The (heights of a. . .) 'monopoly on death'

 December 6, 2009

Everyone should have the privilege of punctuality. It speaks of honest participation, among other things, less capable over.

Therefore, a lot of the time it takes me to realize something, as important, though not important,
should it be fair.

The book I've been touting myself too, of late, is a alternate reality throughout the course of ordinary life under extraordinary circumstances, which altogether surround the material of death as a monopoly in which we live. Death, as a material? (It is otherwise known as immaterial for the most part.) However, the factoring-in-of-death in light of various factors, which are invisible, weigh in on society as a measure of thought. Particularly, throughout the novel are strings of detachment, wither to - our affable - if not gullibility is a part, this is a challenge for the reader to administer its plausibility. Therefore, it plays as an integral role for the reader not to absorb into the assumption, the reader, is living in an alternative satire of reality. There is no hint of sarcasm. The diminutive effect which carries on through 'death with interruptions', is the idea that death is hidden from us, not in graveyards per se, or in adverse conditions of which corruption prevails all are mortally wounded, as one might guess would indicate undertaking.

There is no protagonist or villain, Will-o-the-wisp or things that go bump in the night, violation (think of as the Grim Reaper) or drums rolling to its proverbial death march, only the influence of imagination or an opening to another door. Which the reader, I am, to speak for.

Personally, the idea of living in a world where death as a monopoly seems aggregate to whether it is, or it isn't, though it fluctuates. Much of these ideas are conveyed, through the premise if we were to live in world where nobody did die, then, what transforms through alternate reality, an induced repetition of what now happens as it already does exist today.

My commentary focuses on, how reality in which we adhere to on an everyday level, conflicts with the same purpose from which our aversion to monopolized version of this alternate reality where no one dies. So - it would mean that the mainstream idea of death, if it exists as something in an ordinary state, creates an unexplainable or unsatisfactory world we choose to live in. This proposal, gains in the form of an indisputable form of submission, though language is not one of subjective nature were we to ask ourselves, about what would actually take precedence in a world without death.

All of this^ follows the point that language, not having our benefit, is a disjointed albeit amalgamation of sinister ideals. Were we to act, without changing our ideals, language is sincerely evaporated before anything else is considered - to an eventual predisposition. That, is of - a nature so immaterial of virtue, we cannot escape the meaning -a lack thereof of language, we associate with death itself. So much so, that we disembody the trivial truths, that bind us from within that internally. In other words, we depend on death of ourselves, in some mishapping (that we've already concluded is impossible), such as the false hope of immortality. This leads us to an example of mortality (e.g. death), which can only explain, our intrinsic value.

Death, for the lack thereof in this case, death, survives above all things equally. Where no one dies, the myth that death brings about means, what carries on in fortitude? As natural as death is, in place of death, that people (i.e. unity) were to change the power structure on a secular level. This would mean that death without death as a penalty, would result in undesirable, daily inactivity, because we live in a world fostered of insurance corporation, politicians vying for affection of its people, the propaganda of television serving the masses, in an episode, of death ensuring our survival, demanding it returns to make us progress the human condition.

death, as it is meant, in lower case 'd' (not in capital upper case letter 'D'), is pronounced that it does not have a voice. That in which case, people everywhere, were to imagine death is an inhospitable reality, must be conveyed as a form of total worship, to denounce death, is to renounce eternal life. This is from which, death in case, were properly managed by church and state, that we should hold in the deepest regard for. Everything, within eventide homes, is measured by how indefinite, people, habituate these patterns as the upbringing or in apparatus. Death is restored, then, promising more than language, the status quo is met.