Mar 2017
so merlin... sorry... gandalf comes along
and says: leave your books! the real world awaits!
out there! beyond the door!
******* wizards, all they want to do is
send me on holiday...
what the **** would i do in tunisia if
not think about islamic carthage?
nope, i rather spend my time as a tapeworm
bound to an organism known as a personal
library; sorry, that's what farmers always said
when harvesting crops: i see what william
blake saw in a grain of sand...
potential for glass... i know there isn't
any adventure in the world, there's only tourism...
and tourists really do only see the ****** parts of
capital cities... venice as generic as amsterdam...
tourists: just a load of bothersome flies.
i say take an adventure into someone else's psyche,
you're bound to some weird and wonderful
things in there...
roman numerals, right? so ugly... or rather: so difficult,
when life was... and when people needed
to state something beautiful...
like this mathematic teacher i once had who
simply said:
try calculus with roman numerals...
sure, try (e)x squared...
as in: why did we even keep them?
numerals i mean, they're not numbers as such,
they're numerals because we keep them to entrench
spelling, or that's how i see it,
0 - 9 exist for fun, for sudokus, giving us absolutely
no clues...
but as ezra pound pointed: the beautiful is hard,
and he borrowed it from someone else,
what we have reached is too simple,
we're stuck in this limit of microscopes and sub-atomic
particles and then the stars!
it could just be a way to unlearn these holes
that we fall through, but of course: precipitating into
greater numbers, and even greater obscurity and
a need for herr anonymous...
but you can't exactly build a Colosseum
using 0 - 9... back then... we had curves!
real passionate curves! on pillars!
we didn't even have 0...
we had oh... omicron and omega...
the d'uh part, as part of project
nostalgia...
we didn't have 0 - 9 to fry
our brains and live live in the fast lane equipped with
amphetamines... we have I - X...
and the XI...
imagine mathematics so complex
that the selection process to process it along with
language broke but certainly made a few mean
*******... now everyone can do it...
it's what the greeks didn't comprehend...
i'd love to see the original script from
pythagoras, oddly enough we don't possess the original
concept of numbers... we hear the arabs had this
and the indus had that, but what the greeks had?
no mention... nothing, just words...
but imagine why the romans were as strong as
they were... rex... what's that? revise ten,
ten ten over and over and again?
to have to deal with I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X -
that's hard, but almost too amazing that they
managed to provide a Colosseum to be the blueprint
and plagiarism for modern stadiums...
they even have this cliche of calling latin a dead
language... sure, and i'm still using their ******
φoνoς encoding... god i'm so tempted to make that
sigma acute... but the internet doesn't have something:
for once!
nos (nose) noś (indicative verb:
to carry by command, of a self-serving argument) -
it really turned out to be a real
greek prefix and roman suffix game (nasal)...
but still the reason why we inherited
the roman rule of thumb, or said number that's one,
we have no firm belief in the greek concept of numbers,
well, apart from the only relevant number
that's 666 in the new testament... but i haven't
come across the greek concept of number...
for all i know 0 through to 9 is either arabic or
indu -
or why, for a better reason than none
I, II, III, IV etc. has been kept,
and becomes imposing on your television
screen when a show ends...
dated e.g. MMXVII (2017)...
now go back and use those numerals and give
me a theory of gravity... impossible!
you couldn't have even the vaguest sense
to even begin to want to imagine such an
endeavour...
what i will say is that the latin
grapheme æ and that other one œ
are a source for many spelling mistakes,
as well as many uncouplings of the siamese
into diacritical distinctions... should i have
spelling the word endeavour wrong...
and to think this "poem" was prompted by
having finished heidegger's ponderings no. II...
and having to only initiate this
by having a problem figuring the no. 234 aphorism
in roman numerals (which are called mathematical letters)...
so yes, i imagine beauty as that which wasn't
exactly greek... more roman, as in counting
using a "monotheism" of language being
used for both talk and calculation -
to achieve what was achieved, and later
squandered, as of now, which it has been...
that i did laugh at aphorism no. 236 (CCXXXVI)
already it feels like spelling, i wonder if there was
an orthography concerning numbers back then,
i mean, something without a prior to 236 encoding,
i'm pretty **** sure the jewish "mystics"
started talking a lot of ******* when they invented
gematria...
it's absolutely horrid
having, say aleph = 1...
but then that's just a spontaneous
critique that will eventually fizzle out of my head
and die a sudden death and i won't bother it ever again...
yet you can't say that with roman numerals you
couldn't extract more beauty,
to state something in a single, and now the more
literal attempt at a concept of monotheism: tongue...
how the hell did they extract the architecture
and the will to craft an empire like that,
where encoding sound also included the same language
to encode abstracts, primarily with the basis of
measurement, and scale the skies!
(it's not even my *** i'm talking about).
but in summary, aphorism 236 made me laugh,
and that "thing" i invented that's res vanus
to counter Hegel's cogito - me cogitare
is bound to aphorism 234...
in yesterday's newspaper there's a supplement
article about how exercising increases your chance
of a decreased libido...
also, to unravel the stated "thing", you can simply
look to Kant for a list of faculties of the psyche,
and how they interpolate / interact...
as anyone with half a can of worms might state:
me go fishing, me catch shark...
because to me, modern psychology is
a quasi-science... and philosophy is something you learn
outside of "respectable" institutions like universities,
at your own peril, kinda like rousseau...
so yeah, kant's great with describing the interaction
of the faculties and how you can expose the "thing";
i gave up on the res cogitans concept,
i wanted to word nietzsche's bewilderment
about where thought comes from, and that abyss quote...
it naturally had to come from that vein,
what would make a buddha laugh: res vanus.
and says: leave your books! the real world awaits!
out there! beyond the door!
******* wizards, all they want to do is
send me on holiday...
what the **** would i do in tunisia if
not think about islamic carthage?
nope, i rather spend my time as a tapeworm
bound to an organism known as a personal
library; sorry, that's what farmers always said
when harvesting crops: i see what william
blake saw in a grain of sand...
potential for glass... i know there isn't
any adventure in the world, there's only tourism...
and tourists really do only see the ****** parts of
capital cities... venice as generic as amsterdam...
tourists: just a load of bothersome flies.
i say take an adventure into someone else's psyche,
you're bound to some weird and wonderful
things in there...
roman numerals, right? so ugly... or rather: so difficult,
when life was... and when people needed
to state something beautiful...
like this mathematic teacher i once had who
simply said:
try calculus with roman numerals...
sure, try (e)x squared...
as in: why did we even keep them?
numerals i mean, they're not numbers as such,
they're numerals because we keep them to entrench
spelling, or that's how i see it,
0 - 9 exist for fun, for sudokus, giving us absolutely
no clues...
but as ezra pound pointed: the beautiful is hard,
and he borrowed it from someone else,
what we have reached is too simple,
we're stuck in this limit of microscopes and sub-atomic
particles and then the stars!
it could just be a way to unlearn these holes
that we fall through, but of course: precipitating into
greater numbers, and even greater obscurity and
a need for herr anonymous...
but you can't exactly build a Colosseum
using 0 - 9... back then... we had curves!
real passionate curves! on pillars!
we didn't even have 0...
we had oh... omicron and omega...
the d'uh part, as part of project
nostalgia...
we didn't have 0 - 9 to fry
our brains and live live in the fast lane equipped with
amphetamines... we have I - X...
and the XI...
imagine mathematics so complex
that the selection process to process it along with
language broke but certainly made a few mean
*******... now everyone can do it...
it's what the greeks didn't comprehend...
i'd love to see the original script from
pythagoras, oddly enough we don't possess the original
concept of numbers... we hear the arabs had this
and the indus had that, but what the greeks had?
no mention... nothing, just words...
but imagine why the romans were as strong as
they were... rex... what's that? revise ten,
ten ten over and over and again?
to have to deal with I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X -
that's hard, but almost too amazing that they
managed to provide a Colosseum to be the blueprint
and plagiarism for modern stadiums...
they even have this cliche of calling latin a dead
language... sure, and i'm still using their ******
φoνoς encoding... god i'm so tempted to make that
sigma acute... but the internet doesn't have something:
for once!
nos (nose) noś (indicative verb:
to carry by command, of a self-serving argument) -
it really turned out to be a real
greek prefix and roman suffix game (nasal)...
but still the reason why we inherited
the roman rule of thumb, or said number that's one,
we have no firm belief in the greek concept of numbers,
well, apart from the only relevant number
that's 666 in the new testament... but i haven't
come across the greek concept of number...
for all i know 0 through to 9 is either arabic or
indu -
or why, for a better reason than none
I, II, III, IV etc. has been kept,
and becomes imposing on your television
screen when a show ends...
dated e.g. MMXVII (2017)...
now go back and use those numerals and give
me a theory of gravity... impossible!
you couldn't have even the vaguest sense
to even begin to want to imagine such an
endeavour...
what i will say is that the latin
grapheme æ and that other one œ
are a source for many spelling mistakes,
as well as many uncouplings of the siamese
into diacritical distinctions... should i have
spelling the word endeavour wrong...
and to think this "poem" was prompted by
having finished heidegger's ponderings no. II...
and having to only initiate this
by having a problem figuring the no. 234 aphorism
in roman numerals (which are called mathematical letters)...
so yes, i imagine beauty as that which wasn't
exactly greek... more roman, as in counting
using a "monotheism" of language being
used for both talk and calculation -
to achieve what was achieved, and later
squandered, as of now, which it has been...
that i did laugh at aphorism no. 236 (CCXXXVI)
already it feels like spelling, i wonder if there was
an orthography concerning numbers back then,
i mean, something without a prior to 236 encoding,
i'm pretty **** sure the jewish "mystics"
started talking a lot of ******* when they invented
gematria...
it's absolutely horrid
having, say aleph = 1...
but then that's just a spontaneous
critique that will eventually fizzle out of my head
and die a sudden death and i won't bother it ever again...
yet you can't say that with roman numerals you
couldn't extract more beauty,
to state something in a single, and now the more
literal attempt at a concept of monotheism: tongue...
how the hell did they extract the architecture
and the will to craft an empire like that,
where encoding sound also included the same language
to encode abstracts, primarily with the basis of
measurement, and scale the skies!
(it's not even my *** i'm talking about).
but in summary, aphorism 236 made me laugh,
and that "thing" i invented that's res vanus
to counter Hegel's cogito - me cogitare
is bound to aphorism 234...
in yesterday's newspaper there's a supplement
article about how exercising increases your chance
of a decreased libido...
also, to unravel the stated "thing", you can simply
look to Kant for a list of faculties of the psyche,
and how they interpolate / interact...
as anyone with half a can of worms might state:
me go fishing, me catch shark...
because to me, modern psychology is
a quasi-science... and philosophy is something you learn
outside of "respectable" institutions like universities,
at your own peril, kinda like rousseau...
so yeah, kant's great with describing the interaction
of the faculties and how you can expose the "thing";
i gave up on the res cogitans concept,
i wanted to word nietzsche's bewilderment
about where thought comes from, and that abyss quote...
it naturally had to come from that vein,
what would make a buddha laugh: res vanus.
