Revolutionary Perceptions

Scientific innovation could hurtle humankind into the future at quite a pace, but conservativism encourages keeping within the pale any such hurry as everyday business could not be run: - were there not the deception involving, of a truth lacking, which allows command a price - for what is marketable in any one generation, as becomes a defunct mechanism upon passing. Thus encouraging a revolutionary cynicism for any stagnation, asking "why not everything now sooner"!

'Would you ever stop wishing to change things: I get nothing done', says the businessman who wishes that one of these generations people would stop changing everything so as he might allow some notion of success be allowed; and goalposts wouldn't move within the scope and frame of their having been set, to their having been reached...leading to a conservative cynicism for any change, asking 'for goodness sakes, why not just one of these generations, leave things as they are'!

Tis not our slant in favouring ideas as allowed inevitability draw sooner or later any change or stagnation as might come or go, but only how we welcome that which is inevitable to usher in its glory. Formulaters of normative policy might tell us we ought bring spring sooner and autumn later, but it won't change anything; except that to say "I like spring and I don't like autumn" might allow a perception of such things exist. To blame autumn-haters on why the spring features what it does and vice versa, would miss be to the point in considering the power of our free expressions.

Politics doesn't ask us to discuss such things as are against God's will; to allow move from what His plan is, for us, nonetheless. If everyone wanted pink umbrellas, doesn't mean umbrella manufacturers would want to make them all pink, or to make any more items than they were already making. Everyone wanting revolution won't bring revolution closer: revolutionary change is only gonna come by its own forces.

Tisn't by arguing 'we want money to be different' that such change might arise. Such are the changes as allow money to sway, as are underpinned by other relationships as ought need sooner first change, before any such thing as the former's acceptability of changing might arise. Without the invention of paper and coins, the abstraction of value in currency might have no affect on humanity. there's little point arguing we oughta have an abstract form of value, unless maybe you might see some technology suitable of taking on its manifest form as an expression sufficiently tasked with what newness that such abstraction implies. To the caveman inventing money, his blood's circulation or sweat on his brow, as easily deducible as value for work done, he could erroneously have considered that to burn his leftover dinner bones was as likely an abstraction satisfying value as would bring him to the next level of progress before inventing capitalism: to make a piece of metal equal to some effort done would seem even now just as confusing.

Without Civil Rights of the 1960's you wouldn't have the 1970's Bretton Woods discussions as they were. Arguing their outcomes blind to one another would seem a nonsense. Other social factors are necessary before economic change can arise. But anyway, besides all this, truth isn't that bothered with money, to begin with. Too much asking Santa for a healthy bank account and he might not bring us the toys we asked for.

Who's Confused?

Do you prefer inner beauty, or outer beauty? But, yet, your gender is so obvious to me, I should rather pretend it more relevant to the case of who you are, sexually. How presumptuous of me to think that my convenience, sensibly to typify, ought derive more certain values -sexually to orient persuasion- than are most obviously, more likely, quite more complex in issue than anything as meets the eye!

Its purely subjective upon contingent values (and not necessary ones), which are contemporary (and not ephemeral, or eternal), to our civilised modern mindset that we accept to typify or discriminate, at all, on a basis of gender AND persuasion.

The divide of our times could just as easily as gay or straight, considering its necessary basis, be aesthetic AND persuasion e.g. do you like beautiful people OR do you like ugly people...and thence allowing the remark of type, "oh, then, you're beautisexual" - incorporating males or females of purportable beauty. While "uglisexual people" would, perhaps, bemoan the title (for obvious reasons of its openness to characterisability), wishing instead to be classed in something more neutral or obvious, like, perhaps, gender, in their persuasions (as we have it, how we currently typify, in our modern mindset's frame).

"Are you a tits or ass person?" could variously draw the dividing line. 'Titisexual' OR 'assexual'? Why ought gender - an open, PUBLIC, and SIMPLE certainty - be seen as yet so certain in deriving values which are PRIVATE and COMPLEX? And, these value types of any typifiable worth to maintain all of the curiosities of growing and maturing into a habitual lifestyle, preferable in a regime of consent and choice, sexually?

There is nothing of intrinsic value -to a modern public mindset- as determines this with any certainty as worth relying upon - any more or less than, say, elsewhere, instead of referring to rich man/poor man divides, relating rather saving/spending divides, as habitual, and therefore typical!

Extroverts and introverts ought just as happily take upon themselves, as public, a title in mindset; while, then, those who dare 'mind their business' might reveal further their persuasions when needed. And, regarding this leeway of all possible frames to entitle our differences, toward a value-set which is UNIVERSAL, in its outlook, and thus with all manageable rights as are applicable in a fair and tolerant society, it becomes clear: we needn't have delved so far at all as to typify gender AND persuasion at all!!!

Are we certain of gender only as much as death and taxes? And yet abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are all matters of our times in deciding values in law, that it ought seem something of our era, a complexity level to absorb in issue, to resolve in conceptual mindset, in order to form a collective value-set worthy of a civilised frame. Death is 'all or nothing', a certainty, to us, to relate - being 'alive' or 'dead'. Gender is similarly such an 'all or nothing' to us, to typify or discriminate.

Persuasion, however is more complex (as are a lot of issues in discussing causes in morbidity and taxation, likewise). How ought a complex persuasion value set, align with a simple certainty of being male or female, not to leave unfair any intrusion into what is private knowledge of inner thoughts and feelings, as are often, various and diverse, persuading us?

Surprisingly, diversity of currency exchange in economics, of all things, (despite universally sufficiently similar biology across nations) becomes interesting for its problem-set and tool-kit requiring, conceptually, to understand, as application study, when after looking far enough at the subject of gender in linguistics. Only as diverse as values for gender and persuasion, it would seem, are those such values as would necessitate drawing value and currency into the frame in economics.

This would show that there is as much to be learnt from one as the other, if developing any ideas in either, and all hopefully harmoniously, with respect to rates of progress and change which is possible in perceptions which are key. Why valence ought exist at all in any frame of currency becomes an important issue of pertinent contemplation when discussing general issues of the subject of exchange. Pertinent rather than urgent to resolve, it would seem, as a matter of our times, for humankind, are these and similar problems.

For its problems of its diversity, currency exchange, and for those of its certainty, the justice of morbidity (and how we base more than merely laws concerning death, upon a fear based rationale, which stems from our mortality, as beings), these subjects and also the politics of gender and persuasion discrimination (as discussed herein), are each as interesting for such values as would show conspicuousness or anomaly at similar levels of complexity in concepts dealt with, within each subject.

When each of all of these such spheres have all been worked out in their determined outlook, and resolve their respective normalities in value-sets which find popular appeal across-the-board, to meritable solutions, proposable, and in any clearly definable time-frame, what arises may be suprisingly of little or no coincidence: that they might all have to wait upon one another in order to progress.

For, the level of complexity in deriving such values as are universal, necessary, and objective, in each topic -that in a mindset, contemporary and progressive, as it is, deriveable, being, all such values in such fields, but only, as respecting, each -one another - they can, collectively and culturally, evolve. It bodes, harmoniously, a similar era for humankind to enjoy each, their progress, and as a pallettable debate of our times, and hopefully one not overdue, in its fullest discourse.

It becomes important, showing how similar tools are required for understanding what is demanding of us -in a modern frame of humanity in the 21st century- to work toward values which are universally definable; and, thus, to rely less upon that which is subject to any possible mistakes or misunderstanding in allowing typification, where it ought show no difference in treatment but than that which is fair to all parties concerning.

What defines an inequality? If state police have more powers than ordinary citizens, are they treatable unequally respecting one another? What is the important difference between 'being a bigot', and 'being bigotrous' in sociable conversation? Why ought we empower words which are only semantic, after all, over ideas, which are incontrovertible to such whims? Such are the questions as might similarly allow humankind to progress, when answered sufficiently.

So, no hurry in wondering whether bisexuals aren't the ones who are confused...I for one, am not!

Silly Arrests

Regarding some silly arrests on Dame Street, recently, I had thought it was out of the ordinary. Read the roll call of arrests, overall, however, and you see some silly reasons, indeed. No wonder the real demand it creates for information shows us something of a reason for why it ought need be 'newly' demanding - it would never take place openly and accountably!

But, right in front of your eyes, happening, you think you know something of what power we entrust to mere mortals to call justice: - and, then, next moment, your faith in all humanity is threatenable, as you loose sight of hope in state ever carrying that power further, if your own opinion might have anything to do with it...

The first world war was never imagined to be the first, ever; but, only the first the human species experienced as recorded on television. War was never counted before then. And, the widescreen wars neither needing, now, numbers, but only 'moods' as their fashion might, amply dictate.

In terms of mindset, though, desert landscape is to civilised urbanum what difference -to the latter- the virtual realm, need ought have it be, to have us think it be different, sufficiently, to count as necessarily so different.

Similarly, we never counted arrests before now. It was always entrusted in their power, as an ignorance we could yet afford to suppress the demand for as information on state. But, like war can change its colours to change seemingly its causes too, we cannot know how much longer we might be satisfied with this seeming new transparency.

A sphere of fig leaves covered a corner in Dame Street that night.

Semantics, Shemantics!

Is the press deciding more than consensus amongst us can find pallettable, and all with mere words?

Is it “before” the festival or “on the days” of the festival ODS is wanted gone? Semantics, shemantics you might say - but still, it buys them ten days. 

Now the press' mood is not 'we were on a break' but rather just something more like that 'we're over'. ODS has not lead them to believe this, surely?

The Irish Times reports, Patrick's Day, 'the rise and fall' of ODS, as though it calls some end to something.

But to answer to corporate and commercial will, newly manifesting willful destruction by force, and the further menacing force of on-site arrest, threatening freedom to assemble and freedom of self-expression, like never it has before in this country...it bodes, more brightly, a beginning of something, called for, rather than any end.

According to Wiki, ODS “was" a peaceful protest, while Occupy London [still] “is" a non-violent protest.

If to read one article following another, not to mention things said at ODS GA, (which seem to make the most of things generously to their lack, albeit at the camp's memory's expense), you might think some of us had, ourselves, already called it a day. surely this is no mood to concur upon, to dream its nature as self-fulfilling?

From October to Xmas, from Xmas to Paddy's Day, from Paddy's day to Mid-summer - that's how we're gauging things, occasionally, wasn't it, no? the first six months and the second six months, is it not? The old camp and the new camp, or something?

How can semantics dare stand in the way of networked structural organic growth, as though it were, to it, any power?

A Word of Soulful Encouragement

Is all this latent tension of cheap sibling rivalry feeding  

factionalism in activism movements' undercurrents...through  

the intransigence of lacking perceiveable actionable 

demand...the spoils of what happens when you have a whip-

around for the mob, rather, than a nuclear war? And, this 

with the money paid -to shut the other course of action, 

up or down? God, himself, surely has had no opinion made 

felt to us. And, sure would any of it surprise anyone who 

has been paying constant attention this last decade? 

Thank God above we can pay for the peace requiring of a  

trillion dollar economy to keep a lid on its protectionist  

secrecy. 

But, that said, plugging an economy in, and getting it on- 

line need no longer be regarded as any revelation worth  

keeping secret. Rather, it ought be a plan worth enacting  

(as is, already, more than decades late, needless to stress)  

as is not understateable, in importance, delivering. And,  

this, to the least surprise, rather than least inefficiency  

-the principle- surely, governing...but that'll tell you 

why tis late...if it is at all... 

But, a plan, nonetheless, it is, as might yet bring that  

much feared-against peace -aforementioned requiring-  

through its natural course, evolving. And, more happily,  

and, in faith, so, than wishing against the fear, and,  

without any other option – but than to fear for lack of  

affirmable faith in His plan's evolving, we might avoid  

that unworthy mood a mistake, already made, in what lead  

to World War II...when, with futility, we caught 

ourselves interfering in His most peaceful design for us...

And, so, avoiding the virtual realm, absolutely, and,  

completely, then, rule, represents to us, wordedly, and,  

in our existential being, competitively, to standards of  

facebook-status-updates (no less, of all concerns!) - our  

governable rights, from each thoughtful, revolt-provoking,  

moment to the next, throughout. 

Why, then, we have, the subconscious spill-out, on-line,  

to show us as much its veritable worth (of "I said, you  

said..." / 'this state, that state...' etc., us-and-them 

representative-experiential-nonsense-dribe)? Only, that, 

with virtual dreams of images of mushroom clouds, should  

its absorption be felt, and, this, alongside  

'media-slave-minister's-diary-cart-before-the-horse-democracy'  

making telly look fashionably defunct before democracy,  

likewise, intellectually, so!

But what hell might speak to awaken those asleep in law's  

worded slumber's minding, as which traditions made them,  

when, without technological bias to inspire their newness 

affronting that such tradition, they might then have had  

been, as 'too surprising' and therefore 'heretical',  

thrown out, normally, to begin? If only confused were their  

reader or mislead, or conspiring to thwart empires,  

unjustly, the accusation, all too often, then, more often  

than not, raising also what other crap laws were made 'back  

then', when Gods' minds swayed, verily, to what was  

comparably all but speculation! 

If we had possibly managed to txt quicker than we might  

behave to act besides - but that word might sooner become  

flesh, if only light ever had spoken but half-quicker,  

than that sacred but retrograde foreign tongues, otherwise,  

might have had governed evil, lest light had failed to  

leave the starting blocks at all...we might not have had  

driven ourselves half-crazy trying just to ignore the  

meaninglessness of our century's and millenium's turning 

decade's final years...as have lead onto this prophetic  

2012...!

And, this, as represented beings, in an art of self- 

expression, so governable - values having had been decided,  

centuries and decades before our time - to be born and grow  

up - whatever your numbers game for wake up calls...but  

that now is our generation for deciding we are ready for  

opportunities and equalities to resolve their game in number,  

as this generation is strong enough to lead the call that  

we are so ready for such things. See how prime takes a  

fill handle and all of a sudden becomes predictable in the 

21st Century, and it never was before! Security, as ever it  

was, the forefront of mathematics, and God's Mind's  

inventiveness, if all can be understood - and secret  

right-up until it needed not be, to man's mere mortal,  

verbose mind!

We ought to be living and growing up together, in the present,  

with our evolving technology, and alongside it, not lagging  

behind it, wishing a luddite revolt were less senseless;  

zenless, to our self-evidenced protest, the art of being -  

to God and the universe, welcome to tell us any different -  

than that we ought rightly to believe it is the case of  

what is actually going on in our value systems, and worth  

raising to consciousness level, or whatever is the virtual 

equivalent...Going through the motions, something ought  

to give...

Where's that party-hat or mask-thing they take to those  

orgies in the pentagon's basement

...WAKE UP SOME PEOPLE UNDER THOSE WORDED WITCHES LAWS SPELLS...

"Gree---tings...from...A-non---ymous...we are 99%" 

Information Junkies

Firstly, according to most doctors and social workers, not to mention some research I’ve done myself, one of the first and major signs of being an addict is that the user doesn’t even realise that they’re addicted. They may not even know what it is that they’re addicted to.

It’s true…for eight years the skin on my hands and face was addicted to moisturiser. I started off with a dry patch on my nose, from smoking or something, for which I was taking 10 to 12 millilitres of alcohol-free moisturiser a day. As we all know from popular media reports, this can quickly become a slippery slope…Before I knew it I had moved on to 20 millilitres of glycerine-enriched Neutrogena. And that was just to satisfy the fingers that I was applying the shit with…I tried to wean myself off it, but eventually I couldn’t even leave the house in the mornings without my fix. It was embarrassing at first, but then I found out there’s more of us sufferers out there. We really should do something about it, like form a support group, Moisturisers Anonymous, or take to the streets and demand our politicians fight a global war against these corporate cosmetics pushers.

Modern medicine is something else, isn’t it? Like, as soon as we discover why it is we sweat and our hormones and our glands produce all this liquidy stuff (steady now), I mean, in our hair, and our skin and everything – we think, nah for god’s sake, we could have done this better. Who needs glands when you’ve got Neutrogena? Who needs pheromones, and natural oils -which may stink now, but they’re FREE– when you can have us going back year after year, for bottle after bottle of glycerine-enriched-denatured-alcoholic-cosmetic-fruit-drinks. They put formaldehyde in shampoo, for god’s sake – that’s taking the piss. If you didn’t think your hair was dead already…

The human race is unique among animals; not because the most of our glandularity is located outside of our bodies; not because of our intelligence, either (I say dolphins are smarter - for the sole reason that they live in the water instead of having it rain on them); not because we utilise technology, either(some monkeys use hammers to crack their nuts, you know…and, some birds drop snails on rocks to break their shells, too…I’ve seen evidence); no, we’re unique because we’re addicted to information.

Whether it’s good news, bad news, idle gossip, magazines, TV all day, computers everywhere, laptops, handhelds, 0898-petty-advertising, intravenous-direct-lines, for god’s sake – we’re all, insatiably, hooked - on information! Now, as every good junkie knows, where we get our supply from might dictate how good a hit we’re gonna get from our fix. Where do you get yours?

Somebody once told me that when Americans come to Europe, they don’t dislike the food, they don’t even hate the people that much – they just miss the billboard advertising on the roadsides back home. They don’t like the BBC, not because they’re a state run government mouthpiece, no, but because they can’t concentrate on any show that’s not interrupted by almost time-lapse virtual shopping at least once every five minutes.

Having done the shopping, the marketing come down leaves us temporarily satisfied, but wondering if we really had a good time or not - or whether it was all just a ploy for the product pushers to get at our money. Deep down, we all know that there are better drugs out there than corporate marketing.