The Reality And Its Imaginary Double

Help others go beyond the clouds of confusion and know exactly who they are dealing with, by making an alibi that is fair to the credible everyday realism.

Everything seemed to be statistically quantified in my life, basically everything. Except that cumbersome need of attaching myself to the world of pure ideas, frequently covered by a fine crust of consciousness, whose possible maximum of abstraction I wasn’t able to calculate, which could’ve kept me safe from the game of getting closer or farther away from the vicinity of phenomena challenging to science. It was as if I was part of a Stephen King script, I had to experience a reality that some consider superficial or prefer to ignore, while others experience it as a sword of Damocles, without them understanding the symbolism of its power, rendered in a particular way.

Confident, I became skillful in avoiding the ambiguities between the real and the imaginary, but at the same time, I was turning into a master of the scientific inadmissible. In a provider of complex algorithms to which only a short madness, only a utopia could ensure their implementation in a continuous manner. But, was it a correct one, I wonder?

Science is the double of a reality that surpasses the immediate of a life out of the current norm, which makes you feel invincible in the skin of a momentary character.

I didn’t like to think of myself as a juggler of figures, largely basing my existence on the spot I’d situate myself on in statistical terms, overshadowed only by a false debate over the value of my identity. But rather as a puppet led by the resort of ideas of redefining science, through unexpected matchings or combinations.

For any other mentality, my entire science was like a ray of sunshine that slips through a crack in the rock. An estimate that could very well have been inaccurate, because it offered certain explanations concerning the variation of external scientific capital entries, from a source of understanding superior in depth, at a point where others did not fully agree.

Because this science made things much more complicated and harder to solve. Starting from this accumulation of concerns, mechanisms for generating random variables that could lose their coordinates through isolation, above me began to hang a threatening hunch that tented asymptotically towards certainty. Later turning into an attention that strengthened my steps towards reconstructing and reorienting reasoning.

My salvation was to hesitate at times, to get out of the sun, but to not give up on the dream, even if it seemed a utopia.

Do your aspirations for an unbeatable ideal prove your guilt before the world in constructing a scenario in which you must compare an entity of thought by internalizing real actions, with a reflection of your reactions to the surrounding world?

Open matches, in which the teams of "science" and "reality" encounter frequently in the leader’s work of art, lead to the impossibility of total formalization of a major formula of understanding and appreciating his science, ultra-advanced, manifested in the study of theories with a coercion or influence effect, that can return a true, positive value.

But precisely through this contradiction of ideas, dreams, opinions, expectations, horizons, which betray a different fundamental understanding of things, the scientist is somehow guilty of that "spot of light". Of a far too great an integration in leadership of new sources of scientific capital that are not in others’ boundaries of understanding.

Therefore, each scientist has an obligation to redeem their "guilt" in front of their fans, proving a certain intelligence, a certain fingerprint of identification that attests to their quality, justifying the emergence of new elements of development, management and popularization of science. This intelligence is based on building a scenario in which you must compare an entity of thought by internalizing real actions, with a reflection of your reactions to the surrounding world.

Do you take responsibility for ensuring the delivery of a finished product, from the perspective of what you're willing to go all the way without getting entangled in stakes too high?

A heroine of writer Anne Hebert said: "Needless to deceive yourself. One day, The Reality And Its Imaginary Double will coincide. Confirming all fears. Abolishing any limit. Dispelling any alibi. Prohibiting any escape. You will be declared guilty before the world. You have to immediately get away from this weakness. To reduce the dream to silence, before it is too late. To shake it off good, in the light. To rid yourself of phantasms."

It’s a subtle warning, that you have an increased responsibility for ensuring the delivery of a finished product, of a real leadership, per the quality norms imposed by the limitations of others. It’s so easy to dribble reality, but it is so hard for others to go beyond the clouds of confusion and know exactly who they are dealing with.

Because when you start to let yourself driven by the resort of ideas of redefining science, through unexpected matchings or combinations, you are always tempted to cheat, using your own mechanisms of generating random variables that can lose their coordinates through isolation, i.e. not understood by anyone. Be willing to complete an action without getting involved in too high stakes, meaning without making a science of consumption or a captivating but unrealistic gaming experience.

Science is a finite product, of high quality, only if you know how to turn it into a goal whose fulfillment does not imply a material gain. The big stake of the people is often the financial gain, but for an inspired creator the real gain is the possibility of the “product” to be useful to the evolution of the world.

Do you ensure the application of the principle: "everything is possible however, in any amount, anywhere and with anyone", considering yourself one with the synthetic sum of some knowledge related to a certain research object?

The consequence is easy to deduce, you become like an actor certain of his reputation, who is entirely caught up in himself and only pretends to act with his scene partners. This dip in yourself, tacitly dialoguing with leadership in a purely scientific language, even if it arguably constitutes the highest creation of your genius, is highly likely to be cataloged firsthand as individualism, or vanity that wants to be flattered, but not appreciated, a vanity unconscious of the ridiculous it finds itself in.

It is wrong to apply personal criteria for the selection and use of knowledge, or put them in front of an unattainable ideal to others, because you end up turning into a ruler of the scientific inadmissible, a maker of ambiguities and complexities for which only a dream, only a utopia could bring fulfillment. And a utopia expressed the straying from diversity, reality, the loss of any cohesion and application of the principle: "everything is possible however, in any amount, anywhere and with anyone."

In addition to the act of creation, the scientist relates to a single object of research: “Man and his symbols during the evolution of the world”.

The great challenge of science is destined for an emancipation of thought from the perspective of the image you have about reality, by its ability to make visible the effects of an integration in a story whose action takes place in the decoration created by you.

The Reality And Its Imaginary Double aims at the integration of leadership in everyday life. It is nice to dream of stars and a blue sky, full of vibration, but you cannot reach them if you are inaccurate in relation to the facts, in relation with the accepted standard in terms of how others perceive your science.

For frail minds, to be independent can mean to be abnormal, and being abnormal often means being hated.