.i'd hate to be rich, given the sentiment of the following statement: the rich can do whatever they want. to be able to do whatever the hell you want? must be boring, too many avenues to transverse... the allure of: what would it be like, to have not explored a certain avenue... i like restrictions, thinking in terms of boxes, thinking inside boxes rather than outside of them... what the hell would i do with the ultimate freedom, would feel like a *******, after which you'd be hungering for an ****, and then a harem... given my own restrictions: the most mundane can become the most entertaining, while the most "entertaining" can become the most mundane... which is a step-up from biology, it's become zoological... given my restrictions... almost nothing can be tinged with the malaise, the boredom, the nausea of: an uninhibited life; ah, the subtle defiance from said freedom, through excesses (like drinking), coupled with a rigor, a discipline.

only one venture into ontology
curbs my rage...
fear...
              if i didn't fear something,
anything, nothing... god...
i'd lash out...
        which makes me
                 a peculiar drunkard...
having a drunk conversation?
no... a big no no...
        but you know...
going to some martial arts class...
and getting kicked in
the ***** by the, "teacher",
for not vocalizing a martial arts
march of intimidating poses...
not ushering out a HA
with every step?
the disciplinary action taken?
the fact that i didn't make complaints,
but instead rolled into a fetal
position?
           abortion?
  oh i'm pro abortion,
   if you're anti-abortion you're
anti-*******.
and the woman is basically
a hermaphrodite...
since once your fertility juice
leaves your body,
it's her property...
   she own it, and you
included...
      **** having a premature
fathering complex with
the line: but it's my baby...
and the toilet paper is
my bomb, when i do
the one, two and three on
the throne of thrones...

cogito ergo sum needs to change...
to fit the existentialist model...
the old argument run along
the Kantian lines of: time...

   question:
   is viva / esse (life / being) a priori to essentia?
****** question about whether existence
predates the essence of life...
evidently esse a posteriori essentia:
life comes after the essence,
since... by only being alive we can
begin to grasp the essence of life...
hence the question:
what's the meaning of life?
well... you have to be alive to begin with.
so does that mean that i am
actually a vehicle of and for
an abortion?
          is a possibility, a potential of
life, actually moving my body around,
is my ego an abortion?

viva ergo essentia...
or... esse ergo essentia...
       given that:
thought is an ontological boogie man...
since not all thought translates /
permeates into the ontological structure
that's being, or moderately known
as the, "self"...

how can a fathering instinct even
begin to kick in when there's no
baby in your hands,
but some, weird... ***** abomination
in the woman's oven?

****... all the rights you need...
better that, than enforced labor,
and the subsequent alimony payments...

life, therefore its essence, from what
come with it and after what it
was, nihil: nothing.

this of course stems from a critique of
Sartre...
   given:            esse (being) is neither
a priori (from the prior)
  or a posteriori (from the after)...
it's both...
        so this miracle of existence,
the universe, etc.
is founded upon:
            contradictory statements...
paradoxes...
                 a duality, within a dichotomy;
like...
                ( +, - )... a battery.