but the gods are all asleep in plato's cave of the game known as: the charades of shadows, chinese whispers with the hands - like cats, the gods lucid dream, they are completely able to be in control in the dream world, as man be concious in body, the gods possess complete access to limbs and movement - so here, am i damnable like the ancient greek poets who deemed the gods immoral? immoral in order to imitate and spread immorality?

we have moved away from exciting science,
in a sense exciting science was
described as scientific positivism
(i am going to use a lot of these words
with what i am about to assess),
we moved from that, we have entered a time
when the public is fed scientific pluralism,
that is: all the sciences together, at once -
scientific negativism emerged,
because too much objectivity of expression
was stressed by those who didn't have
the glory of shouting: eureka!
scientific negativism feeds objectivity,
and objectivity feeds a limitation of a personal
expression of feeling, it's an apathy we're talking
about, not necessarily a lack of emotion,
but the comfortable lack of very stressful emotions,
it's the sort of stringing of emotions that
leave you happily asserting a place in a world
in a mediocre way of fulfilling materialism,
science after all studies objects, so being objective
in expression is ontologically sound,
but would a scientist tell another scientist to be
stoic and not excited when he's about to shout eureka?
well, stoicism is a scientific humanism,
to practice being stoic is to train oneself to curb
one's subjectivity when necessary, although
not all the time, and not in a way to reflect harsh
realities of scientific facts, rather, personal facts,
jeff hanneman was a stoic by way of reflecting
with virtuoso playing style on the guitar,
he wasn't stoic because of some scientific fact,
no scientist can be objective when he's about to
discover something, it's pure subjectivity,
but the mediators, the so-called scientists are spreading
this disease of having to be objective to be right,
to be appropriate for modern society,
they're basically censoring the subjectivity of the everyday,
they're killing off the narrative, mechanising us
into a calm content apathy, given us enough products
to be sold and bought to appreciate the "finer things in life",
there's range, there's breadth, there's a seemingly endless
stream of choice: i can only be happy with what i buy,
rather than what i feel, what i think what i etc.,
science used to be so so exciting, and then no one
talked about in objective terms,
but now we have this giant slab of concrete on us,
do not take theology with a hum of approval,
well, do that and you'll see a very different expression
of theology elsewhere, for example Syria:
crucifixions, homosexuals thrown off buildings,
little kids have a mechanic drill drilled through their temple...
but still atheism has a beginning just as much as
theology - it's proposition is a presupposition of
a non-existence of something, rather than an existence
of something - don't get me wrong, the roman catholic
system of omni- this, omni- that is bewildering,
and rather unimaginative, it's a pantheism -
but when i find one word being disputed in such
a vile way, i ust say to myself: but what if this being
is but a mode of communication, a medium,
language itself - would i want such a medium to be
all forgiving, all damning or simply all revealing?
after all, if we didn't have this implant of ably encoding
thoughts, ideas, feelings with these symbols,
we would be nowhere except in our previous mode
of communication based upon intuition...
but still this scientific negativism, because so much
was revealed, it's no longer a maiden voyage to an
unknown land (in terms of the number of possibilities,
now there's only a need to cure cancer, tackle dietary
requirements of a highly mechanised society
without the need for some other animate being to
travel, get to mars, etc.) - it's peppered with mundaneness
of teaching plagiarism of someone else's work
to create a teaching encapsulation for funding of
those scientists in the background, to basically say
you graduated with a chemistry degree and that's that,
off with you to a pharmacy post and... do the robot!
nee nee nee ning dance of serving customers;
yet if science is filling the void of its prime endeavour
with negativism, then it's no wonder than the
mediators of science and humanism (philosophers)
are prescribing objective expression,
from the years of old, man the object had to have
an object implanted in him to express himself,
nothing... so no passions, no irrationality,
conformity, lack of poetry, enforced lack of poetry
to be exact, just enough to tell 1 + 1, 2 x 2, 3 -3 and
the ugliness of language at the hands of these so
called teachers of mankind, e.g. Hegel,
expressed most succinctly: i = i (found in the introduction
of his *the outlines of the philosophy of right,
apropos the same book karl marx was inspired by,
who attacked it with vitriol)... there you go... i = i...
not the eloquent flow of words into rhymes or
other deviations, just that bog, that swamp of
the caricature of using language.