Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category
Medium and Message (Story Development)
CLOTHING:
People dress like their favorite historical figure. There are popular historical figures of the day: Some groups all dress in one particular style. But some fads [appear to] occur spontaneously. The development of these fads [may] parallel a historical time line. But some can be attributed to [the development of] contemporaries [some of] who are relatively unknown.
Neckties, are they tributes to people who were hanged?
*The medium IS the message.
(Paper or Plastic?)
LANGUAGE
I have a ‘twist’ model [in limbo] that shows how phrases like ‘Paper or Plastic?’ apply differently to people at different social classes. The particular meaning indicates the person’s station in life. And the difference in meaning keeps the one from advancing to the next level (without going through some change).
I could create a new form of joke (the twist).
*The joke IS the language.
[The intension / intention is in the play of words... the word play / joke... teleology / tautology... teleo tautology... jokes and riddles... the geek (yet more list making)]
PLAY
The most obvious example of this is that when a war is about to break out, army toys become popular again.
*The toy IS the person.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
People repeat quotes from movies. Or remember plot lines. Interesting, because I can’t. They laugh with each other and discuss different movies… repeating lines from them. This sounds completely out of place in context [to the reader] because the context is an abstract ['fame' or 'importance']…
*The movie [drama] IS the context.
(the book is about the development of DNA Television).
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
likewise a poor person who says raahther instead of rather might have a strange effect on people though they might not understand why. Perhaps it portends his eventual rise to riches / though it makes him sound odd in the context of the group he’s in. Nonetheless, this shows a tendency toward [imprinting / impressing] (has he deliberately picked this up from someone… or does it just happen naturally).
*The lampoon IS the social structure (for example, the club scene is more real than real life)
In my case, cartoons seem to be mockeries of my own experiences (kind of a turn around on this idea).
OR: People mock others… say things in funny voices (the old man voice, the stupid person voice). Others laugh. People who do this are popular. ‘Look at me. I wear concert t-shirts. MAN! (ha ha ha)’.
*The cartoon IS the experience.
People seem to be caricatures. They may be known by nicknames that accentuate their oddities (big nose, elephant ears, Bucky [buck toothed], etc).
**The joke is the anachronism.
Even within a ’scene’ (an 80 s style disco), there is an order to things. A person might wear polyester bell-bottoms and a silk shirt with a big collar… but he wouldn’t wear cowboy boots or he’d look odd and out of place. Nickname: Urban Cowboy or Night Fever (Travolta… Hoffman)
But a 70 s style ‘pimp’ (with a velvet hat and fur coat) might fit in with both the gangster rappers and also the black panther movement of the early 80 s or even a 60 s hippy protest. If he also wears a cape, he’s ‘Rick James, bitch’.
*A parody is a scene.
And when (if) I put things into the book (pretentious to say that I’m writing a book)… if I create an anachronism, then how does it play?
As a character flaw?
As something unique?
As a thing that makes me pretentious?
As a thing that makes me historically significant?
I think the world of the characters in the book can be a mix of things taken out of context and so mistakes will read as a clues to the development of the story (ironically… because they are insights into the limitations and inclinations of the author)… clues to the historical trend.
Because the (Indy) movement makes it obvious that people are being pretentious. They can be part of a scene but not call themselves Indy. That is, the worst thing an independent could do is to step outside of his role (like a transgender has to be called a woman or else she’s a boy who dresses like a girl. VERY embarrassing!).
But, the scene itself is a parody of a person (Grunge IS Kurt Cobain). So the ideal would be to become that person; though this is also the ultimate insult (Who do you think you are? Kurt Cobain?). Thus the caricatures and nicknames.
[The person as contrasted from the scene within which he finds himself... this is the formula for determining the unique characteristics of the individual; and, re-creating the formula is as difficult for the copy as it initially was for the original].
God DNA (literary device)
God DNA:
The process is a variation of cloning. Strands of (pure) DNA double helices are created in a lab using caloric* energy to naturally ‘marry’ amino acids into neutral pairs (these lack any specific genetic encoding). The synthetic DNA (sDNA) strands react with human RNA in the body… restoring the body to health.
*I’m trying to think of a reason to kill the husband and wife… perhaps the elixir needs to be heated to the exact temperature produced by burning a human body (or incubating in a human, dead or alive)… calories as nutritional value, etc (not sure if I’m going to use this idea)
The RNA ‘unzips’ the sDNA breaking it back down into its component amino acids thus releasing caloric energy (one amino pairing at a time). In this way, replicant RNA (rRNA) and synthetic RNA (sRNA) ‘half strands’ are formed [Like sex chromosomes, which likewise contain only half of a human gene].
These ‘prostitute’ chromosomes amass great amounts of caloric energy to temporarily weaken the host. Then, by a process known as transubstantiation (that is by releasing bursts of energy at specific wavelengths as they come into contact with each other), they cause free aminos to combine according to certain (mutative / evolutionary regressive) pairings in the host body.
[As a side reaction and defense] Precursor DNA (the ‘twins*’ srDNA and rsDNA) are formed. These ‘convict’ genes empower the host’s body as they combine and recombine ‘lawlessly’ (in an almost infinite number of possible ways) and ‘aggressively’ (in a deliberate and ordered succession) to evolutionarily re-create the hosts original and unique genetic code (restoring the body to its original healthy state).
*this suggests that I should introduce twin characters… not sure if I will. Seems researching this process would help me write about it! Also (as an alternative to calories, should I use twins, it may be that the elixir has to be injected into twins so as to extract the God DNA… however, I’m leaning in the direction of Man and Wife (natural offspring gets God DNA from his parents… and also, apparently, the church has a method for performing this without being in a lab).
As a side effect, individuals often display a previously undiscovered talent to an extreme degree of proficiency. Some explain this side effect as an evolutionary throw back (resurrecting genius from our evolutionary past). Some explain it as an evolutionary progression (the creation of a superman or super race). Some say that, either way, it proves the existence of a supreme intelligence (one which is beyond physical space and outside of evolutionary time).
God DNA (Story Idea)
Instead of money, people are afforded privileges based on talents. But where do these talents come from? [Some people, it is said, are inoculated with the DNA of a famous historical figure at their birth. Our hero is not one of these people.]
A child is born without privilege (To sorry parents?). The mother secretly tells the child he is talented. The father kills the mother then disappears.
The child is placed into the church (poor in spirit). The church tells him all talents are from God (The boy believes that his talents are his and do not belong to God).
Having a talent is a terrible sin (Why?).
The child confesses (in confidence). His talent is confirmed by the priest (as belonging to god).
He suppresses his talent (but looks up to the priests who secretly practice the arts). Thus, the boy is afforded privileges in the church that others (specifically women) are denied. The child finds sanctuary in the church (false sanctuary?).
The priest teaches the boy that women are evil (need to know).
Nonetheless, the boy meets a woman. He is tricked by her to display his talent (and becomes a convict). In humiliation, he takes up a simple profession (he becomes a slave). He puts his talent aside.
[Perhaps the reader is starting to understand that talents are repressed by society in certain people but are awarded to others? This is the social situation (the religion) which supports the development of the technology].
The technology: God DNA (or Transmutation*).
…
A similar hallucinogen is also used on the streets which makes people believe that they are famous people from another time. And some children, often those born to addicts, are idiot savants (they act odd but also know things that they have no obvious way of knowing).
[Our hero is none of these: Where did he get his talent?]
As a slave, our hero becomes frustrated. He takes out his frustrations by using street drugs and, as such, by visiting prostitutes ( prostitution and drugs are part of the same culture).
The street drugs temporarily give him talents (talents which belong to other people?). And women who see these talents are attracted to him (Perhaps they secretly want talented children?). But every time he displays his own talent in front of a woman, he is humiliated by her…
… except that he enjoys being humiliated by women. He looks up to them because they seem to be ‘naturally’ gifted. At least, they are wise to the talents of men (and the uses such talents might be put to).
- He gains status as a convict.
- He gains conviction in the use of certain negative talents.
- He becomes more addicted.
- He seeks out more humiliation.
And he represses his own talent more and more, publicly; though, privately he displays it (generally to men) because he enjoys the feeling of control it gives him…
- he can compete with other’s talents using his own
- he can oppress others and make them slaves
- he gains mastery over others
- he gains conviction regarding his own talent
… and he loses all of this, ecstatically, when he humiliates himself with a prostitute or while on street drugs (at oneness in shared shame with all ‘these’ others from the past who similarly had talents and similarly squandered them). He is angry at his mother for encouraging him to be talented. He dreams of having a wife… and of having a son, and of giving his son everything he never had for himself.
[Ok: Does the man get his talents from...
- His father?
- His mother?
- The priest?
- Women?
- Prostitutes?
- Street drugs?
- As a convict (through conviction)?
- By his mastery over others?
... or was he inoculated with DNA at birth? If so, where did it come from? His REAL father? His real father must have been a very important person...]
He marries. He shares his concerns with the priest during confession, in confidence. He is forgiven. He finds peace in the church away from his wife. He goes there often. And he is afforded privilege by the priest to practice the art of ecstasy, in altered states of consciousness, and even with the help of certain unnamed techniques (chemical or otherwise).
A child is born. The mother complains that the father has abandoned her and the child to practice his ecstatic talents with the priests. In a fit of ecstasy, the father kills the mother. The priests cover up the murder, and take care of the woman’s body, then demand that the man sacrifice himself for his own sins…
The child goes before the church. There is a ceremony where the priest is making a sacrifice on the altar… he is preparing a holy elixir. With the congregation present, he anoints the child (to their ecstatic chant: SEALED! SEALED!).
[Some people, it is said, are inoculated with the DNA of a famous historical figure at their birth. Our hero is not one of these people.]
The House Advantage
I will not SCORN death (since I’m not sure that life is better). And, as such, I have the rest of this cosmology…
- regret
- disgust
- scorn
- spite
- resentment
I put disgust at the center making it causative (but also such that it can be cured). Of course I’m saying that men are disgusted by a woman’s lack of penis (and visa versa). And I’m saying that this is the reason for ‘all’ regret, spite, resentment, and scorn (this last used to be irreverence). BUT I’m also saying that ‘why didn’t we, why do we, why don’t we’ (regret, disgust, scorn) isn’t so much a problem of ’sin’ (mistakes in the past, regret proper) as of false memory (fixation on disgust): ‘original sin’.
Oh, the The Fall* (why did we, why do we, why don’t we… regret, disgust, scorn) MIGHT be (seems to be) how knowledge (why) is filtered from experience (without trial and error [trials and tribulations], for example, which applies to understanding… or to wisdom, where a wise woman learns what not to do by watching someone else, a man perhaps, suffer loss… to her benefit and so, sometimes, at her behest): A tree of knowledge (relative to good understanding and evil wisdom, as such).
Thinking about…
- chance
- credit
- trust fund (grace)
- will (and testament)
- professing (as prostituting)
- and prostitution (as the oldest profession, original slavery)
… how this might apply to the creation of knowledge (Teleology: The upward arrow, because).
When one uses the term sophist in a negative way, one may be implying that the individual is not personally responsible for creating knowledge (just as the tree of knowledge establishes original knowledge AND places the blame for sin on original sin rather than on the individual).**
As for original sin, I’m reminded of hunter-gatherers (hunting snakes and gathering forbidden fruits) and how being expelled from a paradisal garden might suggest a move toward agrarianism (domestication) by which man labors morning to night so as to bring forth food from the ground / by which women, through pain, bring forth children (so also regarding labor).
However, domestication might result in a beehive mentality where men (no longer hunters) lose their spears (their male genitals) and become workers or drones… and women become queens. In this system, the queen proper (or the fag hag, conversely) bestows manhood on feminized men (or on soldiers of the king, such that they’re drones) through knighthood… by addressing them as sir (similarly male women become evil drag queens). Thus this cosmology: ARCHETYPES (and their phalli), OR…
Tool Users (How Farmers become Soldiers)
- farmers (digging sticks, spades)
- doctors (caducei, magic wands)***
- preachers (sacraments, hearts)****
- teachers (rulers, suits)*****
- soldiers (weapons, clubs)
*Why did we (regret)? <- Why do we (disgust)? <- Why don’t we (scorn)? Why (the downward arrow): The Fall (knowledge as experience plus scorn, disgust, and regret). Conversely, there is knowledge (or knowledge of good and evil), intelligence (Divine intelligence or mere common sense), and judgment (or Final Judgment): Understanding via trial and error (or trials and tribulations), wisdom (or vicarious knowledge of death), and life (eternal life or death).
**This suggests that the original sin was disgust. I relegate this disgust to ’snakes and fruits’ (male and female genitalia, respectively). And I support my observation by noting that Adam and Eve covered themselves (hid and were ‘ashamed’). Freud’s castration anxiety thus applies disgust to men who view women genitalia as penis envy would apply it to women who view male genitalia (such that disgust indicates the type of anxiety experienced and such that women could not understand this experience [directly] in terms of castration).
***The idea of king (or God) harkens to the age of tribalism (which predates tool use). In the tribal system, death (or emasculation) of the king relegates his authority to the group (the tribe… or to women) who must then resurrect him (or bring an erection to him). In the case of agrarianism as domestication (planting men in the ground), the king is kept disabled and so becomes the medicine man (as to a preacher on crutches). Otherwise, only the penis is kept (in the form of, regressively: The royal scepter. The tribal staff. The caduceus. The magic wand. Or, finally, the penis becomes a stinger… which might only be used once and at the penalty of death).
****Sacraments are physical agents of metaphysical agency. The Church chooses what form they take. Examples: Going down is represented by baptism (being held under). Golden showers are represented by chrismation (sprinkling and anointing by chrism). And sex is represented by communion (or consummation, regarding married people). Thus, the physical representative of the metaphysical penis is the re-erection, Jesus (Or, in Protestantism: Jesus as a man who loves without a penis… and the devil’s phallus, or the devil fallacy).
*****We may understand teachers (cards) as women (or queens); suits as (wo)men in suits (or as suitors… ashamed and covering themselves); and the phallic-replacement as a diamond (where removal of the phallus takes the form of humiliation… as by getting on ones knees and offering tribute). That is, we may understand diamonds in the form of diamond rings (marriage and the support of women through the sacrifice[ing] of men).
However this may also suggest a new phase in the development of civilization:
- tribalism
- hunter-gatherer
- agrarianism
- tool users
- re-creation (gambling, for example).
A Phase
Once upon a time…
I was tired… wary of saying yes sir (or please): Resentful. I was also weary from saying thank you when people blamed and whined (thus, when I otherwise would have said fuck you or thank me): Spiteful. My memories were manifesting as fixations (or fixation-fascination, i.e. transfixations*): Vengeful. And I was feeling reprobate (like I was being tested or proofed… probed again and again… fucked): Sore.
I’m not pleasured so maybe I’m learning to say please (or, at least, please me).
I was tired of saying I’m sorry (penitent, or punished, but not repentant). I was not guilty (I’m innocent as they say in jail)… convicted but not a convict.
At least, I’m gaining conviction (perhaps through conversions, confessions; or even, finally, confirmation).
As such, I was confused (con-fused: fused with…), fused with others: Domesticated (emasculated and shame bound… as when wolves become dogs, snarls become the grins of hyena, and laughter indicates shared humiliation rather than humor), feminized.
Still, my confusion sometimes manifests as compassion (feeling passion for and with others). And, I suppose wish fulfillment (or magical thinking) is better than lust (need) or desire (want). True, it may lead to idolatry. But, at best, it leads to idolizing (and so may be a fast-track to the top).
Otherwise, confusion led me downward through oppression, suppression, repression, and impression (impressing or imprinting, the long way around to discover oneself). Worse, it manifested through impersonation (which suggested putting people on though may have indicated putting on the person) as by possession (more ideally, as birth)… so perhaps in the spiritualistic sense of incarnation and reincarnation; or rebirth, resurrection, and the second coming… the REALLY long way around).
And I lived happily ever after.
But, I suppose Jesus wants credit (where grace is blind chance and this leads retroactively to trust as trust fund**). Is this justice or justification? I prefer confidence (either secrets or self confidence… though particularly the latter) and privilege (sanctuary, or sanctity… and thereby sanity).***
*Transfixion, to be transfixed (as regarding ones death and a feeling of inevitability): When transference and counter-transference manifests as cross-transference (reaction formation as terror [return of the repressed]; repetition compulsion and externalized blame; or association with the aggressor and horror) and this results in cross-fixation (or crucifixion).
**Will as will and testament (so regarding my father’s endowment, rather than mine) whereby profession is merely professing.
***Sanctity: Holiness (pride, or kingdom… power, and glory). For to thee (as king) belongs the kingdom, the power, and glory. For ever and ever, Amen.
The End.
