BOTTLES, CANS, AND BEAKERS

1. There are a lot of things which I have dealt with in previous texts that render it unnecessary for me to elaborate upon or repeat them here, but every so often new insights and intuitive speculations arise which cause one to rethink a previous position and offer an alternative scenario or structure, and the subject of bottles vis-à-vis cans, which I dealt with on a necessarily - and at the time legitimately - simplified basis of alpha/omega in my last text, is one that has, in the meantime, presented itself to me afresh, with more comprehensively exacting implications that now require to be addressed.

2. Certainly, there would seem to be an alpha/omega-like dichotomy between bottles and cans, analogous to that between the id and the soul, but it is more likely to involve glass bottles than their plastic counterparts, and cans are by no means the only omega-oriented alternative, given the ubiquitous co-existence, in contemporary society, of plastic bottles and lidded beakers.

3. In fact, such alternatives suggest to me the likelihood of a triadic structure in which, irrespective of their size, plastic bottles, cans, and lidded beakers have an equal if dissimilar existence, rather like my projected concept of the triadic Beyond, wherein feminine, masculine, and divine (submasculine) alternatives would characterize each of its tiers in general, but the subsections thereof in particular.

4. Therefore it would seem more credible not merely to equate plastic bottles, cans, and lidded beakers with the triadic Beyond, but with subsections of each tier of our projected structure for 'Kingdom Come', since why should plastic bottles be limited to just one tier, say the bottom one in their alleged femininity, and cans and lidded beakers likewise - the former to the middle tier in their alleged masculinity, and the latter to the top tier on account of their more airy correlations.

5. In general terms that may be as good a projection as any, but in particular terms it seems to me that each tier could be represented by bottles, cans, and beakers, since all tiers would be subdivisible between feminine, masculine, and divine elements, given their nonconformist, humanist, and transcendentalist distinctions respectively within the contending sensibilities of chemical mass, physical volume, and metaphysical space.

6. But how, then, does one differentiate, on a speculative basis, those bottles, cans, and beakers which pertain to any given tier from those of the other tiers, presuming upon the need, in the interests of elemental definition, of such a differentiation? The answer, it seems to me, is perfectly straightforward!

7. Users of bottles, cans, and beakers pertaining to the top tier, which is metaphysical in its overall elemental constitution, would require the use of a straw in all cases, not just with regard to lidded beakers. For the straw is an airy thing, a method of consuming fluid that involves recourse to sucking, as upon air, and all forms of metaphysics, from feminine and masculine to divine, as from nonconformist and humanist to transcendentalist (which is the per se context of metaphysics, as of the divine) have to do with air.

8. By contrast, users of bottles, cans, and beakers pertaining to the middle tier, which is physical in its overall elemental constitution, would avoid recourse to a straw in all cases, since all forms of physics have to do with vegetation, and so soft drinks consumed via plastic bottles, cans, or beakers (necessarily unlidded) would be consumed via direct contact of the relevant container with the lips, whether in relation to feminine nonconformism, masculine humanism (the per se context of physics, as of the masculine), or divine transcendentalism.

9. On the other hand, users of bottles, cans, and beakers pertaining to the bottom tier, which is chemical in its overall elemental constitution, would wish to emphasize water or, rather, fluid at the expense of vegetativeness, since all forms of chemistry have to do with water, and so soft drinks consumed via plastic bottles, cans, and beakers (unlidded) would, one fancies, be tilted back at a short distance from the mouth to form an arc of fluid that the bottom tier person would presumably endeavour to swallow as directly as possible, whether in relation to feminine nonconformism (the per se context of chemistry, as of the feminine), masculine humanism, or divine transcendentalism, which is to say, with regard to bottles, cans, or beakers.

10. Naturally, logic can be taken academically too far! But to the extent that logic can be applied to such speculations within the context of a triadic Beyond, then it seems to me that one cannot do better, or concoct a more credible scenario, than that to which I have just dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of mental energy, in the hope that people may come, in the course of time, to understand the nature of their actions and choices more accurately and, in relation to other possibilities, relativistically than might otherwise be the case.

11. As a final contribution to logically conditioned speculation on the subject of the methodology and presentation of soft-drink consumption in projected relation to the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come', I should like to suggest, even at the risk of seeming over-academic, that where size options are concerned (if applicable), 'large' would be more relevant to the chemical bottom tier, 'medium' to the physical middle tier, and 'small' to the metaphysical top tier.

12. The reason I suggest such distinctions is that the larger the size of container, the greater the amount of fluid and the more applicability, in consequence, to each of the subsections of a chemical tier, with reductive amounts from this seemingly being more applicable to the physical and metaphysical tiers in all of their subsections, given the fact that they would have less to do with water, overall, than with vegetation and air respectively, and should accordingly reflect a proportionately reduced commitment to the element in question.