here's an opinion that
   requires a dialectical
attache...
no, really, it does...
the following statement
requires
an echo chamber,
a boiler room...
i walked the night streets
mesmerized
by the full moon
and the moonlit kitchen
later at home,
covered in quicksilver
as if watching silver
armor that became my
flesh...
    sometimes it happens
towing a beer...

does English existentialism
even exist?
the 20th century
dogma akin to the French,
genesis with
the Danes and the Germans...

oh, i'm pretty sure it does,
English existentialism
does exist...
   but... i hope it isn't there
in the first place...

it's so placid,
so... materialistic in its
scientific uni-dimensionality...
English existentialism is
primarily, and only,
a version of Darwinism...

it's not that "philosophy"
is undermined...
          come along history,
and physics...
  
i can't be no stretch-Armstrong
working my way around
a posit-approximate of a date,
and date zero of the big bang...

frankly?
i'm bored of English existentialism,
and we're only 18 years
into the 21st century...

**** me, watching eggs get fried
is more interesting...
the fixed rules,
   the whole Darwinism overhaul
of continental existentialism -
that... bugging...
overt-simplification
  of human psychology...
the analogue argument,
the replica, the mimic...
there are various names for
the starting block...

      i'm literally done reading
English philosophy,
never started to read it in the first place,
to begin with...
and i'm sure i never will...

i reread my own attempts and
the best i can ascribe is an embarrassing
limp **** of prudence
prescribed with a dosage of power...

poetry and music...
philosophy isn't exactly an English "thing"...
it's not a national trait to
make conversation over dinner...
unless it's a family dinner shared
before the altar of a t.v.
or the children before a screen
of a smartphone...

   ******* can rhyme, sure as ****...
but can they entertain
a cogitans per se:
i.e. a thinking thing in itself -
a complex variant of solipsism?
don't think so...

as ever... too much biological
materialism...
  which bores the **** out of me,
considering it: overstates
the ****** obvious...

   i hate hearing the obvious...
it's like: well... d'uh! no **** Sherlock!
why don't you shove your
whittle observations into a little
suitcase, throw it onto the train
heading into the unconscious
and stop gloating about the self-evident?!

*******.

i don't get how we can even achieve
pub- / cafe-existentialism's worth
of conversation when Darwin is
omnipresent...
         everywhere i look: Darwin...
everywhere i chose
to **** in an abandoned alley:
Darwin...

                         these rigid structures
of scientific certainty are
bugging me, when those who adhere
to them, have no basic
"knowledge" of the sometimes
pseudo-scientific nature of philosophy...

after all: philosophy is both
a "science", and a "humanism"...
     it's... "gender"-fluid...
       but the English do not think so...
philosophers are not
polymaths, having contradictory
interests...
             and a (as according to the 20th
century French existentialists)
   "self" interest of given artifacts...

English existentialism can exist,
in the 21st century...
but, said affairs be made given light:
it can't backtrack
and fall back on a unison source
of a genesis to craft an exodus from
the 20th century...
    
after all...
   what happened when the Germans
applied a branch of Darwinism?
   eugenics...
   so... what am i look at now?
   if not the purity of ethnicity...
then a "purity" of thought...

            but enlighten me...
what narrative exists outside the basic
cognitive Theta-Q?
        you know: (th)ought?
        consolidated moral questioning
abolished...
the end of ethical inquiring...
            there's the moral (th)ought -
and then there's the freedom of thought...

and who said what, precisely?
****, man...
i'm hearing is the clicking
of a supposed centipede on
a keyboard and e nomine's song
angst...

    i expect this to be a freedom of speech,
as i expect finding a penny on
the street...
              should you care to look
at your feet...

i said ****...
      but i wrote this, instead...
which implies?
a higher category of a freedom of speech:
like Kierkegaard originally said:

people much fuss about their freedom
of speech,
   rarely their freedom of thought...

but i guess posting this in a public
space is a direction transliteration
of thought = speech...

       i don't think so...
i said ****...
                      this... this?
  this is res extensa -
     the extension of res cogitans -
the thinking...
     sure... i could write the same thing,
20x over, and shove it into my puny desk...
but then...
   i could also write this
on a piece of paper, and, by accident...
drop it in the Romford Market Sq.
on a busy Friday, fine fine afternoon.