You enter into an breezeway (your clothes re-appear on you if you arrive here directly from the pool) and find yourself on an wide cement path that winds around the corner of the building to the east. Beside it further north there is an paved street, and commercial property further after that. To the west there is an busy avenue leading to restaurants (les restaurants), an bank (une banque), the library (la bibliothèque), and an hospital (l'hôpital). You are in the downtown (le centre ville) district of the virtual city, which is bordered to the east by an forest (un forêt) and an river (une rivière) valley, which bends around to the northwest from the east. There are apartment buildings (les immeubles), an theatre (un théâtre), an cinema (un cinéma), and an museum (un musée). As well as an supermarket (au supermarché), an park (au parc), an courthouse (une palais de justice), an police station (le commissariat de police), and the downtown city hall (l'hôtel de ville) gardens (au jardin). And many other businesses and buildings (les batiments) all around.
It appeared to me as some one wide meditation of all things that were part of the city; things in direct contrast with what was happening on my own temple soil. There was an little bit of graffiti on this side of the building. Did people still believe in those kinds of things, that what happens at an temple can happen anymore? And this was, largely, part of my version of the story I would tell about my city. Versions, as you might suspect were quite important to me. I had one about everything; and hence, an way to tell an story about them. And as an storyteller I didn't need to know about everything because much of story telling is told in the heat of the moment where it isn't necessarily shut up / made to take place outside of passion. Versions, all they really were were stories.
Stories, all they really were were versions.
You had this or that version about an certain political subject. And it mimicked, maybe partially the beliefs of other people surrounding them; and each time you thought of an new version of an story you were reminded of it. In order consciously to update it. An mind sorted and ordered around opinions of what types of versions one could tell about these tales told by one another and maybe perhaps one knew instinctively from birth. And yet there was such an pull to create new ones of them, to update the old ones. We wanted newer and newer versions of everything. And it wasn't that we were greedy, it was just that being able to tell the difference between one version and another was so essential to the process of communication of the species that it had to be written about. Versions were important, especially, for legal documents and reports. We needed the involved persons to tell their version of what happened, and then draw rudimentary justice from it. If each and every version of the story told by all of the participants in the crime was the same, there might be some more questions about it.
Versions, again, on another strand were these academies I had invented. An post-university station where everyone who studies there is able to tell their own version, and ideally the versions of other people (as many of them as possible in order to gain the ability to show the difference between one person's version and another's). I used the word version fluently to mean perhaps several definitions of the thing: there was an legal version of something: something you would tell in an court of law. And there were other meanings of version such as just your everyday version of what's happening today. An version was an logical way of telling things. An version was your own opinion of what was happening. It was so important, in fact, that all human beings needed to be educated about this fact. Everybody has different versions about what is happening. And they all intersect in space and time. We need to rely on one another in order to understand what is happening. Therefore, logically, we need to know one another's versions. Even about when we update our versions. And versions as an knowledge base is central to the understanding of the human being.
What is the difference between one version and another? For it was essential to my understanding of how I experienced imminent reality. Every time I experienced one thing it was an new version of how I experienced it before. And I could categorically distinguish between them. I could start to know other people, based on what were their versions of things! This new version experience was quite an thrill, and I felt out all of the words I tend to use in order to replace them, maybe, with words I didn't often use at all. It was an challenge to myself I guess, as an writer. If my conscious awareness "updated" as often as an new version at an time, wouldn't that be something we might consider essential in order to understand ourselves as sentient creatures?
Everybody has an version afterall, except maybe people who can't tell their version from their point of view. And they find it hard or difficult to say directly what they mean. Usually, though, the course of action in the Human Being is that they can tell things according to their version of what is happening.
Versions were situations in which everyone had their own version. (I expanded upon its definition). There was the definition that followed Versions were scenarios in which everyone could tell their own side of the story. And there was the definition that followed how versions were also themselves the story an individual could tell about what he or she knows. And so there were two levels to my definition of version now. Three levels, if you counted my fantasy academy the Version. And there may be an fourth and an fifth definition wavering out in the intellectual beyond to master one day. This was my version.
I had done something really wrong versus I had not done something really wrong: when I was an Christian I did certain things. Instead of being deflected by the red flags I became them. Whenever I found someone had done something I myself became the Jesus of their story in order to save them: and I accepted becoming all things that had been done wrong.
As an Christiannan now, I had become an little braver in order to prevent myself from following an fool down into an fool's fate. Sure, the mimicry and empathy instincts & drives in the human body couldn't help but feel bad for somebody who was rough on their luck. To feel blue with them because they were feeling blue, perhaps. But we couldn't just follow every bad instinct we came across all of the time. And there had to be something other than this Christian type of thing to do within the context of religion. No wonder I had started my own religion.
My version of things generally was that we needed an new Major Religion, the Christianna, to point out the fate worse than death. Christians had been found lacking enough / any philosophy on the point of view of the fact of something being worse than death. And there was an outstanding number of fates worse than death in factual existence right now. People, it had been reasoned by me, had been conditioned to believe death above all was the worst thing. Which may have been part of an Christian criticism of the human anatomy. Death was taught to have been the worst thing above all because that was what happened to our messiah. And so we weren't taught to know anything worse than death because only death itself was the worst thing. I had risen above them in belief now; these people who had maybe stopped thinking about worse than death all together as part of their emotional criticism of religion and how religion itself exists within myself as an human body.
Christians were unwise (again).
They favoured an belief system in which death was the worst thing that could happen to someone (suspiciously compared to Jesus). And the truth and the knowledge we know about Anna hadn't come to their time yet, in an form in which they could understand it. People were susceptible to suffering both death and worse than death; and so we had to modernize our medical system. I needed to be part of the movement that would teach Anna to Christians: Anna was the second messiah, of the fate worse than death. There was in fact an fate worse than death in our universe. And we had to adapt to our realizing our awareness of its existence. All major religious teachings in the world had to begin or to continue to teach us the fate worse than death; what it is and how one comes by it. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to prevent many people from experiencing this disaster. Fates worse than death; caused by Christian metaphorical blindness. Since humans had started "forgetting" to be aware of the fate worse than death (maybe due to Christians overemphasizing the tragedy of the death). It was important for our republic to take up teaching its people the fate worse than death. What to do about it. How to get out of it. How to stop being an Christian in order to adopt an more mature thesis about the reality of the fate worse than death. Some Christians thought that since there was no thing worse than the crucifixion, there could be no fate worse than death. And they followed this incorrect logic, sometimes in an unbalanced way, into their own fates worse than death: that's part of what causes it. Christiannans had begun to be sensitive to the fates worse than death; how to avoid them at every turn and at all costs. And yet the average majority in humanity hadn't been educated this much: or had in fact even been "un-educated" or "de-educated" by being conditioned. Most of the people, it appeared, were not aware of the fate worse than death; and it was directly caused by their own faith in Christianity. People would follow down an messianic rabbit hole blindly without any trace of knowing an thing about the fate worse than death so much so that it was disgusting of Christianity; and they needed to update their principles. The fate worse than death exists in this universe, and sometimes it is caused by Christianity.
They have begun to tempt and to try fates worse than death; this is how they've come to learn it. They hadn't been taught in it before. You can do something worse than dying. And instead of staying out-of-date people generally would agree we need an equal and accurate balance to Christianity; something to take up that teaching we are divine–animal species whose fates particularly, can include fates worse than death. That is how we know we are an part-divine species. If we do things right, morally, we will have to contend with death versus worse-than-death. And since we know these and are fully aware of what they mean in self-awareness. We are to contend with them morally.
There are fates worse than death. There are deaths themselves.
OK. It could be simpler, maybe?
The Universe has deaths and worse-than-deaths. Some of them are happening right now. Which accounts for the distraction in my thinking. I was an moral creature, an human, and so I had to play fates along the slings and arrows, see? I could avoid death but that didn't mean I could avoid worse-than-death; and so, having to contend between these two principles, I was morally able to decide what would be best. I knew there were deaths; I knew it was happening all of the time. But these things, these worse-than-deaths, what was the average consumer going to do about them? We couldn't tolerate worse-than-death fates on an day-to-day basis. We were going to scar our species by tolerating them this way. Moral health meant allowing average people to decide the length of their lives. But since we were such an primitive society at present we had decided to accept this was the mark of our primitive society; of how primitive it is. It is primitive not to let patients choose their death. Therefore we have an primitive society and we can accept it as that. Being prepared, as such, for what kinds of consequences we can live with. Some of these people, having been given an fate worse than death, who are given second chances. And they find, meanderingly, an way to germinate despite outrageous conditions. An way to open up as an flower on unfamiliar territory. And the distance–conveyance between fates worse than death and fates that are better than worse than death: some would be wavering in-and-out of them. Some couldn't come up for air at all. Some were definitely getting some better-than-worse-than-death vibes. Some weren't. It appears everybody in the universe is included. And I was feeling better somehow. Able to experience an fate better than worse-than-death. Even though I had been there and I knew what it meant. And I knew other people had been there with me and knew what it meant also. We might want to punish us; but we figured out what worse-than-death means successfully. We are able to transmit it as information right presently now. Just because we had to go there just to learn what it was didn't mean we hadn't returned from fates worse than death.
And it didn't mean any of they who read this hadn't begun to learn the fate worse than death from us also. It was considered the highest collective function of culture: to prevent fates worse than death. I'm not going to lie; but I think I needed to be told at an young age that worse than death is really out there. Thankfully Anna symbolizes this in an simple way that even an child could understand. Anna is the second messiah of the fate worse than death. Anna is the way I learned the fate worse than death fate; and it will be for many others to have learned from it also. I wasn't an failure just because I had an fate worse than death and that I had to go there to figure out what it was. And I had begun to think and to ponder on the subject of whether I had returned from an fate worse than death; returning itself appeared to me like an ritualistic summons. When one returns from an fate worse than death it means they've been given the living resurrection. Their fate instead of continuing to be worse than death, has been replaced with an better one. And the metaphor of the resurrection fits here stylistically; one is 'resurrected' from an fate worse than death, as in losing the fate worse than death and then picking up an better one again. Your old hand will find its old place along the railing again; and you will go everywhere in the city.
My version is one that can be stylishly layered in meaning. I can comment about the atmosphere in this fictional environment; I can talk about what people are talking about. I can place words of choice and verbs here and there. Version can be told endlessly as one layers on these sentences and pedestals of meaning. Whole word choices are presented to you on an altar. You begin to scrutinize; to criticize everything all over again all fresh and anew. I can take you to what one particular character is saying in my known Fictional World. An entire character who has his own version; if we take this as the inner meaning of what 'character' means. Character, as I mean it, is an instinctual and non-instinctual cognitive type of brain-summonings that one has which are logical. An character, logically, has its own version because that's how the brain is able to generate an character.
"You're thinking about me," says this character, "because I'm thinking about you."
"And of course you have to factor in," I say, "that you are part of the city. And you have blonde hair. You are sitting at an desk. Why would I be thinking about you?"
"Not necessarily you are thinking about me," he says, "just that I'm here if you need me."
"And what would I need from you," I say like the most bemused snottiness of an religious figure, "if I have such an temple here, with all of its followings and you are not able to join in and experience it because you are so disconnected from what is happening all around you."
"You sound kind of crabby, actually," he says, "but I don't mind. You don't even know my name do you? It's ––––. You knew my name was –––– didn't you?"
"And I could never fully get through to him that I didn't know what his name was because I didn't know what that sounded like; and I was only interested in intellectual thoughts in which there sounds which I recognized. He was just my reflection on the city. And I couldn't hear an word he said; I just knew he was there somewhere out there."
"I am out here," he said to me, "you're just fully enmeshed with your temple-ly duties too much to care about what I think."
It sounded kind of sarcastic and I was instantly attracted to it.
An man, an suitor; was out there for me somewhere. And all I had to show off to him about was my virtual temple and all the buildings and surroundings of my fictional city.
"Yea, you're out there; but you're only my version of the city," I said.
And I turned back to explaining versions again.
Versions were my side of the story. They were your side of the story. They were everybody's sides of the story. And we were presumed-ly equally capable of producing them. Not such an thing can be assumed about an academic environment. There are many differently abled individuals whom were maybe not the most expert on delivering an sermon about what you believe and where you are from. They couldn't tell their own versions. And that is the purpose of the public academy then. Arts school. To help people, all differently abled, to be able to begin to tell their own version. With expert precision. The whole purpose of the academy was geared toward that. And this was the deepest meaning of post-secondary education in society. I had even imagined, believed in post-university academic institutions which would assume the ability to tell versions or not in all its students. Where the deeper meaning there is that there will always be disabled people who can outperform the standard requirement of having their own version. (There are disabled people at that level too, in an post-university environment). Versions were the key to everything.
Versions, as I said, were the key to someone's character.
The reason they acted an certain way.
And when we all had to realize each others' versions (this was the purpose of our world) we would know how to collaborate as citizens more and more; to keep everyone safe.
And we needed examples of the performance of having an version as many as possible and everywhere. In my strictest definition of this word version, I had begun to mean the quasi-deity (an subject I didn't know how to identify and of which probably knew relatively next to nothing) in the intersection between Art and Science. One would need to invoke both Art and Science in order to summon up an version: an version was the result you get when combining and Scientific viewpoint with an Artistic one, and they both correct and check one another. Versions were your account of how the universe of the world is working scientifically; combined with your knowledge of the artistic world and how it is functioning. They were inevitably to spark like flint upon each other; and one would be able to tell an version about how that was possible. It was the highest form of conventional information we had accomplished to offer to others. We needed scientific facts, yes, but we also needed artistic truths to be known and pointed out. The world was run by scientific facts, yes, but art wasn't: and who was there to care and curate for them then? Artistic truth meant sometimes bending the facts; in order to fit the better picture, one extrapolates and expands on possibility-meanings. Art reminds us we know relatively little about the scientific universe. But we know that we know an lot about art because art is always about us. Even to the point of giving us courage to wander on as though we had the right amount of courage, will, and fury with which to continue saying what we wanted. We cannot always tell the Greater Picture of what the Artist is trying to say. But then this signals something you know about which you haven't learned through your five senses. An show world, in which characters and patterns of all consciousness are displayed in genre like. The Artist is saying something about reality which means something which way to bend an scientific truth or fact; in order that it will no longer fit the reality of having been scientifically possible. Art always trashes on reality factoids by becoming the transcendent reality itself which will stand against the enemies of the possible. Art takes science and bends it to its will. Science takes art and puts it back in the places it was. (Return it to its former condition). And when we consider both of them to be saying something about essentially the same thing; we understand that an version is the product of having done so. Art was factually disruptive. Science was factually restorative. The result of the combination between them is that art is not about what's real or not it's about what someone thinks. Science is not just what someone thinks but what is real about our whole experience of reality. Things that are scientifically observable. They offer an answer and an counter to the logics normally followed in artistic circles and practices. And so the only way you can factually observe artistry is in an facticity of the universe in which real reality takes place. The real universe is there but, to an certain extent, you can bend what it looks like in order to make an point about how it feels and what we are.
Versions take both into consideration: there is an scientifically factual universe and an artistic medium which transcends the factual universe itself. In representation and the maturation of the human ego. The universe is factually happening and yet there is an certain distance from it one needs to take in order to be able to try to represent it somehow.
Leave the property and go out into the City.
Follow the cement path east around the corner of the building.
No comments:
Post a Comment