Dec 2017
i may be a catholic apostate who did not
take too lightly in being confirmed,
and even though i studied chemistry to a degree
level, i find a welcome break,
an armchair metaphor in studying
esoteric materials, because they simply bring
that kind of comfort, and a complete
lack of rigour that allows so much to shine
through...
like my discovery of the sign of the cross
in the Sefirot...
again, i have to stress that i have
a fetish for the Deutschezunge and Hebrew
in theology, for i could never fall to my knees
before the one most despised by the Jews,
how could i?
i required Hebrew literature,
and may i add: the study of kabbalah has
proven to be, after all the trials,
a very scientific endeavour into
the mechanisation of language...
trans-linguistic is would appear...
i simply can't return to the mundane world
of either prayer or mantra...
that's below me, plus it erodes the memory,
with its rubrics of said words
unnecessarily recited...
forgive me, but it's one thing to
remember the necessary words
only when something is conjured and appears,
and another to conjure nothing
more than a missing poetic cannibalism...
which christianity invokes:
poetic cannibalism...
sorry, no, the bread is stale and
the wine has been watered down,
you drink my blut -
fermentation of rye and barley
and wheat... have a sucker pouch for
a glass of whiskey...
bread?
swallow some lead pebbles...
i can't deal with this *******
lightly, i tread along this route with shackles
clinging, swaying, breaking silence upon
silence within silence that's an enigma...
but i found something of interest,
the sign of the cross in the supposed
"tree of death"...
for i have nothing left in me
than the admiration of a Hebrew...
or as i like to call them: the Hebraï...
i.e. not the indian raj,
but the mingling of ray with ri-fe,
the former bit of the puzzle...
i wish i could return, sometimes,
but most of the time i'm unabashed
in not fathoming if not merely forming an
apology...
there truly are greater reasons beyond
the catholic church's ******* priest...
just today three pubescent girls walked
up to me in the deathly hollow of
the night and asked for direction...
just doll like features, barely 13...
porcelain in moonlight from the fat
on their cheeks glistening and bouncing off them...
i merely replied: for the love of god
i do not know the street you're trying
to find... Waverley Avenue?!
i know of Waverley St., but it's up in
Edinburgh! with that touristy greeting
of a scot in proper attire playing the bags!
anyway... back to the "primitive"
concerns...
| in the name |
keter
ehyeh asher ehyeh
| of the son |
tiferet
beauty, YHWH,
because wasn't it beautiful?
look how much beauty arose from
the crucifixion, am i not right?
the son is always depicted as beautiful,
esp. under the powers of
torturous event, esp. then...
| and the father |
binah, gevurah, hod vs.
chokhmah, chesed, netzach...
oh, wait... ****!
it would appear that i'm the sort of person
unashamed of showing mistakes,
or to put it "mildly": glorifying them in being
included,
for the only end-product is one filled
with imperfections...
after all, the prime philosophical
narrative drive is: inconsistency,
albeit inconsistency visible,
not the end-product, polished version...
i simply remembered a wrong
version of the trinitarian formula...
once again, maestro, hit me!
and it will spread to the north
first,
then to the west,
then to the east,
and last: unto the south bound
(the geography of the trinitarian
formula).
being an apostate at least i got
the beginning correct:
| in the name |
keter
ehyeh asher ehyeh
| of the father |
there ought to be a dispute
given the crown of myrrh...
irony serves god best,
namely? what king serve a kingdom
sanely with such an object,
what is a crucifix compared to a throne?
hence?
the father is the foundation
(yesod)
rather than the kingship (malkhut) -
that's one for riddling the zealots
and teaching liberalism...
the heart of the father teaches
a foundation,
since, as the common saying goes:
the woman wears the trousers.
| and of the son |
this is where it becomes complicated...
was it really the son's
final statement to express love (chesed)?
what sort of person admires a self-imposed
masochism?
there are two rubrics at work
here...
binah chokhmah
(understanding) (wisdom)
gevurah & chesed
(strength) (love)
hod netzach
(splendour) (victory)
| and the holy spirit |
what is singular in transmission,
and what allows a collectivism of
these six traits?
not understand,
not splendour, not love, not wisdom,
perhaps strength,
but surely a vision of victory...
| in the name of the son |
who is the son, when characterised the most
with said attributes?
tiferet (beauty) abides by the world,
and is, the world.
| amen |
malkhut,
kingship!
finally! the relation of the crown
to the kingship via but a single word.
| and of the son |
or perhaps it is that citation upon
the cross: my father's house will be a house
of prayer: that self-assurance of victory
(netzach)... which could only revel in
| and of the holy ghost |
as being both gevurah & hod
(strength & splendour) respectivelym
what with the strength of an enduring religion,
and the opulence of the churches
bleeding ornament gold...
marble... silver...
yet the reason why the son clashes with
the holy ghost is because:
the father is unrelated in the concept
of a trinity, for so much of him belong
to the Jew, and not the slandered Gentile,
as the Gentile was slandered by the mouth
of the son...
at least the "father" is clearly related
to the following Sefirot dynamic:
keter (crown) = malkhut (kingship) /
yesod (foundation) = tiferet (beauty)
the "son" is paralysed from this dynamic,
there's not beauty in a crucifix,
even if gilded in gold...
or managed by marble sculpture
macabre of the penitent madonna..
already the crown, the crown of myrrh
is a bad joke, the throne a hanging instrument
a torture another, bad joke,
there is no foundation in that image,
the foundation is more scientific,
a droplet of saliva on some glucose,
for example...
and the beauty?
how about exchanging two gorgeous
torture symbols to cowbell dangle
iron maidens?!
i have the luxury of studying religious texts,
since i paid my allegiance to studying
science to the age of 21...
i have this luxury,
i did the science,
but now i have to attempt the ultimate
humanism: a study of religion...
but given the times:
it's hardly nonsensical
to attempt such a feat.
take too lightly in being confirmed,
and even though i studied chemistry to a degree
level, i find a welcome break,
an armchair metaphor in studying
esoteric materials, because they simply bring
that kind of comfort, and a complete
lack of rigour that allows so much to shine
through...
like my discovery of the sign of the cross
in the Sefirot...
again, i have to stress that i have
a fetish for the Deutschezunge and Hebrew
in theology, for i could never fall to my knees
before the one most despised by the Jews,
how could i?
i required Hebrew literature,
and may i add: the study of kabbalah has
proven to be, after all the trials,
a very scientific endeavour into
the mechanisation of language...
trans-linguistic is would appear...
i simply can't return to the mundane world
of either prayer or mantra...
that's below me, plus it erodes the memory,
with its rubrics of said words
unnecessarily recited...
forgive me, but it's one thing to
remember the necessary words
only when something is conjured and appears,
and another to conjure nothing
more than a missing poetic cannibalism...
which christianity invokes:
poetic cannibalism...
sorry, no, the bread is stale and
the wine has been watered down,
you drink my blut -
fermentation of rye and barley
and wheat... have a sucker pouch for
a glass of whiskey...
bread?
swallow some lead pebbles...
i can't deal with this *******
lightly, i tread along this route with shackles
clinging, swaying, breaking silence upon
silence within silence that's an enigma...
but i found something of interest,
the sign of the cross in the supposed
"tree of death"...
for i have nothing left in me
than the admiration of a Hebrew...
or as i like to call them: the Hebraï...
i.e. not the indian raj,
but the mingling of ray with ri-fe,
the former bit of the puzzle...
i wish i could return, sometimes,
but most of the time i'm unabashed
in not fathoming if not merely forming an
apology...
there truly are greater reasons beyond
the catholic church's ******* priest...
just today three pubescent girls walked
up to me in the deathly hollow of
the night and asked for direction...
just doll like features, barely 13...
porcelain in moonlight from the fat
on their cheeks glistening and bouncing off them...
i merely replied: for the love of god
i do not know the street you're trying
to find... Waverley Avenue?!
i know of Waverley St., but it's up in
Edinburgh! with that touristy greeting
of a scot in proper attire playing the bags!
anyway... back to the "primitive"
concerns...
| in the name |
keter
ehyeh asher ehyeh
| of the son |
tiferet
beauty, YHWH,
because wasn't it beautiful?
look how much beauty arose from
the crucifixion, am i not right?
the son is always depicted as beautiful,
esp. under the powers of
torturous event, esp. then...
| and the father |
binah, gevurah, hod vs.
chokhmah, chesed, netzach...
oh, wait... ****!
it would appear that i'm the sort of person
unashamed of showing mistakes,
or to put it "mildly": glorifying them in being
included,
for the only end-product is one filled
with imperfections...
after all, the prime philosophical
narrative drive is: inconsistency,
albeit inconsistency visible,
not the end-product, polished version...
i simply remembered a wrong
version of the trinitarian formula...
once again, maestro, hit me!
and it will spread to the north
first,
then to the west,
then to the east,
and last: unto the south bound
(the geography of the trinitarian
formula).
being an apostate at least i got
the beginning correct:
| in the name |
keter
ehyeh asher ehyeh
| of the father |
there ought to be a dispute
given the crown of myrrh...
irony serves god best,
namely? what king serve a kingdom
sanely with such an object,
what is a crucifix compared to a throne?
hence?
the father is the foundation
(yesod)
rather than the kingship (malkhut) -
that's one for riddling the zealots
and teaching liberalism...
the heart of the father teaches
a foundation,
since, as the common saying goes:
the woman wears the trousers.
| and of the son |
this is where it becomes complicated...
was it really the son's
final statement to express love (chesed)?
what sort of person admires a self-imposed
masochism?
there are two rubrics at work
here...
binah chokhmah
(understanding) (wisdom)
gevurah & chesed
(strength) (love)
hod netzach
(splendour) (victory)
| and the holy spirit |
what is singular in transmission,
and what allows a collectivism of
these six traits?
not understand,
not splendour, not love, not wisdom,
perhaps strength,
but surely a vision of victory...
| in the name of the son |
who is the son, when characterised the most
with said attributes?
tiferet (beauty) abides by the world,
and is, the world.
| amen |
malkhut,
kingship!
finally! the relation of the crown
to the kingship via but a single word.
| and of the son |
or perhaps it is that citation upon
the cross: my father's house will be a house
of prayer: that self-assurance of victory
(netzach)... which could only revel in
| and of the holy ghost |
as being both gevurah & hod
(strength & splendour) respectivelym
what with the strength of an enduring religion,
and the opulence of the churches
bleeding ornament gold...
marble... silver...
yet the reason why the son clashes with
the holy ghost is because:
the father is unrelated in the concept
of a trinity, for so much of him belong
to the Jew, and not the slandered Gentile,
as the Gentile was slandered by the mouth
of the son...
at least the "father" is clearly related
to the following Sefirot dynamic:
keter (crown) = malkhut (kingship) /
yesod (foundation) = tiferet (beauty)
the "son" is paralysed from this dynamic,
there's not beauty in a crucifix,
even if gilded in gold...
or managed by marble sculpture
macabre of the penitent madonna..
already the crown, the crown of myrrh
is a bad joke, the throne a hanging instrument
a torture another, bad joke,
there is no foundation in that image,
the foundation is more scientific,
a droplet of saliva on some glucose,
for example...
and the beauty?
how about exchanging two gorgeous
torture symbols to cowbell dangle
iron maidens?!
i have the luxury of studying religious texts,
since i paid my allegiance to studying
science to the age of 21...
i have this luxury,
i did the science,
but now i have to attempt the ultimate
humanism: a study of religion...
but given the times:
it's hardly nonsensical
to attempt such a feat.
