Most of our languaging processes remain below the level of conscious awareness. We are not always aware of the languaging process that seethes beneath the placid waters. Just as we are not always --- or even often --- aware of our own involuntary digestive processes, which take place without our intent needed. So, while the languaged lake appears so still from above --- like the Earth as seen from the Space Shuttle Discovery --- there is still much activity taking place, and noticed at closer range.

Who would know all the frantic activity taking place? From such a distance it appears so still. From afar it looks so very calm. Yet drawing closer we see how much movement is necessary in order to generate what we know as "Life". And within us all as Being-humans there is much activity that is necessary in order for us to "know what it is like to know". There are roads and by-ways; bridges and channel crossings; flights of liberation and chains of oppression. Our cognitive free-for-all is a wild-ness; an ecological domain; with as much neuro-diversity within as there is bio-diversity without. Who would know? If not for the looking, that is.

The above is often how we view ourselves as a process. The non-conscious aspects of the self-aware Body are just allowed to go on, until there is a problem in functioning, and then we begin to investigate right quickly (unless we are just curious by nature, which, in that case, we may begin investigating not out of necessity, but due to the choice to follow up on our curiousity).

We see the Body as a whole from above looking down, from the side looking towards, but we cannot ascertain the particulars of all that is taking place from such a distance. Distance allows us to take in the broad view, but does not allow us the in-depth penetration of all of the particulars that maintain that broad view. From too far a distance we can not see the hustle and bustle of our inner processes anymore than we can note the commotion on the streets of New York City from a hundred miles above. Imagine looking out one of the windows of the American Space Shuttle Discovery. Vast expanses are parlayed into a view of immense grandeur and glory. Oh, what the eyes are so very blessed to see! Yet, from that distance so much is lost to us as well. If that was the only view that we knew it would perhaps not be such a splendid display at all. Certainly there is a view gained from Space that cannot be known in that way from a few feet above the Earth. But there is also a view that is known from the immediate Earth that cannot be gained from Space. What we see in intimate detail from close range is not revealed from a distance. All of the processes that we cannot be conscious of because we cannot see them from Space continue to take place while looking from miles above the Earth. They continue (Hwa Yen "mutual penetration"). They are still operative. It is just that they are rendered non-conscious in relation to our subjective self-awareness. We are not aware of those processes in a direct way because we are so distant from them.

So, what does this have to do with the interpretive and translative cognitive processes that we were discussing? Well, it is a direct analogy that points to the fact of there being a similar distance between us and "how we know what we know". We, in a manner of speaking, have been so involved in just trying to "know", that, in large part, we have yet to really and fully inquire into the "how" of knowing, i.e., the epistemology of Being-human.

 

73

For the most part, transcendence has been deemed to be the surest way to a form of Pure Knowing. Yet it is my contention that it is this very idea of transcendence that renders us non-conscious of ourselves as self-aware Bodies. In other words, through transcendence we can perhaps see ourselves as a whole, as a great expanse of Being in Space. We get apart, get detached, and then witness ourselves as if orbiting our "self" in a space shuttle. But we cannot, from that transcendent positioning, be intimate with and conscious of the most immanent and embodied realities of Being-human. The distance created through such transcendence is too vast for us to be able to note the particulars that have, I would contend, a much more direct and powerful influence on us. This sort of going too far off or away, or apart from, leaves us non-conscious in relation to all the activity that is occurring beneath and below the expansive gaze of the transcendent positioning.

We can't know what we are from a distance. We cannot know ourselves and know how we know what we profess to know by departing from the 'mess of immanence' and into a starry and celestial spaciousness. In short, we cannot become familiar with the necessary intimacies of Being-in-Existence through transcendence alone --- it leaves too much of the Earth and the various cultures of self-aware Bodies out of the equation. And it is still this Earth, and these various cultures of self-aware Bodies that we are dealing with; that we base all of our references for relating upon; that as far as we know "is it" --- the only game in town.

Now for the non-conscious...

Because we have become so indoctrinated and habituated into the way that we use language --- to a particular languaging process --- it remains unnoticed, therefore, we seldom recognize that there is a transparency to all languaging. As Jane Roberts has already shared with us, "Initially, language was meant to express and release, not to define and limit." However, as we well know, the 'objectivist' gaze is precisely that gaze that seeks to define and limit (meaning, not transparent at all). We could even say that the 'objectivist' gaze is the culture of the "transcendent mind or eye" looking from afar at the isolated processes under study. This detached gaze seeks out the limits of that process --- so as to be able to define that process, objectify that flow, that Body, that Being. The 'objectivist' gaze is, then, the gaze which seeks verifiable and rigidly determined definitions of the flows and forces, the interactions and relations, the combustions and the dissolutions of phenomenal existence. All of which are expressions and releases, amalgamations and attractions; which cannot be isolated under a gaze unless they are first subjected to colonization and commodification. Flows are broken down. Parts are deduced from wholes. Separation as the objective paradigm. Then can we stitch Humpty-Dumpty back together again. It is the hope after all --- only this time Humpty will be reconfigured; new and improved.

The objectivist agenda is one that is intent after a non-transparent languaging of the processes of the phenomenal worlds. This means no holes in the theories. This means no room for error in the definitions. This means no transparency of language; denouncing the "mutual penetration" of Hwa Yen Buddhism. "Just one reality here thank you very much. We have it all under control. We have narrowed down the parameters and extracted all of the essentials from that process, that Body, that Being, that Flow." No more "mutual penetration"; just an objectively re-inforced code of behaviour and acceptable parameters which to live in --- sold as truth. And we have the proof too.

The Colonizer invades a territory, and objectively defines and determines the territory according to the primary motive the Colonizer possesses. The 'objectivist' invades a territory, and objectively defines and determines the territory according to the primary motive the 'objectivist' possesses. There is self-similarity here. And I mean not to equate Colonial practices with strict "objectivists". They do that quite well on their own, without my assistance. What is relevant, is that we carry an intent into our search for knowledge. In other words we are quite well looking for a certain result before we even begin. We have assumptions. We possess desires. We come, or rather, we arrive with baggage. In this way, we know according to the assumptions that we carry as our conceptual baggage. We know according to the desires we long to see fulfilled. We know according to the allegiances that we profess --- the beliefs that we either affirm or deny. We know according to what we want, what we seek, what we desire. We cannot and do not just "know", irrespective of conditioning. And even if we do we cannot communicate that which we know apart from any conditioning because to speak is to place conditions upon that which we are affirming as having come to know. In other words, we can only know what the conditions allow us to know. And we set the conditions for knowing based upon what we want to know --- or what we want to know so as to be able to control. This would mean that all "knowing" is conditional. Which would further signify that to "know" is to be conditioned. Which is precisely what the 'objectivist' gazers deny as being a part of their knowing. For them, it is truly authentic and real objectivity that is not conditioned by subjectivity of any sort, or, f any thing that can be called a condition on the 'objective truth'. For it is implied in the definition of the "objectivity" that it is untainted by the conditions of the subject at all. The subject is inconsequential. The conditions of the subject are inconsequential. It doesn't matter who you are, what Body you are, for you will still fall at the rate of 32ft./sec if you leap from a cliff. There are some certainties in Life --- this is where the 'objectivists' have served their brethren well.

We know better, though, than to take it too far. The 'objectivist' gaze does not illumine all contexts equally well. It becomes a sort of chimera in relation to certain contexts, and the challenges of knowing in realtion to those contexts. When the transparency of "knowing" is revealed, and realized, then we do not stand to lean on any one tool or doctrine of the way to knowledge too heavily. We allow for "mutual penetration" in relation to "ways of knowing". Chang writes that "different realms can co-exist with each other within the same object... and... these different realms, while simultaneously existing, do not impede or undermine each other, but mutually penetrate one another in a harmonious way."

With that in mind, we can safely state that there is no objective definable certainty irrespective of the context and conditions wherein which that objective and definable certainty has been extrapolated from(this includes the extrapolators as well as the conditions under which extrapolation occurred). In other words, the 'objectivist' gaze reveals a certain set, or group, of parameters. These parameters are the conditions which disclose that truth that only objectivity can reveal. But... and this is the crucial consideration in all of this... the so-called "objective truth" is not the whole truth. Not by far! It is the partial truth that is extracted from what the conditions set-up beforehand will allow. Change or alter the conditions --- the context --- and that "objective truth" suddenly becomes not so objective anymore.

So, we can now realize that there are 'objectivist' criteria that must be met for 'objective truth' to be revealed. Certain 'objective conditions' have to be met for an 'objective truth' to be realized, displayed or deduced from the process under examination. All of this means that what we have come to define as "objective" in relation to knowledge, science, and technology, is not really objective at all. For strict objectivity is supposed to be aloof, standing apart from circumstances, and certainly is not meant to be swayed by something as wishy-washy as changing conditions or circumstances. And yet that is exactly what we have been sold as the 'objective' bill of goods: that conditions do not matter in regards to objective truth. But when we try and deduce a professed to be 'objective truth' about the nature of reality we are required to meet all sorts of prerequisites, conditions, and standards. I am sorry, but I was led to believe that the 'objective truth' applied all the time and in every circumstance, regardless of conditions or funny weather. Now, after the fact, we find out that the 'objective bill of goods' being sold to the public is not really objective at all. And that all of that objective knowledge is just as specific and determined by the conditions and circumstances of embodied and embedded reality as "subjectivity" is and was taken to be.

Yes, just like that demon of subjectivity that was supposedly exorcised from the laboratory; that was left at the door opening unto greater revelation through experimentation --- all because it was imagined to taint the results. Now they meet again. Both embodied and embedded. Mutually penetrating. Revealing specific views and understanding based upon pre-conditions. Subjectivity and Objectivity; never was that much difference all along. Sharing a Mutual Identity. Referenced to the same Fundamental Ground. Mutually, simultaneously arising and co-extensive. The Light doesn't obliterate shadows, but casts them near and far.

 

74

When we engage the world, the world engages us. Through communicating there is engagement. Communicating is being engaged with a part of the world. Communicating, as engagement, simply occurs; occurs through a medium. The flows of communicable expression/impression engage us on the level of sense. The world engages us sensorily. We are communicable as long as we are able to sense. And the more sense-able we are the more potential communication that exists for us.

Our tool of expression/impression is language. In its many diverse ways, mannerisms, styles, and stanzas, langauge is the tool that allows us to express and impress. For instance, a simple walk in the midst of the world is a language-rich happening, rife with communication. Each movement: a gesture that conveys meaning and intent. Each burble and blurb of sound: an expression of some being or other. Our world is literally and figuratively shot through and through with language; language spoken and noted; carried on wings of bird in flight and coo of dove in morning. We are continually being impressed with language, with the communicable song and shout of the world in each moment of our each moment. This is so whether or not we are conscious of it or not. Most often I would say we are not. We are forced into definite parameters of languaging, most often based upon immediate concerns. Thus, we are limited in our communicative potential. We still being sung to, still being cajoled into engagement --- we are just too self-possessed to notice. Our senses become turned inward as we deal with the representations of the day at hand. Still, we are being sung to.

In like manner, as being impressionable, we also express through frequency, pattern, and emanation. For we are the oracles of the world in that we release from within the interior Being those songs of the Earth and Sky that have been impressed upon us and reconstituted within that interior Being. In this way, each of us is impressed by the utterance of crow and jay, the squelching of seal and otter, the screeching of hawk and the lilting petal bloom of tulip in spring. These impressions are then expressed by us, after being reconstituted within the interior of Being, in the closest approximation-association that we can elicit, dependent upon the tools we have access to. So on and so forth, song and sign flow; symbol and state; signal and signifier. The rivers of language meander betwixt and between the particles of significance as the fields of fragrant lingua franca blossom and bloom, only to rot and wither, dissolve and die in Blessed Silences final breath.

 

75

Our every expression is dependent upon the a priori fact that we have been impressed. Expression follow-flows from impression. In this moment, right here, we are unable to express anything of either significance or non-significance, that is, unless we are impressed to do so. Something makes an impression. Pinch! We emanate expression. Yipe!

Impression = It makes sense. It is sense-able. So, we can express it. This, our expression, then serves as an impression on and for the Other. Expression/impression return. The Choir continues; call and response; phrasing the sense-able.

So, we are impressionable. Because we are communal in nature? I would say so. I would add that we are embedded within fields and folds of communication, whereby we are impressed and then express an associative referent of that impression. Communal flows and flux of signifcance. The expressed is reconstituted impression. Something or other impressed itself upon us. Which gave rise to the desire, or the capacity to express that impression --- what it meant to us.

Even the formless arising of intuitive insight is a form of impression, one that we can then express in a translative approximation through one or more of those mediums of language we have access to. Impression is enfolded in the expression: the expression of Other will make an impression, this impression will become a reconstituted expression that will further make an impression in the community. Language cycles with flows of impressing/expressing. Mutual penetration. To express is to impress.

If we turn our gaze from the act of definition to the art of expression/impression, then the world takes on whole new tones and hues. We see Life as a Presentation, as expression/impression; not necessarily as something which needs to be represented and defined as such and such. The very reality of our days takes on a new flavor; no more is the exclusive focus on determining, but rather becomes an engaged effort to express and be impressed ever more deeply. We allow ourselves to be touched, to be impressed by the Presentation of Life, "as it is". The result is that our expressions become that much more Real; for we have been impressed by the Real in a sense-able manner. The only thing that can happen as a result is that those impressions become expressions once again. We cannot help but return the touch. The only question is how deeply we allow those impressions to flow; hence, how deeply the expressions originate.

The very reality of our situation is that we are embedded within fields of communication. It is happening. The Other is bellowing forth in a billion billion tones. It is not even possible to extricate our self/selves from these languaged fields of spacetime; we are embedded --- indubitably so. We are also, in each moment of every moment, impressed by the expressions of the Other (just as the Other is also and simultaneously impressed by what we each express).

Through the art of languaging our impressions of and about the world, rather than defining, we find, as Jane Roberts expresses in her book, The Nature of the Psyche, that, "...all languages' purposes rise from those qualities natural to love's expression --- the desire to communicate, create, explore, and to join with the beloved." Notice here that there is no notion at all of defining/confining through language, of imprisoning and jailing the Beloved in definitions, in representations. No, according to Roberts, language is first and foremost a welling forth of the desire to express and communicate with the beloved... the every Other... the Each... the All... the Here... the Now... the This... the yous and mes that just are.

I am very impressed. I cannot help but express this impression. Even the tragedy of existence strikes us deeply --- we cannot help but respond in some manner with an expression of just how deeply we were impressed by that happening. "I just had to tell you how I feel. I couldn't help myself."

We are impressed. We cannot help but express how deep an impression this has all made on us. If we are impressed, we will express it. Which is why I say that we can only really effect communication through how deeply we allow ourselves to receive the worlds impressions. How sense-able are we? Do we let the sounds in? Do we hear beyond? Deeper? Farther? Do we feel the waves of pulsing currents beamed from tower yonder? Can I feel the Beloved from across the Great Divide; the distance that separates us? How deeply are we impressed?

Or, do we just shut down? Block the flow coming in? "I don't want to hear it!" So, we don't. And even if we do --- it sure doesn't make an impression on us, does it?

 

76

In some ways, the first and foremost has become the latter and the hindmost. It often goes with our primary education that some of the most basic insights of existence go unnoticed, uncognized, unglimpsed; undiscovered and untaught; unrelated by the societally educating eye of awareness. For instance, we come to believe in the inexplicable notion that the use of words --- language --- is a way to define existence, rather than the means to express/impress as an act of communion. Rather than the fundamental notion that words are mere re-presentations of reality --- and only closest approximations of the where, what, how, when, why of Life --- we come to, and are led to, the belief that words can ultimately define this mysterious existence of ours. But they can't! And therein lies but one mountain of an illusion about our existence: that language shall be deigned to supersede and take precedence over, by defining Being-in-Existence, rather than expressing Being-in-Existence.

"What's the difference between the attempt to definitively define and that of just expressing expression?", you might ask. Well, the difference is huge! The distinction is great. The difference is that between our confinement in a prison-house of languaged definitions and our freedom in a fluid field of expressions/impressions. The distinction is great --- it is not a matter of mere semantics at all.

We all know what it feels like to have someone define us in a word or two. We cannot help but be impressed by this. So, we often express moral outrage at such a narrow summation of who we are. We know. We can feel, sense, intuit. We are not just this. And when someone defines us as "just this, and this alone" we are all set to storm the gates of heaven; that is, if we are not conditioned to internalize that moral outrage and turn it upon ourself (which oftentimes can be the case). On the other hand, we have no problem with someone expressing their impressions of us. In fact, it can be quite fun --- it is one of the reasons why we go to psychics and palm readers --- to get someone elses impressions of who we are or might be.

Suggestion opens up possibilities and opportunities; whereas definition limits and omits the alternatives. "It is just this and only this", says the definer; while the suggester says "it looks like it could be a.... or a.... or even a.... to me."

The languages that we know and use --- those that we rely on and express ourselves with most --- are not always inclusive of the impressions we receive or are subject to. In other words, we can have an impression that is not easily framed or put into langauge, i.e., that is not easily expressed. When there is not a word or a symbol for those feelings or sensations that we are impressed with, we often tend to dismiss them as not "real" --- or inconsequential at least. The result of such a practice is a denial of those very living-energetic impressions that constitute our moral engagement with Life (simply because we have no ready definition, meaning, or representation for the impression it gets repressed or discarded, hence, our moral responsibility often gets discarded along with those impressions as well).

So, as we can see, a portion of our multidimensionality is and can continue to be dismissed because it doesn't happen to fit into the confines of our languages as they are presently constructed. Jane Roberts expresses the impression that our "language tells [us] that certain things are true, or facts, and that certain things are not. Many of [our] most vivid and moving feelings do not fit the facts of [our] language, so [we] disregard them." We might as well say that we disregard our inherent potentialities --- our Being --- merely because these potentialities or actualities of Being are not conducive to fitting into the confines of our languages, i.e. they don't fit the representations that we have stored up. A pure presentation gets exiled for lack of the ability to fit it into a representation. And this dismissal and disregard can become a fatal flaw. I associate it with being a moral lack. For, it is often the case that those deep impressions are exactly what needs to be expressed on the communal stage, and not just readily dismissed because they don't fit into the representational structure that is our paradigmatical context. It is also fatal in the sense that it is a denial of inhering potentials; just for the sake of keeping one boxed into the languaged prison or confinement of the representational word-symbol definitions that are used to determine and dictate "Who and What We Are."

I have no doubt that if we think or believe that if there is no word for it then it doesn't exist --- or, at least, is not worthy of being considered "Real". In the language expressed above, we could conclude that certain Pure Presentations of Nature's Economy --- of Being-Becoming- Embodied --- are not representable in relation to the conceptual limits we now live according to the constructs of. So, in this way, the Pure Presentation is limited as such, and either dismissed or forced to become accomodated to the representational paradigm of the present order of relations, i.e., cultural acceptability.

It is exactly that sort of weak and inept understanding that is a deep betrayal of Being. The fact of the matter is that we are more than word-symbols, i.e., more than representations can represent. We can transcend the limits of definition if we but allow ourselves to go undefinable into the free-range opus; dreaming more of ourSelf into existence, into actuality, into Nowness; allowing and living as the Pure Presentation of Nature's Economy in expressive/impressive cycles of engaged community. The alternative is confinement in the conceptual prisons that have given us what we have now --- not that this now is all bad --- it is just not the Whole of Who/What We Are by any means or stretch of the imagination. And if I said "you, or we are only what can be defined and determined according to the representations already created", I would expect some moral outrage on your part!

How can we know that an imprisoned landscape of language really exists? Well, I would offer that we know because we have been there. We have each been defined, or felt a vital aspect of Being be negated by such definitions. As I see it, living, breathing, teeming Being does not take kindly to living in the caged definitions of others. Our languages, which once served --- and still do serve to express and communicate --- are now often used to define and/or eliminate certain of the Pure Presentations of Nature's Economy. "Oh, he is a this or that." Just attach your own label. "She does that all of the time." Merely chain self, enslave and imprison Being. It's an old game. We all do it. It's been part of our story. The Colonizers defined the colonized. The Commodifier define the commodified. "Just do it. You have already been determined as a subject --- as subject you are just an object that produces labor for the common good. Now get back to work. Only twelve more hours and you can go home.... If you reach your quota, that is!"

That is the definition of that subject. Some are and would be much more severe. I am impressed by such definitions. I express moral outrage over such definitions. I am impressed very deeply by such definitions.

If we want to continue to live in a box, a box of high definition-high resolution representations of Who/What We Are we can. We can come to be merely simulated selves, bought via the affirmation of increasing representations and the simultaneous negation of Pure Presentations? If we allow ourselves to be that deeply impressed by the definitions of others... and turn that moral outrage on ourselves... rather than the monopolistic forces bent on defining the world in their terms. Colonize. Commodify. Capitalize.

 

77

The implicit and explicit Beauty of Art can serve as a guide. More of our moments of engagement with the lifeworld can serve as suggested impressionistic expressions of the Real --- if we so choose, that is. To do or be so, to employ the meta-phorm (metaphor) of Art as languaged expression, is to unleash ourselves --- Being --- from the shackles of excessive religio-scientific literalizations the too cramped define. What this serves to signify, is that our communication --- our languaged expressions/impressions --- are re-cognized and newly interpreted as Art, and not as unequivocal literalizations that are supposed to depict and represent the actual and definite "Truth" in a Totalistic fashion.

The first conclusion would be this: that we cannot reduce life to a definition or a word or a sentence or a passage from out of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, but we can sense the artfulness of our interpretations of Life, and those of the Other we are in communicado with (I say all of this only because our literalness is killing us, literally!). All of those interpretations of Life and Reality that are taken as literal Truth, merely serve to engage us in death throes and battle royales. When it has been so literally defined and codified, the Truth, that is, the literalizations create an oppositional force. Peoples speak different languages. Peoples grow up in unique cultural environs. Peoples are diverse. Again, our literalizations are killing us --- killing the actual diversity of Being! When we define the colonized too narrowly --- or define them at all --- we set up a situation where definition gives the Colonizers power to negate and or literally destroy the colonized aspects that dare step out of the bounds of the definitions handed down from the Colonial High Ground.

Art can serve to hold the space open for many interpretations; whereas religio-scientific literalizations create a "Master-Signifier" that alone is the "Real". "This is it. This is the Master Signifier." The Representational Idol, with capitalization. This is it. The Master Signifier. And we who fall under the dominion, or place ourselves under the dominion, or subject others to being under the dominion of the Master Signifier also construct a signifying chain of command; a hierarchy of terms. And the artful rebellion is a sort of blasphemy in relation to those commanding symbols and signs; where crimes against the colonial definitions that oppress are taking place through decoding the codes of the imperialistic havens. And the subversion of those "master codes" through the artful appreciation of the interpretive nature of the subjective and intersubjective spheres of existence.

The Master Codes create terms of endearment. Symbols and signs that we love; that we would die for; that we would kill for. In this way the Master Codes are mythic in nature, as it is the mythic character and quality of Being-human that empowers this impenetrable fog of belief in relation to the Code. It is --- the Master Code --- a transcendent gift from God. Implanted into these times, into this space; given to these peoples; bestowed upon humanity on behalf of the Good, the True, the Beautiful. The Master Code. The hierarchical signifying chain of command. The sequence of terms, endeared to the Heart. The Master Code creates the Master Material Signifier; of which there may be no actual material referent. For Progress and the Mythic Mind have not yet reached the Promised Land. There is much work still to be done. The Code has not yet been fully articulated in the terms of techno-scientific endearment. There is much work still to be done in order to create the Master Material Signifier. The Sign to end all signs. The new symbol that will subsume and incorporate all others. The Transcendent Dream. The Symbolic Real. The race for the best simulation is on.

Life is the supreme work of Art. Life is that Artistry from which all other forms of Art (interpretation) are derived. Life is that artistic presentation which we are fully embedded in. And it is the Being-human who has this new-found capacity to re-present the artistry of Life in new forms. Yes, new forms. Simulations. Simulacra. Reconfigured bio-engineerings. New forms. Nature re-presented in a new model; this years version. And with the extreme nature of competition which Capitalism creates, which the Market, as a system, appears to thrive on, we are then thrown into a situation as subjects where novelty is created so as to seize the Market, to capitalize, to get rich, to make a name for one's self. This engine of capitalistic drives is high-strung and high-wired. It is finance converging with extreme sports. High-adrenaline excitement. And it is no more than ever having a most pervasive influence on the pace and order of our day to day life. Because we are in and of the Market to a certain degree. And the Market is driving the freight train of postmodern civilization. We run according to its schedule --- and when I say "run" I mean run! The pace quickens. Capitalizing means seizing the advantage, taking the lead, getting out front, getting in on the ground floor. And the general public as investors encourage this because as investors they want to see a high rate of return on theior investments. This means that the engines that return the most are the ones that get the most fuel. A high-rate of return on our investment means more than any moral considerations in realtion to the company we are investing in. All that matters is profit, gain, valuation, capitalization. "Show me the money!" Postmodern Master-Signifier: Money. The material referent being the newly globalized Market of decentered multinational capitalism.

We have more and more investors in the Market. More and more folk are investing in the Market for gain, for profit; thereby further driving the insane logic behind the system as a whole. William Greider calls it "the manic logic of capitalism". I have no qualms with that referencing. There is a manic quality and character to the logic of capitalism in its present form. The centers of capital, being that this is where the major forces and flows of labor and commodities merge, is also where those forces and flows are also managed for profit and loss. Actual peoples become either potential contributors to the manic logic of capital or impediments to its logical expansion. So many potential commodities produced. So much potential costs to relocate, to displace. So much dissent to overcome, to propagandize out of commission. So much or so many representations that can be managed for multinational corporate agendas, which may or may not have the peoples best interests at heart.... Or anywhere in the vicinity for that matter!

Production. Reproduction. Mass-produced commodities. Mass capitalization on cheap labor abroad. Relocation and dsiplacement. The corporate slave-trade reeducates the colonized masses. Mass-produced commodities. Capitalization on cheap labor. Cost-cutting measures. Higher returns. Reduce overhead. Increase revenues. Create a Market for the stuff that no one really needs. More representational distractions to quiet the pang of alien-nation. More representational distractions. The free world is swimming in simulacra. Meaningless symbols that "bear no relation to any reality whatever."

"The manic logic of capitalism" indeed.

Can you remember being a child and setting up a lemonade stand out front of the house? I can. It is a sort of Norman Rockwellian vision of America. The young little entrepreneurial spirit shining through the child. So proud it makes us!

I can also remember being taught who to be a salesman in primary school too. Just a little tyke and they had us out on the streets selling door to door. They still do this. It is a way to raise money. A way to indoctrinate, too, I might add. It is the capitalistic system. We give the kiddies, at reduced costs, some goods. Send them out on the street and have them go pound the pavement trying to hawk the candy bars or the cookies or the magazine subscriptions. Now, these children sell a lot of merchandise. And they don't get any of the money. We are told that it goes to finance school activities, trips, outtings, excursions. The kids are raising money for their own education at the age of five and six. The kids are out attempting to get start-up capital for their little after school activities. We, as a nation, as a people, cannot finance these activities. No, we would rather kill two birds with one stone. We can teach the children how to be good little capitalist pigs, and get those activities financed in the process.

These are cultural turning points in the education of our youth. It is much like a rite of passage. We, in the West, often feel as if we are missing out on certain cultural events --- as if we have no equivalent rites of passage for our youth, and that this is the problem in many cases with our troubled youth. But we do have our own rites of passage! It is just that the appearance that these events take on is not the same as the indigenous style that has been popularized through anthropological studies. It is the appearance of the various culturally significant events in a capitalistic society that changes clothing. These cultural transmissions still exist, for no culture can thrive without initiating its youth. All the more the same for the capitalistic societies of present day cultures. The significant cultural events, in relation to initiating our youth into the system, hinge upon the key aspects of the capitalistic doctrine as a whole. Colonize. Commodify. Distribute. Market. Mark-up. Capitalize. Corner a market; offer a service. Commodify that product or service and then distribute and market it --- let people know. Sell yourself, your image; trade your icon, nurture your representation. Market it. And if you are 1 in 20, or thereabouts you will make it, you will capitalize on the situation because you are a good little entrepreneur. If not, then feel guilty and head back to the woodshed. Keep trying. Keep trying to capitalize!