for me, each and every book feels like
a womb -
     until i reach the tadpole maturity,
until the time comes with finishing a book,
i am bound to say: this is me,
in complete -
    with every unfinished book akin
to abortion -
              i can never imagine a completion
of a man's deed necessitating writing -
with man having a compendium -
    a collective works bound to a single
volume, akin to a walt whitman -
        my my, what a strange experience -
best summarised by i.e. jack spicer:
   my vocabulary did this to me -
     what can you expect, well, what can you?
to leave everything in a tidied room,
         exposed, complete...
  there has never been a man to stand upright
on this orb - who didn't have pieces of
himself missing, who ever was more complete -
by having fathomed cul de sacs of himself,
better still, missing limbs of his psyche,
  scuttling around freely, imbued by the frenzy
of the chaotic approach, akin to the addam's family
thing -
             as in a non-pompous briefing of
philosophy as merely a genre of writing:
       lingua ad abstractum -
                        language toward abstracting -
nearing numbers, or, let's just say:
bordering on numbers.
              you can actually read a philosophy
book for a year, and shorten the year,
and actually mind what happens between your
reading sessions...
                         the seasons change,
    the sky morphs from imitation kenya in
the spring through to summer -
  to the sky: imitation alaska -
       going to bed by night, waking into night.
but such is the nature of books -
    you enter a book akin to *****,
    you mature in it to resemble a foetus -
and after a good few weeks pass -
you're walking with baggage of literary
exploration...
                    thank **** there are so few people
in this world who can manage
  a sexed-up version of reading...
            rather than calling it: bricklaying.
point being, philosophy has become a pompous
word...
               the affirmative aftermath of reading
nietzsche is naturally heidegger -
and the age old question:
   body vs. mind
                object vs. subject - yadda yadda -
whatever is concierge in yiddish -
              was jew ever offensive when ***
was like ****, shortened, i.e. ***- / ****- /
does the hyphen inclusion 'elp?!
              point being - yes, one time me & my pa
were at chessington world of adventures -
he was spat on... on the top of his head...
  from a ride, rummaging through a safari park...
    years later i returned the favour,
like any decency of exploiting evil:
  choose the innocents -
   so me and peter richardson stood on the
roof of a car park in ilford, and started spitting
from the roof... my... i got one...
   right on the cranny (cranium) -
          and we got away with it.
ah, right, the conclusive remark:
when heidegger stresses being does he
mean the all-encompassing?
  i only ask because he deviates from
   the said question, into a dilemma of
pluralism entering the subject vs. object debate...
there's an outright differential point to
be made regarding (a) being & (b) beings...
                  i.e. a man will always question
himself as subject of interrogation -
but, but, and this is necessary -
   a woman will always question herself
as object of interrogation -
     albeit in no fathomable guise of consistency...
the pluralism of being (beings) is obviously
asexual...
                  both man and woman interrogate
the posit of if not for interrogation deemed
necessary...
              to compare:
    introspection and intra inspection,
    and inter inspection,
                   mind you, A O is not a grapheme
similis...
             but does a plural elementality of
the said concern (anti-heidegger -
   where heidegger stresses a "care"
in the form of da-sein, i stress "concern" -
                 the nun-sein, jetzt) -
there's only one parallel to the idealism
of attempting a meditation with subsequent
narration -
              it's solely bound to an immediacy,
a sterility of promere in continuum,
like an animal,
       rather than excited by sensual prompt -
merely agitated by the overbearing
frequency of experienced sense-orientative
             modus (operandi).
         - have you noticed how secretive women
are in literature?
  and how man remains ****?
                          man will disclose almost
everything there is to be known,
while a woman will disclose what is
"required" to be "known"...
      always the ideally loved, the ideally ******,
the ideally hated, but never, ever,
   the "necessarily" standing before
            an otiose "obstruction";
mind you, in philosophy there's one necessary
equation, i.e.       . = ?
              a question is perpetuated toward
the extreme, as counter to the aristotelian
"thesis" of awe / exclamation...
             only when something is truly found
do the two observable parallels merge,
              epitaph . and a satisfaction for the earned
    epitaph i.e. ?!