ah man! the paddies got thrashed today! i have to admit, i was secretly rooting for them, i wanted them to win so much, the first 10 minute euphoria, and then: a sharpened decline... at 1 - 1 i was still wishing to see the shamrocks in russia, when was the last time they played? u.s.a. 1994? then i stopped supporting either side, and just enjoyed a **** fine match... what a thrashing, losing 1 - 5 to denmark... mind you, with hindsight, this irish side could have beaten the azzurri with their thumbs stuck up their *****, no kidding, the last time the azzurri didn't play in a world cup, was... 1958! oh sure, i like football, i'm like bob marley.

nearing the end of heidegger's
ponderings II - VI,
  and like any bibliophile -
i'm just simply itching to put
back the sleeve on this hardcover
bad-boy...
   more relish in that, than
in a *the end.
           besides that -
oh my, nearing the finish a gem
comes out -
i like this aphorism style of books,
you get to think - at little - a lot;
that being said, i prefer his
aphoristic style to nietzsche -
mainly because he doesn't work
on a build-up -
   if he does get a maxim out,
it's a maxim: in passing -
unlike neitzsche who somehow
has to climb a mountain,
and reach a maxim at a zenith...
i think nietzsche has been exhausted
in pop culture,
the 20th century belonged to him,
no doubt, but as in passing
the olympic torch, we've reached
the conclusive years of nietzsche's
influence...
          so in aphorism 172 (VI)
heidegger notes the importance of
art - such a rarity for a philosopher
to appreciate art, notably poetry...
      he mentions the "un-philosophical"
artist, who he compliments with the ability
to fathom something philosophical,
although he calls it thoughtful discourse
  (and of its grounding style),
and then the plain obvious, well, so so,
that philosophy has moved into
the proximity of "science" -
then some blah blah knowledge blah blah -
and the conclusion:
    "scientific" "thinking" is furthest removed
from what happens in philosophy -
after all: rhetoric is an art-form,
   not a logic-form...
            oration is an art: not a science.
ah right...
           the whole point of this note:
books like drugs, marijuana being
the "gateway" drug... i've got one for you
too, in literary form...
   you want to read philosophy?
i've got the only book that will un-muddle
you being fearful of being "right"
   in reading a philosophy book -
and i hate to say it, it will not be a stoner's
paradise experience...
  thomas mann's magnum opus:
   dr. faustus...
                 believe me when i say this with
a sense of respect for the book -
heidegger seemed easier to read, even kant
than that literary inferno!
and then chose the the son of philosophy -
kierkegaard... notably either / or -
  and if you really want to go crazy
and reach for the systematic literature of
the heavyweights, you'll at least have a firm
grounding...
                      i wouldn't bother reading
the greeks though...
                    too ancient -
                    if they didn't didn't answer
the questions they asked -
            you might as well ask new questions
and in the vein of philosophy:
struggle to answer them, if at all!
  now if you'll excuse me, i have a date
  with arthur bell.