nietzsche? what he did? inverting the cartesian equation?
like: 1 + 1 = 2, turned into 1 + 1 = 2?
   **** me... isn't that confusing...
                         the symbol = precipiates into ergo;
         what did he do?
                         he inverted the cartesian principle...
he said:                 i am, therefore i think...
                         so why are all these people coming
out from the woodworks, like cockroaches?
                                 i already said it once,
the antithesis of the cartesian res cogitans
   a thinking thing... is  res vanus:
              an empty thing...
                             test of time...
     you stop ******* for about a month?
your ***** turns... yellow... it's no longer white...
your testicles shrink... you're shooting
             evil *****...
                          and then you talk to a woman
who's been "learning" about her period, *******?
             want to have children?
    stop ******* for a month...
                         **** her on her period
but don't *******... then **** her once more when
she's off it...
                   the cramps are gone... your ***** is
so concenrated that it's no longer white, but yella..
               what are you going to get?
  a screaming báhor (toddler) in your arms...
         but nietzsche inverted the cartesian "equation"...
thankfully... he got it wrong,
in a sense, he didn't counter res cogitans (thinking thing)
    with res vanus (empty thing) -
              sure, nietzsche was influential in the 20th century...
in the 21st century though?
          more like the label guy...
         i'm this... i'm that... i'm whatever you wish me to be...
the 21st century says: nietzsche isn't an ocean...
    he was a depth of a puddle's worth to claim...
            but it's there! it's in one of his footnotes!
  he reverses the cartesian "equation"...
  he "says": i am, therefore i think.
                       no wonder then, where all the 21st century
labels come from!
      these people aren't thinking!
                    i'd love for this label to come about:
i thinking... therefore i'm dumb-seeming...
                                           because i shut-the-****-up!
   hard to not think of two things...
   i think corresponding to res cogitans...
   with i am correspoding to res vanus -
                      and ergo corresponding to ***.
          meaning?
           why are so many people associating themselves with
so many labels, on an intellectual level of deciding
whether or not to wear versace, dolce & gabbana,
  or primani... oh sorry... armani.
     people express so many labels though,
     it's like they stress the second half of the cartesian equation,
but not the first half...
                which precipitates into heidegger's da-"sein".
   there is.... sure... there really is...
      but what?       is that actually being, without thinking?
or am i just putting clothes on to look kosher
     at a paris fashion catwalk?
                                      it's almost, well, it actually is:
a question: there's being?
                    that question substitutes the conceptualißation
of being's pluralism qua beings...
i.e. the many happenings...
               the rebel ant in the ant-hill... at best: the only
suggestive approximate.
         there sure as **** is a being... but the da, the there?
     reduced to newspaper articles,
read on friday, recycled on a monday, in orange
bin-bags.