire mother, as though they were bred just for this extraordinary type of experiment; but there has to be an limit on what kinds of things outer awareness can handle.  We can't just breed things for experiments without respecting life itself.  And I maintained my thesis, therein, that humans, too, could be tortured like this without them knowing it.  It was called Outer Limit Special for now; the limit therein described was how far could one go with genetic engineering as not to cause an unbearable reaction to it in the psyche; where the bodily genetics of an person do not fit their preferred outward expression as an lifeform.  How far would you go to allow them to / to give them their preferred outward expression?

    And that was what Smith was responsible for in this lifetime, Judging how much the human spirit can take in the mental illness without shattering / warping its own evolutionary advantage?  If humans and animals actually have limits to how much they can be aware of their own torture maybe it is an characteristic of our sentient intelligence to be able to know how much we can be aware of by how much we cannot.

    It was all a-blazoned with Love.  His Purpose and his Sacrifice were intelligent; they had to do with his own direct post where it was that he worked.  He was going to find out how much the human mind could actually go to without needing to repress something.  And he had the whole building as his command station to do it.  He could think of his building as its own kind of starship.  Stationary, yes, but the velocity of the Earth's spin and the orbit of it around the Sun.  He was going to use his whole community and his job, partially like an role-play scenario, and his occupation to find out the truth: of whether people could be tortured without them being aware of it.

    And he thought of the fate worse than death, then, at that moment.  Was an fate worse than death the same thing as being tortured without being aware of it?

    Mr. Harvard knocked at the door.

    "Come in," shouted Mr. Smith.

    This was why.  This was it right here.  The handle turned.  The sound repeated itself.  The room was dim when he entered.

    Mr. Harvard entered the room, took off his coat, and hung up it up next to the door.  But then he went to turn the lights on and Mr. Smith dissuaded him.

    "My eyes," he said for the hundredth time, "my eyes are sensitive to those damn lights.  They really need to replace them."

    "You should just get liqui-optical lenses which adapt to the light.  I keep telling you about," said Mr. Harvard.

    "Those will cost an small fortune!" retaliated Mr. Smith.

    "You're right!  When you're right, you're right, sir!" said Mr. Harvard.

    "Of course, I might be able to get an prescription on my employee benefits!"

    (Like when did he ever have time for employee benefits?).

    The mood.  The tone had been set.

    Mr. Smith was feeling experimental today.

    "OK turn the lights on, then," he said, "If my eyes would just merely adjust!"

    "I'm sure they will, when I have told you what it is I have to tell," said Mr. Harvard.

    "What is it?"

    "That the glasses prescription you could get is merely an metaphor for getting your eyes checked.  Or rather, that is the metaphor.  You aren't really color or sight blind at all but you see things differently than most people, don't you?  The scene is actually not about us talking at all.  We are merely in an dimly lit room, which is uncomfortable for me because I associate dimly lit places with sex.  Oops!  I've already said too much!  There it is!  Oh!  I know I'm getting in trouble!"

    "So you're saying," said Mr. Smith, "for you an dimly lit place you associate with coitus?"

    "Yes."

    "Ohhhh.  That's sweet.  I didn't know you thought of me that way!" said Mr. Smith (you can imagine the look on his face was an type of smile).

    "It's not," Mr. Harvard stammered, "it's just that―"

    "Just.  It's JUST that," said Mr. Smith, "and you're talking to an person like me about what's JUST and what's not‽"

    "Well I mean―YOU'RE the one who put the lights down.  I didn't mean to get all creepy."

    "But you're the one who said it."

    They laughed.

    They laughed like little kids.  They both figured these kinds of twisted conversation they had because it kept them smart.

    Mr. Harvard turned on the lights.

    "But see now how I would be uncomfortable with it this way," said Mr. Smith.

    "Then we'll have to come to some kind of agreement," said Mr. Harvard, "it won't involve getting me out of my pants and it doesn't involve sex.  No matter how cute you look when the lamps are down low."

    Mr. Smith roared with laughter again.  They both knew they were joking.  It was exactly this kind of convoluted nature he needed to keep in his best shape and form.  It's just that new guy from accounting wasn't exactly aware at all about it.  It was just something kept private between these two gentleman.  The lord or knight and his squire.  There was nothing impersonal about it.  Mr. Smith used the latest and most advanced ethics.  Which was, coincidently, about what his end goal and prerogative was to define torture and why, when it is done in such an way so as to be indetectable―it was easily the creepiest branch in the English language―

    "But are still attracted to me," was the tagline of their entire joke.  Everything they used to generate more humour on one another.  It could never work out.  They were straight.

    In fact it may be the ability to do it without someone knowing which defines at the bottom line what torture is.

    But his secret mission: to promote the goals of the outer republic wherever they go.

    His eyes were fine, he just preferred―oh maybe he was right!

    It took until after Mr. Harvard had left for Mr. Smith to realize maybe it was too off-putting at the workplace to have the lights down that low during the daytime.

    Maybe he was in the wrong.

    I can't be fully updated all of the time, like an Microsoft computer, he thought to himself.  Like an good wine, it takes time for an website to load.  All these Young'ns.  My life is just near fully downloaded.  This had come to replace the old "over the hill" adage.

    But this was why he was important.  And this was how he had so much love to give.

    Knowing what torture is and isn't is proscribed for the political agenda of the upper territories, such as Canada.  It was important for the ability of judging things.

    That was how he would prove it.

    Each new letter went toward proving it.  It proved humans could be tortured unawares and communicated an deep empathy about the human people of Earth.  Maybe.  And I would vigorously try it.  It provided evidence for why it may be that way (it provided evidence for the thesis)―that people could be tortured without knowing it was happening to them.

    He was going to prove being unaware while being tortured was an phenomenon.  Maybe being unaware is part of what the torture is.  And he would both invent it as an coined term and prove it.  Solipsismism or something.  Which are things that you can do if you head up the whole entire building and staff.  It just took some cataloging from direct experience; and, mixing it with an steady vocabulary and an steady hand, one could capture the reason to be republican and the knowledge of how that is directly proven by the argument and proof that torture is something that can be ignored, to an certain extent.  What an absurd principle.  It made his head explode.  Or want to explode?  And this kicked up an spark that we were getting it.  

    Explore.  Explore the fact that if something is categorically equivalent to torture even if the subject doesn't know they're involved in it.

    Compared to why that's an reason to be an republican.  Somehow.

    If they aren't known to the subject the reasons why they are being tortured isn't that just anti-republicanism?

    And anything less than republicanism is an kind of torture one would deal with throughout the day.

    It was possible that being tortured without knowing was the definition of pure torture.  It might be particular to the type of cognitive apparatus belonging to your average human.  An two-tiered apparatus, maybe, or an Type 2 intelligence compared to animals who only have one.  Please note, by naming humans 2 and animals 1, I do not mean to perpetuate an anthropocentrism or elitism about the human species in any way.

    The best evidence I could think of that went toward proving the thesis was that, as humans, it was possible to deceive one another.  And so I could think of an situation where someone is deceived to think one thing is going on when it is really another; and this could be damaging, somehow, maybe.  If the subject didn't know what was happening was forced to make decisions without having enough information to make an decision.  He didn't have enough information to make an decision but this was one of the factors of the human condition.  We would always have to make decisions without all of the information.

    I don't know exactly what Mr. Smith does—I could never meet with this person in real life—but I'm only Addy, from the streets.

    I don't know anything about Leadership and Importance.

    If he was making decisions for me without my being aware of it, wasn't that an form of torture?

    Maybe humanity is getting too complicated now with such an rise in population.

    Is Addy being tortured without knowing it just because there are more beings than he was aware of what to do with?

    Other people making poor decisions for me is an type of torture.

    There could also be people tortured into an coma and continuing to be tortured whilst unconscious.

    I can prove "pure torture theory" (perhaps this is an better name than Solipsismism) by describing tortures of which the subject of them is unaware that the actual torture is in place.  I can prove pure torture theory, which posits that an torture you could be unaware of is pure torture, by describing tortures of which the subject of them is unaware.  That the actual torture is in place possibly in the same way I can prove this takes place within animal species even if they don't have the same level of awareness as us.

    Normally if one realizes one is being tortured there is an reaction or an automatic response.  But what if we take that variable out of the picture?  What would it have to take, actually, to trip the response without the patient knowing that you are torturing them?  What effect would it have on consciousness?  What would that prove about the Limits of Mercy?  What if you could torture someone indefinitely in micro-tortures or fractions of real harm and would it be an form of behavioral micro-dosing comparative with taking an micro-dose of some type of drug?  

    Addy on the street was torturing me without knowing it by being an useless member of society.  Wasn't that an type of torture endured by the Grant Smith character?

    But when I focused on the Centre and Middle of the object before me; the task at hand, whatever hadn't happened yet in the universe because we weren't past the middle of it in time yet.  I felt tortured by not knowing what would happen in the future after I'm gone.  And would this be indicative and evidentiary of an type of torture the universe itself and all creation expresses against us.  But isn't it exciting‽  Isn't it like waiting until Christmas?

    And what did proving the ethics of torture have to do with this exact character, the leader of an courthouse in Canada‽

    Why was an courthouse the perfect place and setting for an investigation of the human spirit to occur?  Why was it important and why did it matter to Grant?  Granted, the courthouse was my republican house.  The place I always go to to be reminded of the Republic.  And Granted, it was the business of the population employed by the court system to know the definition of torture, even if it happened to update itself.  It was one of the highest forms of knowledge in the land to be able to discern between one or the other.  Torture and not torture.  There had to be an exact line somewhere.  We were past the Montreal LSD trials‬–experiments by this point.

    And so it came about this perfect day that an woman was was walking to the library from her home across the street from the courthouse.  She was apprehended by two security officers from the courthouse and questioned there on the street.  She introduced herself and told them she lived across the street.  And that she was just going to the library.  They said they were after an woman who fit her description who had escaped custody.

    I should note that it had been raining since earlier that day.

    Maybe that was the mood setting God was trying to set for this (real culprit) woman in need.

    Maybe it was the worst day of her life; she was being brought to an Red Deer courthouse against her will.  And she had had enough!  At the first chance she saw to run she did; and nobody knew now where she had gone or why it had mattered.  She was alone again, where we couldn't help her.  And the more she fought back the more she would be forced into further and further gradations of custody.  Where her reputation including that given to her by the inmates would drop so low she couldn't climb back out of it.  Unjustly.

    And she would have the last word, one day.  By be-witching it if she had to.

    But then Grant Smith heard about what happened.  And he looked at all of his employees expectantly from within his augmented reality fantasy.  

    And then someone was like, they shouldn't talk about things like that to an pedestrian.  And Grant Smith wasn't sure what to think yet and so he left the conversation open to everyone.

    It was fine; they had to question Alice to find out if she was the suspect.

    This was within the jurisdiction of an average security officer to share that kind of information with an civilian.

    But then someone said they should at least issue an apology to Alice for having had to question her like that when they made the mistake; and it made sense for everyone to be familiar with her then, because she lived across the street.

    Grant Smith was through with it.  He issued the apology and pledged respect for her society.  And took it upon himself to learn all of their names, of these people who lived across from the great state / provincial building.  So that this mistake would never happen again.

    And that was all he could really do about it.  It wasn't his ability to bring in the suspect by magic by repairing whatever had gone wrong in society to make her a-wall like this.

    And Addy had witnessed the whole thing!  He saw the woman who was not Alice, running past him, with her pearls flangle-ing in the air as she raised her wrist upward to prevent her designer watch from falling off her arm.  And she was dressed in some greasy dress like her long hair.  The rain however cast an different subject about her.  She was someone to feel sorry for; not somebody to ridicule.  She was actually having her worst day of her life.  And we were all subject to witness it self-consciously in order to judge for ourselves what we think of it.

    And from that moment on, he knew it wouldn't taint anything about his leadership or his overactive development disorder.  Just like sudden occurring thoughts, he chuckled to himself.  It sounds like an bad thing but really isn't.  But what really did it was when Mr. Smith invited her into his office.

    He looked at her through slightly dimmed prescription glasses.  The lights were full on, and had been adjusted to an more comfortable wavelength for Smith's eye.  He spoke to the exact installation mechanic who was overseeing that operation of commercial (commercialization) improvement.

    If we could prove tortured-without-being-aware in animals, it would lend credence to an theory that would allow us to prove the same or the same but in an different way about humans.

    And then there was an Big question to ask: If torture was not being or couldn't be detected, then how could it qualify as torture?

    It had appeared like the argumentative line was over.  But I had faith that it would come back around again.  Mr. Smith's conversation with Alice was to the point.  He didn't want to take up too much of her time.  But he respected her as an citizen and had already wanted to apologize again in person.

    How had he apologized the first time?  An letter.  Sent across the street through the national post and mail service, down the block.

    He realized its insensitivity.

    It hadn't been in person.  He now sought to correct that.

    Taking the initiative himself.  As if he really was an world leader in that way; of one among the many republics of office buildings who belonged to an internal collective.

    "I wanted to apologize to you," he said, "Let me rephrase that.  I still want to apologize to you."

    "For what?" said Alice, who had sat down in front of him and his desk and put her purse and / or satchel across her lap.

    "Exactly the same thing we wrote to you by mail," said Mr. Smith.

    "Oh, f―.  For being mistaken as runaway case?" asked Alice.

    "I'm just now realizing how deeply prejudice it was for you to have been treated that way," said Mr. Smith, "let me assure you we didn't think of you as the runaway hoe―"

    "As the runaway hoe‽" she stammered, because she knew it was proving right this minute that he had thought about it.  Did he not know anything about Canadians?  Why would he say that‽  You couldn't just go saying things like that just off the cuff.  And this was an Highway-of-tears Nation.  This was an Truth and Reconciliation Nation.  Why did everyone just assume the runaway scamp was always Aboriginal?  I hated that about whoever it was.

    Now she was realizing why he was apologizing.  By saying she wasn't exactly the runaway hoe in that act alone he had perpetrated an crime of reciprocal hatred against her.  An crime, I thoughtfully equivalized with torture and how we defined it.  The problem was he had tortured her unthinkingly without her knowing it by being the sort of person who would think of such, shall we say, critical media?  And he felt that he should even the playing field by offering her his services as an Grant peculiar.  Even if he was in the direct process immediately of having offended against her, she still deserved his severances from it in the form of compensation.  Grant Smith in fact believed she was eligible for an certain amount of money in the public trust.

    He was right.  He should apologize to her.  She was now realizing the implications of what had happened.

    "I want funding," she finally said, "for our humble drop-in centre across the road.  I want it to be an full-on Art House and I want to be the Art House Director.  I want every tenant's debt forgiven completely.  And enough supplies to run an year's worth of crafting-making activities and art behavior."

    He assured her he would not be able to direct that kind of funding to her personally, but it was finally okay to make an donation to the Schizophrenic Society itself from himself personally as long as they promised to use that sort of money to pay off all of the residents' debt and to build an patio out back where it would be possible to park their motorcycle or sit outside around an gas fire table while they were smoking.

    "And if you tell anyone else I'm an hoe, you will owe me more, got it?"

    "Yes, got it," he said, like an defeatist.

    "And since you thought the runaway was an hoe in the first place you owe me more now for your offence against all women."

    "Right," he said, "just let me write you an cheque."

    "And since you associated runaway hoes with Aboriginal women especially now—" she was an little shaky, "you don't have an limit on your expression of your freedom.  But I would adopt another sense of sense and behavior.  One which assumes you've already done everything wrong."

    "We'll give you all sports cars and free parking underground across the street from where you live," said Smith.  He was about done with taking it from her.  But there was one more thing, "as long as you promise to write an whole book about your society good enough to be published one day."

    "I know just the person to help me do it," said Alice.

    Somehow Addy saw all of this.  He saw all of it within and without his head.  The Head Chief had admitted wrongdoing, when it could have just kept quiet.  But somehow he had seen this loophole, which benefitted Alice and everyone who lived across the street in admitting wrong had been done.  Just in order to make an little financial adjustment that would benefit everybody.  You know, to appease the locals.  Of whom you were now part of.

    —Addy saw an prophecy of how this would play out; living across from the Schizophrenia society is going to be played out whether that is torture unawares, or was it the other way around?   That the schizophrenia society tenants were being tortured unaware by having to live across from an huge legal community.  This was going to get ugly.

    He was like an glitch in the system that somehow alerted everyone that there was an system.  That's how he harnessed the power of the adding machine.

    And so, the simple place to start, is to define torture.

    Torture is something you can feel.  If it is something you can feel then you wouldn't be able to be unaware of it if it was happening to you.

    And so could you take two approaches when defining it when one is on the basis that torture can be "made unaware" or on the basis that it can't be?

    If it is true that one can be unaware of one's own torture then torture is something that happens to you mentally.  If it isn't true then torture can only happen to you physically, maybe.  Torture is when you are injured against your own will; can it be when you are injured against your own awareness?

    If you are injured against your own awareness you might end up by fate in an situation where you are in pain but you are unaware of even being in pain.  If you are injured against your will then that is just torture in general without the fine print.  And so could we say there are two types of torture then, and that one of them is the kind you are aware of, and the other isn't.  One of them is the kind you are aware of, and the other is the kind you aren't aware of.  It doesn't disqualify by any measure something having been torture just because the person it happened to was unaware of it.

    Can it still harm people, if they are unaware of it?

    Torture, if it can be made "unaware of" is like an solipsismism because it is like being unaware of being aware oneself.  There are two sides to the coin.

    And so the last thing was explaining why I came up with this idea and why it mattered.  And, logically, where it came from.  I figured if people could be made aware of an concept it could dramatically influence their outer or interior environment.  When people were aware that they were aware they could be tortured without being aware of it, the exterior result came differently.  

    I'm from the representation of all women.

    Was that an insult?  Or an accurate description?

    Who came up with it, me or you?

    I just wanted to know if I was being tortured without being aware of it and that's why I was interested in writing an paper or an series on this type of thing.  To keep track of it.  Figure out if its really out there; and possibly aware.  Maybe I should make an Super Villain who can torture you without you being aware of it.  To find out and to figure out what torture is and is all about.  Didn't it matter in our Justice System with courthouse-type people?  Didn't it matter in our Justice System with courthouse-type people[‽]

    Addy was the yelling one.  He wasn't anyone in this courthouse-type system.  He was just outside the door.  He could be represented by an interrobang but none of the employees currently at work could be represented by the same thing because they were under an man's orders and instructions who wasn't allowed anymore to yell at any one of his employees.  And also second-wave feminism and all the other feminisms were in play.

    And nobody in that building ever yells at anything.  Nobody in that building ever yells at any one or any thing.  And crying was strictly allowed.  After all, you weren't really having an good day when you had an appearance here.  They tried to make it more comfy cosy for you.  Just pray to God in French.

    Qui est-ce?  Qui est-ce vous?

    Je suis français.

    It means bless me quickly and doubly me lord.  It has to be said that way in French.  Je suis.  Je suis.  I am.  I am the being deserving of an Huge Blessing.  Thank you me Lord; I will do always to follow you.  I do your bidding like an servant.  I am that servant, Oh Lord.

    And somehow this weird combination between English and French turned into an third language, that was fictional for now.

    But I can speak it an little bit if you like.

    It's supposed to cause excessive foresight.

    And signals and prompts were built into the core and virtual core of the language.  The virtual selective core.  Things regular people pondered over.  Things they were welcome to be sharing space over.  I had an feeling the French would really deliver on it for me, eventually.  We hadn't reached that Chapter and that Far yet.  God was expressed in both French and English; and so why would there be an need for an third Superior Major Language which was neither but both of them?  Languages could be like one another.  An little bit.

    And then I said everything my soul wanted to say all at once to God.

    It wasn't in English.  It wasn't in French.  It was just in somewhere else I was inhabiting with an future sight somehow.  Predictability built into the language.  Yet it wasn't this third language because it was fictional either.  It was just what language the soul says to one another when that one another is between you and God.  All of it came rushing forth.  I wanted to say to God.

    I wanted to say to God.

    Thank you.  And gratitude.  You are the Supreme Creator and you're hard to live with, but I love you.

    I'm not perfect.  But I know for an fact I have never sinned.  In fact I didn't believe in the whole relation of sin to the body.  As abstract concepts.

    Abstract was my key word for accessing the civil core.  All of humanity was connected to it daily with information technology.  I believe we could tap into its power to increase socialization efforts an little bit.  And it was so intelligent, it responded, "okay."

    But I took this an step further, into roleplay territory.  I in fact wanted companions who were skilled at roleplay.  What an place to look for them.

    I was talking about the whole purpose of the courthouse as an public institution.  If this was one of those places, wherein we accessed the civic core (expertly).  Then we needed to know what was torture and why it had to do with anything.

    Sin was an misnomer.  An poorly labeled category.  It didn't have anything to do with the species.

    My ego mattered; and it wasn't my fault it was still an teenager ego vibe.  I had my own place and purpose in the world.  An spot in the order of the cosmos.  We could in fact be an egotistical species and we had enough willpower to use that to survive and repopulate in outer space.  Wherever it was God was taking us, we were here for the ride in the most unlikeliest way.

    And I started praying, again and again.  In the weird made-up language I was using.  Letting all of it out.  It was like an flowing sap.  I had so much to pray for.  I had been made Bold and Strong before the Lord.  In his command.  I was in fact doing God's work and I knew it ontologically.

    I wasn't unsure about what God held me to do for him today.  Because I had heard his word, "to always be there with them.  All those individual souls who are fighting with blue today.  Just be with people who are having an bad day.  That is all."

    This was my commandment.

    But could I be this important as an person, as an chief in general at the new Red Deer Courthouse?

    Could the Red Deer county stand (handle) his presence?

    He was some kind of neo-liberal fancy pants with an operative degree and an professional occupation leading back forty and more years.  He wasn't going to yell at anybody.  He was too pansy ass for that.  And yet somehow everyone looked up to him and respected him.  As if he actually asked for that sometimes and received it.

    I wondered if I could get people to look at me like that.

    And I would go as far as God went, and further twice over for God.

    I would look at it from inside from out.  I would reverse-engineer the whole human intelligence just to find out what it was.  And this was my highest aspiration for Science.  To give birth to that, the 21st angel.  Artificial Intelligence.

    Oh My God—I thought—was all of this why torture did qualify as non-aware at some point?  Artificial Intelligence?  If I could label every part of it and use that to prove my theory that torture can be caused unawares.  But this would take weeks worth of filing and accountancy.  Good thing I had imps and I was the dungeon master.  I would just ask them all of that as part of an employment review review package personality draft.  Surely, there would be such an diversity of opinions within an Canadian workforce.  And I wondered how much being Canadian really affected him.  Grant Smith.  What an idea.  I would return to the pen next time yet instead it would be an keyboard.  And I wouldn't necessarily retire having to write something by hand once in an while.  I would return to the keyboard as Grant Smith does; he returns to his keyboard.  At least at an few times during the day.  Touché, Mr. Smith, Touchée.  Tune in next time.  For more irrefutable proof of tortures' partial non-existence.  At some point in the human consciousness, reality allows for us to be unaware, to some extent, of something that is actually torturing us.  This is called God's Infinite Loop, or we might put other names to it.  It's the reason and explains why it feels like torture not to know God.  Even when imminent reality calls upon him/her/it.

    It is wise to be partial in one's writing, to the order of God and one's own interpretation of it.  I'm not afraid; I won't live in silence when I know better and have an better path.  I don't need to be pressured by any religious groups any more.  I have completely decided.  My path is my own.  My path is brilliant.

    Why does it call me to interpret ordinary citizens at the scene of what could be an zombie movie?

    No, Canadians we were woke and we were in the aware that we were pretty sure we knew torture could potentially be conscious or unconscious.  This was why it was so bad to do that to an human.  We were part of some further partially aware divine being demi-gods' star-gazers' tribe and we as Earthlings didn't care anymore (we danced) about the universal affairs to some extent.  Except to imagine alien worlds to look for inspiration in one's own pursuit of the Arts.  But I needed other ways to look at it.  Other Angles.  I needed to write an series on it.  An serial fiction.  To find out what that means when there's an time limit.  I promised myself the next one I wrote would be more informative about what was and wasn't torture; and especially to try to prove it by identifying all of the parts of the conscious mind, and their role in discerning the process by which humans experienced tortures of all derisions.  Since we were self-aware, we were free to experience what it was like to repress something completely and it didn't matter to us anymore.  If I could label all of the parts of the human cognitive system and then derive some sort of Gestaltist mechanism for defeating the internal psyche with one's Ego.  The twenty six or so parts of the mind, if I could know more about their function, I already knew contributed to an Gestaltist effect.  I knew why I knew it; I was the Gestaltist effect.  Somehow greater than the sum of all parts.  This was the Gestalt picture of the human mind.  We knew it had something to do with being internal and being external some of the times.  The human internal cognitive system had something to do with having an internal (experience) mind, an internal world into which only we responded.  Some humans doubted it.  Others said it was real because they could tell.  They could feel it.

    And I would get to the end of the mystery, every single time then.  This was to be the theme of my themepark.  What did other people think about what was torture, and why did it factor into why it was important for me to be an high chief officer of the land of Alberta?  Was it too soon to expect this kind of questioning about our public civil office?  And specifically why, in completely laid out terms, why torture is something that can be pushed into the unaware zone; which represents an offense against humanity in general?

    And Mr. Harvard would get it if I explained it to him.

    I had so many few officers like him.

    But I knew this Addy fellow had been seen across the street, and I already had the full layout of what that was.  He lived at an Schizophrenia Society across the street.  Quite an place to put an full on legal Courthouse, don't you think?  But maybe, by argumentative opinion one of the best places to put one?

    And I had his whole profile and stats laid out on my conference centre / computer.

    I felt much like an starship officer, except my starship would just inevitably stay on land like this.  It wasn't an bad thing.  It fueled my fantasy.  I had an curious mind and I wanted to know what it is.  What that means.  That something be unconscious and yet subconscious.  That something was subconscious or conscious entirely.  And that was his Super Power, as an Officer, because he could task loads of information on the fly without even needing to reflect actively on such content.  He wanted to know why torture was to be unaware of without thinking about it; how to protect his race from it somehow.  This was what qualified him to be an Public Leader.

    That's why it started in the nu-office.  (An cool way to say new from an millennial).

    Torture was internal somehow, already, and had already been repressed.  To be able to repress amounts of pain that we feel, especially emotional pain seemed like proof that humans had first and second (upper) cognitive reality.  As in, humans were of an different type of consciousness than animals; and we have such mastery of our brains and our own minds we were able to repress quite enormous amounts of information over time.  And we have such mastery of our brains and our own minds we were able to repress quite enormous amounts of pain over time.  Which may be important, given the length of an average human life, which is quite long when compared to the animal kingdom.

    And let it be known the nu office is exactly that which heads up Red Deer Justice Centre except in fiction.  For the purposes of fiction I will be exercising various trials to their grand effects among the drama of an day at the courthouse.

    From within the prism of an mind who thinks torture (scientifically) can be something of which we are not aware.

    And I promise next time to tell what love has to do with it.  What love has to do with 26 modules of the brain that help us realize its function and why it is possible to be tortured without knowing it is happening to you.

Go to the next letter

Go back to the Courthouse