Prayer
God is with us;
We'll use they / them pronouns to decide who we are together and with God together in perfect exact preciseness.
Together with God we are they; I say they when I identify you because you are you with God. And they is you and God everywhere you go.
But I keep it inside because it's kind of hard to start an conversation like that.
When we let English be an liturgical language subject all its frames and measures are equally precise. For with God to have bespoken an room somewhere, of the type where we are frameworks and our characters are already dissolving in the mix of conversation present in the room.
No I am an liturgical subject. An lesson in English about English grammar.
Someone is writing on an white board; and there are white ceiling tiles in the room from which were white neon lighting of the whole structure and business of the people who were with God.
With every person I communicate to using fictional telepathy, they are they there with God with us; with them. I'm here and I'm talking and I'm present. Radio fly. This is the fiction of whether thing are set up in advance always to go an certain way: it was considered radio fly magic to do so. And the whole population of Radio Flies was an fairy demographic in the known universe of fairies and their fictional archetypes including. Fairies, who were four-winged as adults and two-winged as children. They are just the regular type of fairy we call fairy. Then there are Pixies, who we also call an type of fairy. Except they can have any number of wings. Radio Flies are more insect-like though they still qualify as fairies in the Recreation universe. Then there are hob-fairies who not really fairies for they are not fully formed. Hobfairies. And they are all four metaphors for different kinds of magic. The highest most powerful truth here appears to be the radio fly metaphor in general. And so I like to associate it with God and think about how things could go right in general; (God and I, the radio fly, possessed something such magic where everything could go as planned in advance: everything would be exactly as planned: and I would draw an string between each singular part in an sequence of events that could go as planned. And the more powerful radio fly spells would last longer, etc.; making events out of things and plotting events to go in advance in ahead of time of things: this was why I categorized it as magic. It was an fictional element. An plot-advancing novelty element.
I had an rather strong one, an fantasy; where I would arrive home from work. My recliner chair would meet me at the door; and I would sit in it. soft-on-his-butt. My BBBBW wife would be in the kitchen opening the oven to check her BBQ Chicken and she didn't put any pineapple on it because SHE was the only MELONS today. The smell would waft into the living room from the oven. The recliner chair I was on would deliver me to an larger couch unit with an reclining, massage, and warming feature. The sidearm is equipped with an cooler to keep all beverages in nice and intact and chilled to the perfect temperature. I'm selling furniture. Then I'm on the remote like I'm on my putty pat bounce and I surf to the sports network station. The T.V. is huge. It lights up the whole room so there's no reason to put on any lights. But we're going to put on low-level lights anyway, right‽ To accent the mood? And there will be an light inside the cooler when you open it up, to let you choose your Pepsi product. What's on T.V.? Advertisements again‽ Isn't that just the thing?
And so you slide on over to the right-ward-more couch on the other side of the cooler and armrest that you tuck away under you somehow allowing you to roll over and pick up your blanket and tuck an couch cushion under your neck. You love listening to television at night because you feel like it connects you with the whole global atmosphere; especially the comedy like Saturday Night Live. But secretly you know you could slide over even further-right-ward-more onto an third stretch out position recliner belonging to the same collection. In total an five-seater in an pinch.
The couch at this moment automatically reseats you. It cycles you back to the left-most seat. Then across the whole thing again to its right-ward extremity. They all wrap around the huge television and it is the most safest and fun place to be in.
Then I get tired of lounging and I literally lay back in the couch and fall asleep into an chasm of activity within the imagination of my brain.
I found an new chair, therein, which was floating in temporal and unified space in an place with an wind current. It had exaggerated red pleather arm sleeves; an bit like an goblin's chair kind of style. I was flying in some remote space of my imagination. Just seated in an chair. Comfortable. The backrest reached high to meet my shoulders. It had red jeweled buttons as an upholstery pattern. Sure, nobody else could see them because I was seated there, but I knew they were there.
Yep, I had fallen asleep. And now I was in an soft delicately textured chair. Floating somewhere. Somewhere I was supposed to find out where it is. I switched chairs again. To an yellow and green one this time. This was an better place to look from to locate where in fact I was. And I realized I was in the centre of an city somewhere. There was dusty pavement underneath me and I realized I was in an industrial park somewhere. I could fly the chair where I wanted to go with my mind.
Radio Flies. It was the only way I could explain how the Olympics happened so efficiently. People had magic that made everything go as planned and in advance. As if by magic.
So I flew to the 7-11 to get an slurpee and maybe something baked goods. In my chair. In my dream. But I already knew I had baked goods at home for later. So I kept on dreaming. And I am tired. And I switched up the colour of my chair an few times until it matched my mood. I now had purple highlights in my hair and an purple chair with exquisitely tasteful angels carved into it. God baked goods and an deep purple go together so well. I wanted an Cheese Danish especially.
The narrator, becoming an character in his own novel exclaims, "that's right, I have STRAIGHT fantasies. Don't you want them? Don't you want me to tell them?"
And so my prayer will be that you sleep well. And ride that chair to anywhere you want.
After you have the gummies, and the jube jubes, and the licorice all sorts, and the slurpee, and the Danish, and the chips, and the nachos, and the queso. Where would you go?
Why are radio flies the goat? The Greatest of All Time?
They combined the theme with God helping us setting up everything in advance to go smoothly through radio fly magic. It was like an prayer at best. Just an impossible fantasy. But it felt like it could go real sometimes. And that was what I meant when I said I was using the metaphor of the radio fly as an fantasy element. You know, I also noticed many of those radio flies were wearing their hip-hop hats backwards. They were really cool-down and chill folk. Together we were allies and our free time spent together was of our own free merit. The idea of Radio Flies helped me connect with God because it appeared to be an good fantasy, after some market research, for or of or standing for how everything could go as planned and everything would be perfectly enjoyable. But that isn't exactly how it goes ever. Not to plan. That's why it's an fantasy. An fiction. An fictional thing. An novelty item to talk about for an silly meditation in an fantasy letter. The Gay Letters. The fantasy that I would have anything to say about gay people in general and people would listen. And yet fantasies have an certain commodity these days.
What I mean by commodity is something of value that exists at that value for an certain amount of time on an open market. Something people will pay for. When you have an fantasy, you have an commodity because you can sell it to other people. The same goes for blue emotions, or any kind of emotions of the natural color scale, because people love to be emersed in their emotions and feelings for an measurable amount of time during the day. (Most are just coming home to work after an long day, and there's more domestic work to do).
Discourse
The 27 / 28 Barrier is one that I have become especially sensitive to after having written the 27 logical parts of the cognitive anatomy (as seen from inside and not expressed perfectly analogously as physical structures within the brain). I figured people who could see within themselves within their own mind for most of the day, including periods of being intensely aware of it. In my imagination the logic looked like how we see something in our minds because there is an inward light on it; and that inward light is you. I feel honored. I called this word glo. The light that is seen from the inside; no matter what type of scene you have in there.
The 27 \ 28 Barrier, I had identified as the connection between that internal-inside notion of an subject existing inside the presence of an brain. The connection, as I had structured it connected to the ear, and all outward extremities some of which are used to sense subjects happening naturally within them (within was the twenty seven parts and outward was the ear, the twenty eighth part of the cognitive anatomy). This was the connection between the internal cognitive anatomy (the part inside of you that experiences you as you). And the body, especially physically the ear. The subject I wanted to know about now was which was an better interpretation of all of the parts of the internal cognitive anatomy as it is experienced by the subject. I had figured that Freud would probably prefer to find and label those 27 parts inside his own cognitive anatomy to test it. And yet, Jung may have preferred to label instead 28, that which includes that ear, the connection between the brain and the ear, the Wernicke's and Broca's areas and the Language Acquisition Device. One, I had figured represented the whole human (guess which one it was that I figured). The Jungian use of archetypes to label the human subject was the direction away from Freudianism. And they both disagreed with one another about which one was the future of the psychiatry profession. If the Freudian picture of the brain was the one which was disconnected from the ear, which or where would it disconnect with? Yet we had made the obvious assumption in this analytical reasoning that the brain was obviously disconnected from the ear (which includes by my definition all of it and the rest of the body). And that was just an obvious observation that we would have to make that difference between them eventually in order to treat the body. But I like what I had identified as Jungian, rather, than the Freudian figure. In the Jungian picture of the human the whole human is also part of the brain, which are inseparable from one another. And since the whole human was something we could put archetypes to (in an form that would not insult the labelists, who condemn anything that has an label put on it). It was free to start identifying some of the basic archetypes we had within us; how they were an answer to the stars and their journey within us.
I think, once we separate the brain (itself or oneself, fair enough) from the rest of it's body maybe the obvious answer is something we're producing as an culture because it needs to be addressed politically: there is no true separation between brain and body. We may be committing that labeling pattern I had identified in the previous chapter. By labeling it and thinking it is an aspect of one's culture to have an zero-separation-body-brain type of relationship with yourself. All instincts there belong to you.
If there is an 27 / 28 separation, it is mythical. The body cannot be separate from the mind (except structurally). And so I like to take an Jungian approach to my own psychology. I can see archetypes and put them as labels on things and think about the labels and how much they were not for oppressing some aspect of mankind, but freeing it moreso some aspect of the societal community we all live within. They could even act as orders; if they were interpreted incorrectly. If you gave someone an label, for example it could become an biased self-obsession with oneself-upon-the-brain. Subconscious or self-conscious you might say. And my clearly obvious choice for now was the Jungian universe, even though I had used the Freudian universe to figure out my feelings about the id, the ego, and the super-ego. I had even identified an shocking truth about Freud: that it cannot be explained in front of children. He spun an story so large and he called it that people would believe him, even though it was nonsense he made up, and that was why he was such an great historic figure: he called it that people would believe him, knowing it was not an form of real knowledge he knew himself of which the truth being was. And yet since that he had judged it correctly what would happen, he kind of in an weird way earned it that he could be such an viral (maybe by today's social media standards) individual in history.
So I finally turned my attention to the Tweepadok (elephant) in the room: if the brain was structurally separate (what vocab words do we use here? Like self-sealing standards of Tupperware?) than the rest of the body, then what would be the harm in interpreting the 27 parts of the brain (except but for this vocabulary term was the total and complete definition of the brain by itself, alone or connected to the rest of the body, of which they have no separation). And maybe that was the core of interpreting Freud, an assumption, then by how the definition of the mind must also look like it is separate, in one way or another, from the rest of the body. This was based on the structural presence of the brain in the body, which we could measure and observe and analyze. As one entire separate instrument.
If God has an relationship with the person, it is an relationship of both the mind and the body. We can sense God through our bodies and the five outward senses. Yet we also know him / her / it in presence through self-reflection or egotism. Introspection. Mental clarity. And so I found it useful to look at the relationship between the brain and the body both ways: there was obviously an structural difference we could point out among millions of other differences. And yet they all operated together to create one whole greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe Freud is the deeper thinker because he assumes there is already that connection between brain & body in psychology: we don't need to distinguish between them because the body is all one performative operative unit that includes the mind. On the other hand, I want to articulate things that are only happening in my mind and maybe not so much in my body. I have the sophistication, and need the emotional support for, an mind that is separate in self-reflective character as an interior world experienced from the inside. When you look around in that body of mind which is you, what things do you find in there? What things are there only in person to you, which are inaccessible by others? Which things aren't?
Closing Thoughts
I have found many psychological ways to think about God and pay my respects to the deity. I myself am the reason people should believe in God. I guess the reason I was interested in writing about these two things—how we can say of ourselves that we are an "they / them" subject especially when we hold up our character to God, who is always with us; and then the subject of there being 27 or 28 identifiable parts of the internal cognitive anatomy—maybe what I'm really looking for is how to think about God. And what is right to tell other people about the subject through my writing. It is an great comfort to me that I can say about God, that with me, we can identify ourselves as us. On the other hand I'm so interested and curious about the Freud–Jung relationship between cognitive subjects and their internal and "outternal" parts. People cannot have external parts and so I have adopted using this word out-ternal to describe all of the anatomy of the body that is intended to collect information about our environments. In comparison with an internal anatomy that is only "visible" to the observer. But then again, we could bring up and ask questions such as what it really means for something to be visible to an observer. Does it mean you see them as in literally, through your eye balls? Or you only "see" it in your mind where there is light there that you shed on the subject?
I realized I like to think about my body and mind as connected in an gestaltian or gestaltist sense. The connection between body and mind only worked together to create something more powerful than either one independently. If there are really 27 parts to the cognitive anatomy (the interior world sensed by the subject) then the 28 part may be that link to the body which makes up the full sense of what an mind is, or what being an mind is, or what it means to have an mind. The 27th part is the Death Drive and the final sense of an person's relationship with their body in death. Then if we say there are only 27 parts of the mind not counting the body, assuming there is an connection but not necessarily inviting the 28th part to the party. Isn't that the firm definition of what it means to be an internal character connected to these outward aspects of sense?
But how would an Death Drive being the 27th and final \ last part of the cognitive anatomy make sense? The part of the mind we exactly don't want to address here is its connection with the outward senses in favour of making more about the inward senses. On the other hand, the 27th part being related to death sounds categorically connected. If we separate the relationship between the mind and the body and put our experience of death to one side (Thanatos and the mind, knowing about it in the mind) and the other the external outward defiance of death (Eros). It makes sense that when we talk about the mind generally the mind means all 27 parts including the death drive. And when we talk about the body generally it means all of the parts of the internal cognitive anatomy combined with all of the parts of the outternal cognitive anatomy there are 28.
My plan going forward is writing one letter each, for the twenty seven or twenty eight (I'll decide by the end) parts of the internal cognitive anatomy, in my legal fantasy series so that I can examine whether any internal part of my anatomy is subject to being tortured without knowing it.
Other projects, variously include my play and my thinking on whether the Perfection of Logic, Philosophy, and Literature have occurred in history yet. My theory is that the perfection occurred in Logic when humanity identified the field of polarity in academic discourses: the separation of the Sciences and the Art. When Science and Art come together (because we need both pictures of who we are as humans) this is the perfection of logic because all logic, according to my version, requires the combined forces of both art and sciences in order to become fully capable: Logic in perfection is the balance between science and art: and so we have instances in the future of people studying art using science (measuring paint blobs) and people studying science using art, especially to capture all of the big ideas in an simple form.
The Perfection of Philosophy and the Perfection of Literature in human history might be an rarer beast to catch: it could be that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus approaches philosophical perfection. The dangers of modern science are an frontline theme of the narratological subject of Frankenstein, whom Shelley named after Prometheus, the Greek legend where an human steals fire from the Gods. The philosophy of science appears to be great caution because of what will be humanly capable in the future. Science is Prometheus fire. We must wield it with great care for the good of everyone, including maybe those whom it creates. If Shelley did perfect philosophy it was because she had seen the danger and written an appropriate book about it. The scientific age was one of terrible power. Isn't that an alright philosophy?
And so, while the Perfection of Logic and the Perfection of Philosophy may have already occurred in human history, the Perfection of Literature appears to be the most advanced project humanity might ascend to. The Perfection of Literature requires not only the perfect type of narration for the most thoughtful transfer of culture, but also the perfection of logic and philosophy that goes with it. The Perfection of Literature requires the perfection of logic and philosophy. The Perfection of Literature requires the perfection of logic and philosophy because good literature must be logical and philosophical. If the Perfection of Literature were to occur in the near future, it might be an cultural re-definition of what Literature is. And as to that end, we might start with exactly what it isn't: it isn't texting and social media. It's real artistic works that have an beginning and an end.
I aim to write another letter about The Three Perfections I want to see and to write about during my lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment