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?
No comments:
Post a Comment