We can generally say that the way towards somewhere is still a test, is never perfect, does allow shifts and mistakes and reconsideration, until the little points show the exact coordinates of a referential scheme or pattern. The separation of the public from the private, Google from WordPress, the subjective from the objective, does pass though unattended virulent turbulences.

It is true that I had been working, too (no, but what have I not been working at!), at the possibility of avoiding illness of psychosomatic origin through the proper expression of feelings. It may seem peculiar but the origin was Genesis ‘man gave name to all the animals’, as animal comes from latin anima (soul), and the Greek Zoo, does not say nothing but ‘life’, while anima says ‘the moving’ (Spanish: ánimo, animado, do refer themselves both to inner and outer movements), I thought that the original Hebrew differentiated the ‘given determined’ names (Sun, Moon, Earth) from the one’s you have to determine yourself through introspection (feelings). The fact of not assuming this human task, would be at the origin of disturbances that may affect even the body (stress, tension, lack of concentration at the origin of accidents, but also of illness like cancer, gastritis and other, even of derived illness through virus and bacteria resulting of a lowered defense system).

I used thus to try expressing anger or fury or dispair in the correspondant grammatical structures (literature helps), as a subjective path of relief. It was an evidence for me that the apparent cause of the anger was not necessarily the real cause of the anger, but that the desire of knowing what was the real cause had necessarily to pass through the determination of the anger as it appeared to my mind at that very moment (deriving problem: induction or psychic influence).

Of course very funny situations were the theoretical result of such an attempt such as the image of being ‘under observation’. Would the one who observes make the exact difference between the inner realm and the outer world, and be as large in interpretation so as to understand the ‘home’ as the place were someone is allowed to be himself? Tests did have disastruous results. If I’m at home and say to my sister:”I’m so fucking angry that I could kill that person.” Does not mean I’m going to kill anyone nor does it reveal deeper homicid intentions. Say, you write an e-mail saying:”I promiss, I’ll bomb them all up.” Does it mean you are going to bomb up anything? On the contrary it would seem that the possibility of properly expressing something at a determined moment does help to get over a problem or agression and thus diminishes actually the possibility of it happening.

But how could this evidence be inserted into a more public environment? It is an evidence that a certain number of affective expressions should be avoided in public, and even taken as a hint of evident agression (legal crime) if happening through public means and even more through oficial people who may be pretending to express up to national intentionality or thought.

People do rarely make the difference between ‘bullshit’ (just putting agressive words one beside the other) and targeted analysis of deeper problematics through images having as reference public people. Or to say, people do usually make the difference, but the first does hide himself behind the second pretending that it is the same.

It seems to me an evidence that the right of agressing publicly someone because of his being his, or belonging to this or that, or whatever should be erradicated as it actually is. On the other hand it is of need to make the difference between the image and the evidence: people who don’t take care of their image as not protecting themselves of doing a certain number of things, can’t claim after that there has been damage made on their image, if someone just says … what there is. If we pretend that we can do what we want, we can’t avoid after that it be said, because you may do what you want, and I … just say what you did.

These are though very subtle differences and the world does understand little about them. In fact, it is not how to learn to shout around, it is how you get what you want. If you want to be in touch with people who may approach things more or less the way you do, you may say a certain number of things in order to know who may think that way. If you want to make money, it may be an extraordinary marketing strategy. It is not to please everyone, it is to choose the one’s you want to please. If you want to make yourself eternal enemies and can take the charge of it, why should you not be allowed doing so as long as you don’t infringe law.

This should be the general ethics ruling on the contents of ‘the book of cristals’.