Jul 2017
deus est genesis ex cogitans, cogitans est ex genesis absque deus: res ultimatum res: libido telepathos.
we have a name for *it
namely god,
a noun encompassed
within the framework
of the noumenon -
but when a phenomenon
arrives,
there's the deus est mort
moment that claims all
forms of interpretation
as un-sourced,
without any footnote,
allowance / certainity...
there's a name for it,
but at the same time
there's the non-existence of it:
shielded by ulterior names;
but whether id est or
whether id non est -
there will forver remain
in our vocabulary a noun
of some sort, to denote
that "know" unit among
the polyphony of facts yet
to be known to us....
and remaining unknown:
0 is by no compenstation
a worthy vector basis...
but 1?
a spear, a throwing
exemplified?
i'm fine with that...
as long as we begin from point
(a) and head toward point (b)...
why do atheists like
christmas carols,
of byzantine chants of the monks?
what a ****** group of atheists
liking christmas carols over
byzantine chants of monks;
nonetheless,
what could ever come evolutionary
from descartes' res cogitans
regarding man?
well, the kantian reinvention
of descartes' god,
given descartes' man:
for if man be res cogitans -
then god is res per se;
who's existence / non-existence
perpetuates itself by
being attached to the spiderweb
of thought,
and never the empirical
suggestion of being sensed,
never seen, never heard, never touched,
in that diabolical pentagram of
being defended by a satan...
yet how unfathomable to think,
and yet to think of what
deems a necessity to be thought of...
perhaps in an atheistically
fathomable personna non grata
explanation of god...
nonetheless a form of coordination
to suggest origin and end purpose...
transcending the mundane
travesty of the final unwished
fathoming that's death...
every philosopher will ask:
why think of god as a ritualistic
entity?
why are we to assume it being
evolved from the realm of pronouns
to the realm of nouns, and with
that evolution... so many of nouns
attached!
72 in judaism, 99 in islam!
if those who believe attest to a god,
then so do the atheists,
although without a ritualistic angle,
but a cognitive angle of "concern",
for they see god as a personna non grata,
yet by the argument
of negating the existence of,
they invoke the existence of,
and deny themselves
the status of being anti-theists...
they enforce the existence of a god,
and shelter themselves in
the rhetoric of being anti-religious,
anti-ritualistic...
for whatever argument
they have, there's the pre-
to every "supposition" -
that they turn into
a pro- * that somehow translates
into a *supposition,
atheism doesn't even ask,
atheism is a sophistry of
some sort...
unless expressed in a
communist collective,
it amounts to nothing but
jargon, a word salad...
of **** me,
pleasant on the ear,
but a maggot on the mind.
we have a name for *it
namely god,
a noun encompassed
within the framework
of the noumenon -
but when a phenomenon
arrives,
there's the deus est mort
moment that claims all
forms of interpretation
as un-sourced,
without any footnote,
allowance / certainity...
there's a name for it,
but at the same time
there's the non-existence of it:
shielded by ulterior names;
but whether id est or
whether id non est -
there will forver remain
in our vocabulary a noun
of some sort, to denote
that "know" unit among
the polyphony of facts yet
to be known to us....
and remaining unknown:
0 is by no compenstation
a worthy vector basis...
but 1?
a spear, a throwing
exemplified?
i'm fine with that...
as long as we begin from point
(a) and head toward point (b)...
why do atheists like
christmas carols,
of byzantine chants of the monks?
what a ****** group of atheists
liking christmas carols over
byzantine chants of monks;
nonetheless,
what could ever come evolutionary
from descartes' res cogitans
regarding man?
well, the kantian reinvention
of descartes' god,
given descartes' man:
for if man be res cogitans -
then god is res per se;
who's existence / non-existence
perpetuates itself by
being attached to the spiderweb
of thought,
and never the empirical
suggestion of being sensed,
never seen, never heard, never touched,
in that diabolical pentagram of
being defended by a satan...
yet how unfathomable to think,
and yet to think of what
deems a necessity to be thought of...
perhaps in an atheistically
fathomable personna non grata
explanation of god...
nonetheless a form of coordination
to suggest origin and end purpose...
transcending the mundane
travesty of the final unwished
fathoming that's death...
every philosopher will ask:
why think of god as a ritualistic
entity?
why are we to assume it being
evolved from the realm of pronouns
to the realm of nouns, and with
that evolution... so many of nouns
attached!
72 in judaism, 99 in islam!
if those who believe attest to a god,
then so do the atheists,
although without a ritualistic angle,
but a cognitive angle of "concern",
for they see god as a personna non grata,
yet by the argument
of negating the existence of,
they invoke the existence of,
and deny themselves
the status of being anti-theists...
they enforce the existence of a god,
and shelter themselves in
the rhetoric of being anti-religious,
anti-ritualistic...
for whatever argument
they have, there's the pre-
to every "supposition" -
that they turn into
a pro- * that somehow translates
into a *supposition,
atheism doesn't even ask,
atheism is a sophistry of
some sort...
unless expressed in a
communist collective,
it amounts to nothing but
jargon, a word salad...
of **** me,
pleasant on the ear,
but a maggot on the mind.
