what heidegger's conjectures as being
                                                     (archaic with a y
                                                    that replaces the iota) -
                in terms of the cartesian
  "simplicity"...
           via a misnomer application
           of a certain type of wording,
you bypass using a thesaurus -
    that congested form of "eloquence"
for the aesthetic of variation(s)...
                for heidegger the "in between"
if being...
                    an antithesis of the pluralism
that's beings...
            less the concern for
the cartesian precipitation of the ergo...
as much as i'd like to envision
thinking to be as coherent with being,
the fact that heidegger doesn't allow
          the ergo equation to
allow thinking as a fathomable
                 vector focus for being...
             even as kant isolated "i think"
from the ergo, via the a priori
         and the a posteriori observation(s)...
                  simply: to be, or not to be
          (a priori and a posteriori, respectively)
what heidegger explores is
   the both singular aspect
                     of individuation in the plural
sense, as he explores
the pluralism is the singularity of inviduation...
          vary that:
    a pluralism of being feeds no pluralism
of beings, in that there is no plural
outcome of the ergo...
                                      even if there are
multiple variations of being via beings,
there are only a limited attempts to ergo
an individuation process when
the pluralism ergo only breeds
a coin's flip of circumstance...
                but unlike heidegger i speak
english...
        and unlike the german instance for
the singular / plural distinction,
      i have inherited the
                            a- / and the the-
                scissor hands
               of things associate with
indirect & direct expression...
       on the categorical basis of grammatical
articulation...
                          for in terms of rethinking kant:
i can only ingest a categorical imperative
as a way to read into the "subconscious"
of a language's structure on the grammatical focus...
because how can not be a concern to
replace
        german concerns for pluralism,
                           and the singular orientation,
when in english the notion of being,
as opposed to beings
          i matched with the cartesian ergo
promise to never attain a clarity
                between things definite (the-)
                         and between things
indefinite (a-): or simply lacking?
                         came shrapnel thinking,
or unfathomable physical debility
   by mere thought...
                             to state it differently
with a modern twist, on applying a revision
of a categorical impetus of grammar,
rather than the idea-unfathomable
kantian categorical imperative(s)...
         ergo?
             the act of cogito is no more
                         an ergo of a sum
              to guarantee it a synonym status
synchro.,
                              because with how many
instances there's an ergo missing
to conjugate these antonym prospects of
expressing existence?
           on how many occassions
         is cogito an asynchrony
that bears no relation on the enforced logistics
of the ergo, i.e. via mathematical
script, that easy foundation of
    1 (+) 1, 1 (-) 1, 1 (x) 1, 1 (÷) 1?
        H         H        W          Y
               the four prime, mathematical
verbs...
                      i.e. as one mathematician told
me: mathematicians are not
supposed to be good at arithmetic!
because the cartesian ergo,
       when applied to knowledge
grounded in the study of a thesaurus?
     cogito is no more an ergo
that provides being, rather beings...
              since cogitans is neither
synonymous, nor antynomous with
               esse...
                           since on how many instances
did thinking not precipitate into being,
but rather, the observation of being,
in the architecture of: beings?
            for people who don't read
the philosophy genre,
       i'll be an easy target, once they grasp
the little of the content in psychiatric
literature...
                 easier to box people in
  easily accessed jokes,
    easier to reduce reading philosophy
to reading the bare scraps of psychiatric
literature...
                 philosophy for dummies?
   any psychiatric literature...
                people who want to take
shortcuts when reading philosophy books,
tend to read psychiatric literature...
     the sad, but the nonetheless, sorry truth...
          when people attempt intellectual
endeavours,
  they fall short of having patience
in reading philosophy books,
   and instead read psychiatric literature...
  after all, easier to pill a man,
than to listen to him...
                      i'd still climb into
a cage with harambe...
                             given he dragged that infant
from a waterpool and saved it
from drowning...
                   the gods hide behind
animals...
                    i'm starting to really picture
shen dzu...
                          even though you can milk
the **** beast,
        you get to experience a 100% economic
return from its body...
                  at least some people have
enough respect for this slumbering god,
as to not waste as much as is wasted
in exhausting the oink.