Monday, December 8, 2008

opposition to my actions as First of Chicago's Mafia

During the past 16 years, I have held the belief that the opposition I was sensing to my actions as First of the Mafia in Chicago was wrong, that it was a manifestation of a wrong perception of me on the part of someone who should have known better. It is my updated view, today, that the opposition is not wrong, but must be assumed as a part of being First, and that the thing to do is get on with it. I don't advise people to oppose my actions, however, nor do I wish to take a laissez-faire attitude toward it. On the other hand, I must accept that being First necessarily entails deeply unpopular actions, even among the personnel of the Mafia itself, or else nothing ambitious is being done, no risks are being taken, and nobody's reputation is on the line. From the very beginning, me being First in Chicago, something ambitious was being done, risks were being taken, and somebody's reputation was on the line. So while at the start I was put off by the opposition I felt, now I see better that that is only natural, and a part of the landscape for a position as important as First of the Mafia in Chicago, if one takes it seriously, and how can one not?

This in no way lessens the reasonableness, from its own point of view, of any particular position of opposition to my actions as first, but neither does it substantiate such opposition. Furthermore, the opposition is not expected to diminish just because it gets my blessings, as a certain perspective might put it. But also it may happen that the drag on me of opposition stops being so aggravating as it was before, when I took it as something in need of attention down to the most minute detail.

This development comes in parallel with continuing progress in my home bureau on some major quantitative work which has been slowed up considerably by the opposition of poor comprehension, a condition which seems, with successive rounds of discovery of better ways to express the work, to be, possibly entirely, caused by departures from perfectly expressive form, this being my own responsibility. The perception of the work is rife with imperfections of logic, my own closely held logic and the logic held somewhat less closely which may be more proprietary to the greater universe in which I operate, a universe not normally seen in so personal a way by those who are not mentally ill. It must correspondingly be pointed out, however it may seem that this is an admission of my having pathological symptoms of mental illness, that the work I have done enables me to say that these less closely held logical phenomena have been brought considerably closer and under better control, as a result of my complete theory of mental illness, as partially revealed in the obelisk statement (update: obelisk now removed.) in the sidebar. This is a vast subject and I am not about to leap into it at this time.