Aug 2017
ι. IVXLCDM
you can't call it an ego-mania,
or speak of it as an egoism -
rather, to morph the ego to
morph into a mouth -
and to treat thought as some sort
nectar, a food -
and make the ego constantly
hungry for the poly-diadem
representation of thought:
yes, less geometrically-orientated -
after all, the ego morphs into
a mouth, and is constantly hungry
for, yet more nectar...
if indeed it (the metaphor) allowed
for the ego to become an eye
and for thought to become a constantly
fascinating object (say, a sculpture)
there would be no hunger to speak
of - for the object in abstractum
would hinder the ego into consuming
the object - there would be no
hunger to speak of,
one would simply be satiated
by breadcrumb worth of inquiry -
to be frozen in some dodo awe,
entirely prepared to stand frozen
to envision the inversion of a geometry
imploding itself, into a single spec
of space: a grain of sand, a full-stop .
- and does that no mean that rather
than "speaking" i am thinking
by feeding on the void,
or perhaps regurgitating onto it,
and like a fly, with the acid of passion,
slurping up both the thought
and the void?
ιι. ΙΕΧΛΚΔΜ
verbatim (aphorism 105, ponderings V):
/ tell me which thinker you have chosen as
your "opponent" and how you have chosen
that one, and i will tell you how far, you yourself
entered into the domain of thinking. /
i wish it could be that easy to say, which
thinker i have chosen,
not because i don't know, but rather because
i've rarely thought of the person
as a single individual,
but rather a school of logic -
namely japanese -
the "opponent" (if he be a singular
person) would have to be the thinker who
conjured the sūdokú puzzle -
but in a way, the "opponent" is also me,
perfectly exampled using the google
algorithm - well... whenever i manage to find
a "googlewhack" / hack -
in finding only a single result from
the computation...
in my count i can claim
about five to my name...
which in the modern
technological sense -
is probably as rare as
finding a "god".
you can't call it an ego-mania,
or speak of it as an egoism -
rather, to morph the ego to
morph into a mouth -
and to treat thought as some sort
nectar, a food -
and make the ego constantly
hungry for the poly-diadem
representation of thought:
yes, less geometrically-orientated -
after all, the ego morphs into
a mouth, and is constantly hungry
for, yet more nectar...
if indeed it (the metaphor) allowed
for the ego to become an eye
and for thought to become a constantly
fascinating object (say, a sculpture)
there would be no hunger to speak
of - for the object in abstractum
would hinder the ego into consuming
the object - there would be no
hunger to speak of,
one would simply be satiated
by breadcrumb worth of inquiry -
to be frozen in some dodo awe,
entirely prepared to stand frozen
to envision the inversion of a geometry
imploding itself, into a single spec
of space: a grain of sand, a full-stop .
- and does that no mean that rather
than "speaking" i am thinking
by feeding on the void,
or perhaps regurgitating onto it,
and like a fly, with the acid of passion,
slurping up both the thought
and the void?
ιι. ΙΕΧΛΚΔΜ
verbatim (aphorism 105, ponderings V):
/ tell me which thinker you have chosen as
your "opponent" and how you have chosen
that one, and i will tell you how far, you yourself
entered into the domain of thinking. /
i wish it could be that easy to say, which
thinker i have chosen,
not because i don't know, but rather because
i've rarely thought of the person
as a single individual,
but rather a school of logic -
namely japanese -
the "opponent" (if he be a singular
person) would have to be the thinker who
conjured the sūdokú puzzle -
but in a way, the "opponent" is also me,
perfectly exampled using the google
algorithm - well... whenever i manage to find
a "googlewhack" / hack -
in finding only a single result from
the computation...
in my count i can claim
about five to my name...
which in the modern
technological sense -
is probably as rare as
finding a "god".
