this is approximately a 10 minute read.

Conception Date: 2022-01-14

Title Ideas

direct reference to fictionalization of the story; something about perspective

• Impossible colors?
• heterotopia?
• Quia sum, cogito <- This is it.
• Translating gobbledygook

Book image:

• The symbol for the CapDem Party
  • Integrity with Function
    • False meaning: structured aesthetic stability while making the machines work
    • True meaning: pushing superiority to get power (swastika) while using the aesthetic to hide the exclusionary thinking.
    • Always dodged talking about the meaning
  • appeal
    • Alt-Right: swastika
    • Christians: crosses
    • Communists: working class
    • Capitalists: people are cogs
    • Radical Leftists: thinking outside the box
    • Normal people: aesthetic and asymmetry
    • destitute: incomplete circle

Writing Method

1. Meet the audience where they so they agree with you
2. Tell them why they believe your story
3. Craft reality

Main Conflict

Person A feels that the government is being undermined and society is collapsing due to the empowerment of the weak majority. The government has failed him, it is up to him to save everyone.

Person B believes in the anarchist society, but cannot get past the disdain she has of the Government (civil indoctrination?). Feels threatened by the government and is actively ready to defend and fight for the cause. Ends with hearing the explosion and identify where it came from. Reacts in anger.

Person C is simply living their life. Has a somewhat traditional family. Shows the day to day “normalness” of the heterotopia. Sympothizes with both the government and the new effort to make a better world. Works regularly in the place where the bomb goes off. Isn’t caught in the blast but identifies his kid as being potentially threatened. Reacts in fear.

Person D is unconcerned with government and sees them all as necessary authorities to appeal to. Teaches the kids. In clearly going to be in the destruction. Lesson is analyzing 9/11 and discusses the lost oppertunity of reflection in the aftermath. Explosion goes off and prioritizes protecting people. Reacts with thinking of others.

Person E: blog post (to parallel all the other “historical articles”) – kid in the explosion that was protected. Discussing how the government used Person D (only person that died) as a prop to protect themselves from the terrorists (reflect person A’s reasoning). Since then the government has become impotent. The Council has unofficially taken it’s place. It serves the same role (person D’s ideology is referenced). Society has gotten better through the conflict (person A plight has been acknowledged – again unofficially). Reflect the first article about 9/11. Systems are always replicating each other, and it takes explicit effort to make them better. This blog is part of that conversation: “Every action, every decision, every choice is a vote to make reality what you want it to be.  Please help promote each other.”

Starting Concept

The idea is to describe different perspectives on a futuristic society.  Each will take the perspective of a different actor of the story: distopia, utopia, heterotopia.

• The distopian will be trying to change society for the better.  It will initally have the feel of atlas shrugged
• The utopian will fully believe in the system that has been creaeted (democratized workplaces, baseline living conditions, etc)
• The heterotopian will be split between two:
  • a commoner simply trying to live in spite of the struggle of the other two.
  • someone trying to synthesize the other two.

Each new section will be a completely different worldview and presented as completely justified.

World Building

This will need a lot of work, but the social worldview will be built on a flawed version of that described in my thesis: institutionally promoting the weak.

It will take place after after a social collapse due to the climate crisis, there are all still remains of the “old world” but much of the individualistic philosophy has been demonized.

THINGS TO DO:

• Link the current culture to the past and identify which narratives would still be surviving.
• Identify what “conservative” fears will be acted on
  • Environment and disease would have to take a major role
• Establish a timeframe
• And what type of tribes would still exist (what are the other cultures and how do they interact)?

Jan 15 edits:

• Timeline: 90 years (2110)? dystopian perpsective would be similar to those that idolize the 1920s.
• Focus on the 2050 blanket craze(?): people would walk around with blankets (or shoes or snacks) and just give them out when people needed help.

   

  • Different perspectives on it.  Dystopian sees it as a pop culture phase. Utopian sees it as a revolution.
• Augmented reality has been normalized due to smaller cameras and integrated biological tech. Advertizements are subtle flashes that draw your attention/AI blurs things that you don’t usually look at.
• Class division energy: grid, community, and individual.
• 3rd world countries are endentured slaves due to imperialism (act 3)

• VR influences:
  • threat level:
    • Person 1 sees it as a social enginering
  • slight movement when things should be looked at
    • people build up resistance/normalization

No using genders vary but in general it is avoided.

Events happen Sept 12-13 2112

Events To Include

Jan 20:

Person 3 watching a “classic” movie:

• kid: but <dad>, hasn’t that person lived for 1000s of years?
• person 3: yea?
• kid: then isn’t that like falling in love with a child?  They must know that they are will passively manipulate them. Isn’t this super/minor?
• person 3: if the immoral wasn’t limited, yeah. But if you think about it, the movie only makes sense if they don’t learn from their experiences.  Otherwise this is a pretty inaccurate.
• kid: Oh right… Memory is more important than experience.
• person 3 (pauses movie): yes and no. The problem with most of this is that the author and director are having to appeal to the expectations of the audience –
• kid: but that misdirection
• person 3: that’s story telling. and while that is blatantly lying and misrepresenting natural experience it is important to recognize the limited way that we – and others – can perceive the world.  The immortal is limited to 40 years because the author was limited to 40 years… it’s why we have to respect it as a fiction and recognize it will influence our expectations of reality.  When I watched movies like this with your grandfather, he used to say “just don’t think about it”
• kid: Your not supposed to say that!
• person 3: no. But you remember your grandfather: he was from a simpler time.  We can’t afford that luxury anymore.
• kid: hm. So it’s the experience.
• person 3: What?
• kid: it’s not enough to respect grandpa’s memory but also his experience.  Because that’s what matters.
• person 3 (thinking): I never really thought of it in that context… but yes, it’s all part of the same conversation.  This relationship, da- your grandpa’s old style, even the recent attacks: it all makes sense if you could understand it.  Everything – within context – is done practically.
• kid: Can we ever understand it?  Everyone says not to assume that.
• person 3: Oh no. We never can.  We can try though.  And we can listen to others instead of acting on proj. That’s why we depend on the Consensus.
• kid: Soooooo…. in the movie, the relationship is ok because of it’s narrative?
• person 3: NO! And I want you to remember this: just because actions are understandable doesn’t mean we can abandon the Common Ground. Does that make sense?
• kid (in shame): yeah. from-to-forall.
• person 3 (laughing a bit): Your not in trouble. I got a bit carried away. You are a bright kid. :: rubs hair :: Probably smarter than I was when I was your age…. do you want to critique the movie some more?
• kid: sure. We don’t do this enough.

Also discuss language as a virus both positive and negative (acoustic-virology)

Conversations typically have references to “T” scores.

• Internal belief
  How do people not see this is T-star?
• Claim is made
  – T-six?
  – T-star!
  – look of doubt
  – Fine T9 but you know it’s true
  – look of doubt.  “uh huh, well anyway…”
• Claim is made T7
  But what about <claim>T9?
  Hm.  Well those can coexist if you consider …
  True, it isn’t as aligned with T9, but T7 adjusts more.  That works.

End with conversation of 9/11 and the discussion (all ages conversing respectfully / public square)

• attack due radical voices not being heard.
  • civil belief in a foreign country
  • imperialism/capitalism
• Reaction was a constructed defense of civility
  • Resource aquisition
  • Imperialistic regional control
• super/minor relationship
  • time periods perspective
  • perspective now
• history is data, memories have meaning
  • Issues that we had a lifetime ago will not be learned from
    • slavery -> economic starvation
    • terrorism -> government undermining
    • post WWI suffering -> climate crisis
    • civil rights protests -> blanket Noria

Disareement on perspectives

• the projection of person 1 (they are on my sided because they are thinking of themselves),
• the flawed interpretation of person 2 (they are being selfish because they are normalizing harm to others)
• the lived experience of person 3 (it hurts me)
• SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: technological dysphoria

Last two chapters

• Person 4 risking their life for those needing help
  • Encounters person 1 who is in shock
  • Person 1 starts helping people
  • Ends with mid sentence
• Blog post from a kid who was in the explosion talking about the aftermath.
  • Person 1 demonized but still helped out
  • Consensus took the place of the state

Reoccuring theme:

• how someone that needs help is treated.
  • Stealing food?
  • Person A is hostile, but won’t say anything
  • Person B helps them
  • Person C is admiring person B
  • Person D discusses it with the class

Person B is talking to one of the neighbors of person A:

• PersonA has found one of their grandparents debts. They are calling it in.
• Neighbor has 2 kids. Discussion about forced labor.
• The consensus has accounted for this, Person A can claim protection:
  • No need for payback
  • Hopefully they will help out from time to time
  • Consensus works off debt by providing free labor (janitorial positions)
    • CapDems demand trade for labor so they see it as “working off debt”
    • Consensus does this everywhere for free
    • Person A’s job is self perpetuating and not adding anything to society
    • People would all be better off without it (including Person A since they would be self determining).

How the characters see themselves (major theme for the first 3): (updated Feb 2)

• Person A: Everyone sees him as strong and a hero truly the protagonist of the story with everyone else being side characters. Current progressive trying to defend children from “state indoctrination”.
• Person B: Everyone sees him as a hero everyone else are equally heroes trying to work for a common good with a small group working against them
• Person C: not important. Everyone is in more position to change thing because they understand more.
• Person D: Sees everyone else and not himself. Sees A as weak, B as selfish but good natured, and C as genuinely wanting to help people.

Character Traits

Character / relationship / group they fit in with / how they react to society / which role they play in radical civility / motto / Average T-Score

Reality
Tark Walden
“typical relationship”
CapDems
Official State (although he sees it as the oppressed civil order)
Socially Civil – Culturally Radical
“Integrity With Function”
T*
Works to scrub old social media sites for debt records. Debt to the state is synonymous with taxation and tithings.

Materialism
Kyle of District
Communal Relationship (with child)
Anarchists
Dogmatic belief in the Consensus
Socially Radical – Culturally Civil
“From-To-Forall”
T8
Poller/Censuser, Professional Protestor.

Narratives
Taylor LaGrass
Casual Relationships (considers themselves a “single parent”)
Parent of Sam LaGrass
Believing in both the State and the Consensus
Constructed Consent
“Every person deserves to find their own purpose, as long as it doesn’t inhibit others to do the same”/
“Venture as far as you reasonably can.”
T4
Does odd ends jobs while on leave from asteroid mining. Protests with Person 2

Chaos
Yashim Slokov
—-
Unaffiliated
disconnected
Sees the system / anarchy
The Theory
Reality is chaos. Embrace while knowing it can never be held.
The other person’s
Has lesson about debt and currency and violence. Protests with Person 2.