the ontological zenith, i.e. i'm thinking about thought... and by an ontological zenith i mean nonsense, since thought per se, is a non sensual experience, given that it's an experience of being conscious, or the cartesian sum per se.

                               the supposed "trinity"
    the 99 names of allah,
                                         and the 72
           of the hebrew god...
99 - 72?
                                                   27,
     and only given a bias toward a skeletal
            "image" - sound a bit like playing
   the earliest game, namely (ping) *pong.

but i find something troubling,
how some accumulate
   words
   as objects, as some
accumulate objects as
         "etymological" roots
of wanting riches they can
               exfoliate in,
peacock around in palaces
of gold...
     but i'm no rhetorician
in the sense, that i might
peacock with my knowledge
of a fair number of words...
  which is why i sometimes
mumble,
        when speaking,
     and have no desire
to become erudite on a stage...

laziness?
         nope,
just a way to avoid
                                  a headache.

and it's always a return
                   to the cartesian "equation",
i have no idea as to why
there's this regression,
            
   beside the point, which i'll make
anyway, once i point out:

   nietzsche - 'a polite society doesn't
permit dialectical dialogue'...
          well well...
       aren't we living in a polite society...
last time i checked,
    people used the fist more
             than the tongue to convene...
yes, the citation is not verbatim...

       well, if no one is going to engage in
dialectics, so much for talking
about reason the holy grail of objectivity
as synonym-zenith of western culture's
   individualism quest...
         the ****? i must be missing something...

those shouting leftist sociopaths
    and those pompous right-wing
            blah-blah-bragging antoinettes?
   well, one side has to have proton (+)
qualities, and the other side has to have
  electron (-) properties...
               but there's the neutron side also,
thinking:

ah yes! the point!
             for a long time philosophers treated
thought as a subject,
      rather than an object...
    meanwhile psychologists came up with
thought being an object rather
than a subject, and out came
    the object ego, which turned schizoid
and became the trinity of subjects
   known in pop as ego, superego and id;

that's why psychology treats thinking
(thought) as an object...
    rather than the subject,
since counter-philosophy, psychology
stresses the second portion of
the cartesian equation:
i am subjected to the elements,
   to the state, to the crown,
          why would i desire to be also
subjected to thought?
   better not think, and have rants,
that "holy" right of free speech.

these days thinking and silence is
disavowed, abandoned, an orphan...
  how does that sound in legal courts?
   homicide with diminished responsibility?
  that's not a technical question,
  it's quasi-technical, but there is
homocide verdicts, and there are
  verdicts which
  incorporate diminished responsibility,
i.e.: the insanity plea.

i blame philosophers for distancing
            themselves from jurisprudence.

i still think that by treating
     cogito as an object,
  rather than a subject matter, allows me
to liberate myself from the psychology
  of the ego being a subject matter...
which would explain,
  if cogito (thought) is an object,
   i can't perform such science-fiction
allowances as
            telepathy or telekinesis,
which also implies the realism
    attaining self-fulfilment
   and independence...
          
   otherwise known as greed / selfishness -

but that can only arise when
   thought becomes an object,
   an object that cannot be penetrated,
for one, as psychology exposed / gave a new
tier of "reasoning" crafted:
  that the ego per se,
      became a subject, that split in a freudian
concotion to three parts...
     for one, the christian trinity is one
thing, but now that we have a second trinity...
   imagine thought as an object,
   i.e. a lack of lucidity,
  e.g. when solving a sudoku puzzle...
          at some points to rub against
the custard...
  
    isn't thought an object then?
    it's a very real, sisyphus moment -
although pseudo the myth -
    because the object seems unmovable -
i.e., it seems to not budge,
                       that's why this is
an anti-psychology assumption:
       i am subject to the object that is, thought;
in pig latin:
   ego sub sum in ego...
    ****, how to put it...
        i (am) subsidiary toward the object,
       that is thought... (**** it, just the prefix,
  as way of shortcut)
   ego sub- sum, quando cogito esse sum...
whatever...
   you'd think that having attended
     a catholic school, they'd bother to teach
you latin... but no! oh no!
                                        wankers;
i'm guessing the reason they didn't bother
is because i went to a catholic school
  in an irish neighbourhood...
          now? now it looks like little bangladesh.