Minutiae (pron.: /mɨˈnjuːʃɪ.iː/; singular minutia /mɨˈnjuːʃɪ.ə/; both also pronounced /mɨˈnjuːʃə/) are, in everyday English, minor or incidental details.
Salad’s the best part of the meal most of the time! It ain’t minor! I’d like to know Erik’s opinion of mueslix, too.
On another note, Pharaoh Ramses was most kind to prattle on about something as far away from him on timelines as “we” are from him, but again, there is no time.
For this edition of the Erik’s Bad Joke Hour, we ask another of the “listees” previously suggested over “yonder” (where we sometimes wander) that being the one Julius Caesar, of Roman association.
ST = substitute teacher JC = Julius Caesar and Erik
ST: Erik, given your speed I would imagine again you’ve anticipated and located the interviewee?
Erik: Yup, right here.
ST: I have a question; is the relative inability for some channels to get well known people connected entirely the medium’s influence OR is it sometimes the subject?
Erik: Both; the subject can be reincarnated, so it’s difficult to arrange a visit. Sometimes they don’t want to.
ST: What reasons would a famous soul have to avoid an interview?
Erik: Voyeurism and damage the answers might incur. (Wow, Erik, “incur”? Nice word)
ST: The subject knows how people might react?
Erik: Yeah, and they know how some questions will dig into their life like a paparazzo on contract to a gossip rag. Earth shit.
ST: Okay, we’re doing our second emperor.
Erik: Do Emperor Obama. That’ll be three, then.
ST: Down boy, good doggie!
Erik: Two presidents walk into bar….
ST: Uh oh….
Erik: Yuss keedink….
ST: Is The Committee around?
Erik: They are if you are.
ST: Mr. Caesar, sorry for the banter, it’s a CE thing with this guy….do you mind the title?
JC: No, I do not mind, use it as you prefer. The banter is good, very human.
Erik: I like his abbreviation, Jay Cee. You should call him that instead.
ST: Okay, Jay Cee, as Emperor of Rome, what were the challenges of the time you saw as most important?
JC: I’d like to mention the concept of Emperor as leader. There is always a strong association to what you refer to on Earth as a God and the figurehead of leader of an empire is derived from this. The ability to organize to then create an empire tends towards this position.
ST: Did this represent a challenge?
JC: No; I was not concerned with much of what happened outside the empire or its influence. There was not a threat or challenge that we saw. As history demonstrates the challenge was internal.
ST: Does a powerful leader aspire to a position from pure altruism on the one extreme or wanton lust for power at the other?
JC: Both, as history has shown. The lust for power is a difficult thing for a leader to conceal in your time of communication; this challenge I did not have. Distribution of information could be controlled differently but that brought other problems.
ST: What problems?
JC: Once momentum was given to an idea, it was difficult to convince people otherwise, if leadership believed it necessary to do that. In your electronic immediate world, this is more quickly attempted. To a certain extent, it is effective. The challenge will be to respond in a different way once the effectiveness of a leader’s quick communications disappears.
ST: Like, very few people will listen or care?
JC: Yes, this is seen in the future.
ST: What advice or events, or both, do you foresee for larger nations or groups of them, such as Russia, The European Union and the USA?
JC: The pattern of development of the Roman Empire is repeated in these examples you name, with much different minutiae, to use your title word. As is always the case, the abrupt change in a society arrives with much surprise for the majority. To allow the forces of change to develop is seen as giving up; this quality is shunned, sometimes to human detriment. The easy approach of doubling down one’s efforts to ever tougher resolve discounts the nuances of key components. There can also be an element of push by some to have the existing society crumble even more quickly, its disassembly seen as the necessary first step. In reality what will result is something no forces of change or opposition can predict.
ST: You foresee abrupt change for these three elements, Europe, Russia and America?
JC: For the world, with the details of these three as minutiae.
Erik: With ranch dressing, please.
ST: Your assassination was planned to do what and what did it actually do, what actual effect came of it?
JC: The plot to eliminate me was as history shows, standard fare; eliminate a leader and eliminate the focus point of organization, in order to change things. The effect upon the empire was none; things were going to change, had I remained or otherwise.
ST: What about forces in the three current examples?
JC: One has a perceived powerful leader; one is a coalition and one has a less forceful leader on the surface.
ST: I assume the surface person would be the American president. If so, what is different below the surface?
JC: Yes, that is correct and below the surface there is great power and influence from this office. The appearance or approach taken by an occupant of this position cannot change this. The challenge in this instance will be to reconcile approach with results. I do not see a good outcome for this, yet I speak not to the president, who plays a role in the greater process, just as I did.
ST: How do you see the approach being taken?
JC: The time and effort required to use the established system to work through a change seems very frustrating to the desires of change, desires that have long grasped at certain results. The temptation to set aside aspects, certain features and restrictions, of the system is difficult to resist and has already been followed. This will lead to certain outcomes. In opposition to or against the greater forces at work, this can produce outcomes more detrimental to the overall than is the improvement gained.
ST: What can you say about Europe?
JC: The sovereign nations of his coalition will default to previous, unassociated entities as the benefits of the coalition become liabilities, as each nation sees them.
ST: Russia?
JC: This nation, having already passed though great convulsions, will see less upheaval in society.
ST: What advice can you give us?
JC: Your individual lives are what matter; the ideas and the emotions of membership are beneficial to you as you see them to be this way; it matters little what happens beyond satisfaction and what is seen as beneficial. Changes always produce gains and losses, my advice is to not seek blame. The curious feature of the timeline illusion of Earth is that the past cannot be changed, yet so much focus upon it by all of you on Earth would make it seem possible. Your now and your future, which shall become your now always in the next instant, is where attention should be aimed. The trend the past reveals is good to recognize but only for navigation of your upcoming series of “now” moments. Regrets and retributions should be cast aside. I say this is a painful lesson not well learned from my own demise as emperor, an act repeated since and without benefit.
ST: Erik, you joked about the US president being imperial.
Erik: Far from it, the dude won two elections. Problem is, what was won? The ability to tell voters they don’t count? He doesn’t operate like that, but some people see that and hate it and some see it and like it, and it seems like “never the twain shall meet”.
ST: Erik, you’re getting witty!
Erik: I get this crap from you! No, seriously I do “see” what you’re thinking and it squares with good sayings.
ST: So, Jay Cee, specific individual advice from the Roman Emperor would be?
JC: Disagreement and debate are always good, it is the way of the universe.
ST: Thank you for coming.
Erik: Later, everybody.
