whatever the answer, i'm drinking wine straight from the bottle, having bitten into a few cubes of ice to cool the tongue-numbing red; and funny how, when one ethnic group deems to vermin, you turn to your own ethnicity, and conjure the royal attitude: hell, if i'm category vermin, i'll be king rat; perhaps that's what the accusing ethnic group always wanted, declassified man, reclassified as royal in the hierarchies of hidden rivers of the many kingdoms of anima... good to know one's premature in spotting a royal body of uninhibited suggestions, by now you mut have recofnised... what cogito? to prove the existence of god is about as much an amgibuity as to prove the existence of thought... given people behave without morals, the atheists aren't exatly hot-****, not worth the bother... these days atheists aren't really concerned with ontological ethics... or ethics as architecture for benign / the beginning (of) ontology... the only replica of atheisms is bound to the study of ethics... but by argument of conjuring either being or personality, will only arrive at the status quo of a personality cult... i'm not saying that atheism is a religion, but i'm also not saying that the current atheistic zeitgeist can achieve a solipstistic modus operandi; why seek a god to later disregard, when you can't find the narrative & the silence, & the dasein of the ever simplifying contentment within silence? of course i'm denying being content, in that whenever i laugh out-loud i'm being ridiculous in a verse of sarcasm... how could i not ever deny being content, while at the same time juggling an "ad infinitum's" worth of curiosity?*

when thinking becomes
talking,
to you find rhetoric -
and what could rhetorical
cognition ever become,
if not the fairy tale
of telepathy, or telekinesis?
where are those
who persuade people to
thought - to the either or
choice of a moral ought?