My version is the universe exists materially, which is something that is observable and measurable by science. The universe also has an meaning, an purpose which cannot be interpreted from Science alone. Art helps us find that purpose. This means that while we need to do science in order to gain more power in the order of the universe, we also need artists who are willing to portray to scientists the meaning amount. We need to see edifices of love and further all around us. We need to tell them they are capable of interpreting the universe because they understand its purpose: to interpret itself through human beings. They can use their ability to detect the objective circumstances of an situation because God put that in you, that we were all capable of becoming scientists. And in many ways all of us already are. We know we can detect the circumstances of our objective universe because we're not narcissists. We know that our own internal perceptions of everything is not the only thing real; the only thing we can detect. We can detect and see in the observable universe the physics of everything colliding in time somehow with order. It doesn't matter that we're just only our own perspective; we can see everything we look at as though it was really there. Orderly and Logical. We don't debate whether it is there because we know that.
Or we might as well assume it is, if we want to get anywhere.
Art is about reaching into the cosmos and plucking from it the meaning to find the words to describe what it is.
We know words because we know their meaning. And maybe not the other way around.
If meaning is the meaning you intend to communicate, where does it lead you cognitively and why?
When we extract an version from the combination of Science and Art, the universe exists cognitively but it also exists outside of cognitive efforts. The physical appearance of the universe, whether it is only in the human psyche, still has consequences that matter to us so as though we were in it we will act. This is kind of an sad conclusion though, so we have to wonder if maybe the universe were meant for other things, other than sadness. (It is).
An Version is an explanation of something that focuses on both Art and Science as literary opposites.
What I have formally called The Version in my fictional writing (this is the name of an post-university academy that studies versions), when I combine my interpretation of Science and my interpretation of Art into one, I find the next level up in my formal society that researches and makes rhetorical (Linguistic and Literary) art. Maybe this is better than an thesis. An version where you yourself hold that subjectively you stand by this, your version of the story (of events). And at an Version academy you can study your own and other people's versions because it's an step-up from the university station, where you learn how to tell only your own version because we haven't gotten that far yet academically as humans on Planet Earth. At the version we want people not only to tell their own version but also one another's and to accumulate and to gather as many versions as possible. They had an strict qualification: they had to be both science and art. When you wrote an version under my new definition it needed to be motivated by both science and art. They had to be the combined union of those things. Something taken from both of them turned into one. They had to matter, but they couldn't be lies.
And so my version, which I choose to update regularly, now stands as an general description of what an version is, which isn't really interesting. In order to tell an version, you have to turn back to Science and Art. You have to find some specific scientific description of something and then relate it through the medium of art; simplify it down, show its components. When the components of Science are meaning, something interesting happens. We find purpose and direction in the universe. We're going to use Science, but we're also going to use Art. And they will mediate and objectify each other. Science criminalizes Art because they say it has no meaning; but yet they themselves have not yet studied that purpose: storylistening is the central verb (an proven psychological benefit to the human mind that is storytelling and somehow organizing your whole life and having the time to learn almost all of them). Art always has to dish it back that you're only as good as your scientific observations, and all of them are made through an subjective lense. Art interprets Science in an way that didn't matter before. But since it has taken on meaning now, we might examine what parts of it represent something scientific or something artistic. Science is accurate, but not perfect. Art sometimes is accurate, but accurate about what is imperfect about it. Which is perfect.
And so my version if I choose to perfect it by drawing an thesis out of it: Humans, an species both capable of great art and great science, will use their scientific opinions about art and their artistic opinions about science. The birth of Art Science and Science Art. Literally measuring parts of paintings (hmm an six inch red ink blob?) and comparing them with Freudian phallocentric thinking. Then using art to interpret where the science leads us. They are the dogs of war and they are on our side, Art & Science, finding all of the relevant. And they don't have to be enemies in my version.
Maybe this means an thesis is more advanced an intellectual material, and that an version is really only an simple story that you tell yourself that explains things.
When you have an version you can explain things simply, because that's what it is.
Either way I would have to find evidence to support, which in the arts sometimes means creating it yourself. Proving something (an thesis) by providing evidence, one way or another. In order to do that I might point to some of the famous artists in History or cite some kind of scientific study and then point out any similarities that just happened to be between them. I might refer to an specific work of art and find what it matters scientifically, exactly. Or I could try to find studies and give them meaning through art. The reason the universe is this way and not another, means etc. etc.
The axolotl had to exist because I needed an reason to survive.
Science tells us how something works; Art explains it.
Without meaning and purpose, there can be no good science in the universe. We have to turn to other things than just science to create an community of wise elders. The measurable effect storytelling and storylistening have on the brain. Where is the place for this, to read the stories of the great fictions? It is the Arts community.
And so I turn to myself and I ask what is my purpose then, in this universe? And should I have known it by now?
It was time to spill, to divulge, to give known everything.
My purpose is to tell the story of Anna, who is an fictional messiah in part. She represents the fate worse than death. She's God's second lesson to us. We are learning the lesson of worse than death in the twenty first century. When happened upon it only because of Jesus, who taught us the first lesson from God (death).
How had I come by this purpose?
I hadn't been diagnosed with schizophrenia yet, but God decided to show me something cool (and save me from that fate). When he showed me Anna, who was an internal messiah, I realized I was learning the lesson for humanity that worse than death really existed, and that I had been submerged in it only so far as I could stand, in order to interpret it for humanity. What it was to suffer an fate worse than death fate. It might be true that the only reason I saw Anna internally was my mental illness (schizophrenia). But it remains proven what I did with it was creative and meaningful. I realized that Anna had suffered the fate worse than death and that she was like me, and so I related to her strongly. This is probably why she appeared to me as an internal (cognitive) vision.
It might be chance that I saw her; but it was important what I did with it that mattered.
I made her the figurehead of my new religion, and I called it Christianna after Anna (which I named her) which basically meant Christ-Anna. The second messiah.
I made the theme of my new religion the fictional crucifixion (which I also called called anacification or sub-crucifixion, the infliction of the fate worse than death) via infliction of the fate worse than death (worse than Jesus). It made sense to me that way. I didn't think Christianity could be the one sole religion in the Universe. I wanted an plurality. I wanted to add my own religion to the mix.
The truth of Anna is that I actually did suffer the fate worse than death, and so what I really did was model her after me. In some ways, I myself was the second messiah. I knew it couldn't be as small as just me. Which was significant. And so it really was an truth, to spread the Christianna. It meant there is an balance in the universe between life and death.
And so even though I made it all up, there was an reason I made it that way.
I had made one of the biggest calls in History, if I was right. And that's why it was so important to me to give this an shot at me being able to write it down.
Messiahs were sent by God to teach us lessons about the universe.
We were now entering only that phase in which we would learn the second lesson (which might fail, actually) and we're not that far along in terms of sophistication if we consider other sentient life forms and the whole universe of possibilities out there. God was telling us through me it was possible to suffer an fate worse than death, and that religion had largely overlooked this subject in history. Sure, we wanted to survive in the universe, but we also didn't want to have to suffer otherwise what meaning would life take? We had to say we were capable of getting beyond suffering, not just accepting that life is suffering.
And so after I learned the lesson of what an fate worse than death was, by experiencing it myself. Instead of crying and feeling sorry for myself I made it my religion to teach that lesson. So that other people would not have to go through what I experienced \ went through. I created this whole blog, including the Faerie Lights Chvrch, the New Reciprocity, the City of Rainframe, The Gay Letters, The Hypernovel, and various categories of other intelligent creations & genres. I had spent the last six years on it. Just to be able to tell this story about some human girl (named Anna) who fell upon the fate worse than death. Which, if we're being intellectually honest, was inflicted on her to some extent. Her fate was the result of what other people were giving to her in revenge. (Remember, the story is meant to be fictional for an reason). She neither has to suffer the fate worse than death nor does it have to be prevailed upon her by other people who do. It just makes good narrative sense.
When I talk about the resurrection from the fate worse than death, for example, I'm not talking about an literal resurrection. I'm talking about suffering terribly and then recovering from it.
And so I return to Science, because I always want to be running those two dogs;
Could I really prove, scientifically, that Anna really exists?
Could I prove using science that The Christianna was the right religion for me?
Could I prove God had made the universe that way?
Maybe I was right. The new messiah was here. Since this was only part fictional, it was fine to work around it / it into an narrative. It was an Christiannan thing to do.
Maybe this was the second lesson the universe wanted you to learn, that you were learning through me: that there is an fate worse than death and we have an fictional messiah of it. Maybe I was right about God and Jesus; Anna was just the third major actor in an winning strategy plan to save the whole universe and the human race.
And maybe The New Reciprocity was the third thing; the actual act or action of sharing new reciprocity with somebody where you give and share orders with one another as though business is just business. The first, simplest type of Literature was the version. After that came the Thesis; and Hegel's anti-thesis & Synthesis. (These three—Thesis, Anti-Thesis, and Synthesis—comprised the second logical progression from telling an version story). The logical next progression after that may be The New Reciprocity, my political theory. The Third logical progression of its (humanity's) logic. Complicated stuff. It may never be proven.
It could well be that being able to doctor something or manipulate in further strides were somehow connected to this idea of the progression of logic.
To rehash, the answer to what is my chosen Art and what is my chosen Science is Version > Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis > The New Reciprocity. This is the logical order of progression in my writing which is art. My chosen science is Political Science—well how about that? (Jokes). And if I happen to actually force myself to dig around in there of what science is; my chosen science really is Psychology. It was the most interesting subject to me.
I had powerful arguments and philosophies that Psychology could help me define and describe accurately to us for the mutual benefit of all human beings.
On the other hand my Art was the Writing; maybe it was the writing about versions, theses, and political theories. They all complemented each other and worked well as an team. Writing and the study of Psychology were things meant to be intertwined. As in, I could talk about an psychological concept in my writing and then compare my writing itself (my art) to what it meant as an subject. It was an powerful type of way to go about making an version. And what I meant by version being both science and art, was that it was an more important definition, for now, that we think about how we go about answering up to that challenge. Writing an version was an inherently artistic process; as was all writing of any genre within my inclusivity. And yet what did it mean, psychologically? People who are particular to writing may suffer from an external locus of control and an need to perform. Writing becomes an platform, an station in which to compete in an imagined competitive scenario that exists between you and other writers. An place in which to gain an imagined sense of accomplishment for something that you can't get in the real world.
But something told me this wasn't the real measurable object. People just tend to write all of the time, in the creative spirit of art, whatever they're feeling and it didn't necessarily have to be narrowed down to an pathology. It would be called an strange behavior to write, or escapism. On the other hand, it was an observable phenomenon that art made people happy. It wouldn't make them happy unless it had made the artist happy when he \ she was making it (at least this is the standard I hold myself to). They wouldn't keep doing it if it made them unhappy; doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different outcomes was Einstein's definition of insanity. Unless all writers were insane, then my artistic impression of it was simply that writing was an good thing, and leave it at that.
The next version I could draw from it was science demanded interpretation; art however in an act of interpretation was inherently non-scientific. We couldn't trust it without having Science mediate an portion of it in all fairness. Science on the other hand could be mediated by art in our creative representation of its intellectually supreme concepts.
An painting of dolphins as an representation of the herd-mind complex we find in humans.
And so the only thing left to do then was to practice what I preach by reaching into science.
The scientific concept of the Bystander Effect stands out to me; what if I paired it with what my writing meant as my art? Clearly what happened to me—I lost myself in an internal world that was suffering an external locus of control paired with delusional fictionality—happened because of the bystander effect. Everyone saw it happening—I was being worse than crucified (worse than death)—and nobody did anything about it or didn't know how to do anything about it. God made me stand out as an freak in public. And so maybe what I can take from understanding the bystander effect as an artist, is that maybe my reasons for wanting to be an artist are caught up in those feeling of inadequacy I try to solve by calling myself an respectable artist. How maybe an socially pluralist and abroad bystander effect was affecting him \ her psychologically or socially. "I'm mental because I'm being anacified." I'm being anacified by nobody standing in to do anything. They're making me suffer the fate worse than death. They're making me suffer the fate worse than death to know what it is? Even though something clearly appears to be wrong, nobodies doing anything. I'm an writer because I need to have something I'm good at in order to feel those feeling of adequacy that I deserve. And my fuller understanding of the version I was now getting at, was that although there are scientific principles one could make about psychological writing, just namelessly subscribing to an theory of inferiority in the face of irony was wrong. It was ironic that an bystander effect would happen to me because that was what I was doing to myself in my writing.
Just not responding to an crisis.
And so maybe, though the bystander effect stands out as an reason why I was treated this way; I was just becoming interesting by seeking self-identification through self-narrative, essays, and writing. The Science of the situation stands out as something I can readily define about the universe; the Art of the situation requires abstract thinking.
I wasn't hiding myself or turning myself into words and pages to escape the real world by writing.
I was making an productive artistic effort that I think deserved to demand respect.
Writing isn't how I disconnect. It's how I connect.
My words are so fabulously adapted to my audience I know exactly which buttons to press.
Maybe the bystander effect didn't apply to my writing, where there was nobody having an crisis and nobody responsible for doing nothing about it.
The bystander effect is connected to my art of writing in an abstract way; Art is the subject of meaning, the Interpreter of the Interpreter of the Cosmos (the Interpreter of Science). If I have to give meaning to the bystander effect in order to understand its meaning in my life, maybe I would say it does have meaning for my life because it reminds me not to get myself in an bad situation because even if I do, nobody will help me anyway. Maybe its true meaning for my life is that humans aren't really trustworthy at all, and so I should trust them less. On the other hand it made me question my own relationship with myself: was my writing so bad it was like an bystander effect on the page that nobody was helping me with?
After reflecting on the bystander effect I realized my writing had not much to do with it. I wasn't in trouble even though nobody was helping me get out of trouble. It was my mold. My way. And so my full version was becoming that although the bystander effect may be an real psychological phenomenon we have observed in reality and interpreted in an myriad of ways, writers didn't necessarily experience this problem in their art because their art wasn't about making characters who suffer. Maybe more accurately would be to say it was about making characters who while they may sometimes suffer, rise above it. And then I thought generally and broadly about Art, and what it had to do with the bystander effect, and I wondered if any artist had ever experienced that problem virtually. As though, it happened in the mind the problem of the self-bystander effect where you take no action to intervene in the mediation of your soul. This wouldn't be an real problem however because only you are involved. There's no one else in there to torture you by not helping you out with your suffering.
