.i honestly don't know who Spengler is... perhaps just a zenith for a man of his times, who, needs to be carried by someone like Heidegger, into a notable mention in the 21st century reader...

point being... man is not an illustrious
biological creature...
             yet how Heidegger puts it...
this ignorant proclamation of
the abandonment of beings by being...
which, if i remember correctly,
    instances of the intimidation of
"facts"...
      now... i understand facts as those
pointers with a numerical back-up...
a fact isn't a fact if it is merely worded...
that's an opinion...
  a fact looks something like this...
      the area of a circle = πr²
to me... that's a fact...
          for a fact to be a fact
there has to be a numerical addition
to said fact... what is a big bang theory,
or the Darwinism of "history"?
approximations...
         even in face of π... being seemingly
endless...
   well... the infinitesimal division of
the square...
  in short... π = o / ω
               π equals the omicron divided
by the motion of omicron
in the form of ω... rolling... spinning...
in an orbit...
a fact is a fact, to me,
when the "fact" isn't merely worded...
Darwinism doesn't have a definite
numerical proposal for its wording...
as neither does the big bang theory...
after all... we are biologically flawed
animals...
          we're not pristine biological
artifacts... for ****'s sake...
we get a toothache and we turn ballistic!
how is the biology of Darwinism
actually translated via
humanism and philosophy?
                    it's translated as
the zoology of Darwinism...
               yes, we are zoologically on
top...
  but biologically? don't think so...
we are inclined to think about
(if any) history interference with creating
the present borrowing from Darwin,
precisely because we are the highest
zoological outcome...
we're the ones who can cage animals...
animals can't cage other animals...
we're not the highest biological
specimen...
   but we are the highest zoological
specimen...
                       if we were the highest
biological example...
we... say... wouldn't be susceptible
to... viruses...
  our complex brains could avert infections...
i don't know how... telepathically?!
we're such a grand zoological specimen
in that we can interest ourselves
in borrowing traits and characteristics
  from the specimens we isolate...
but to my "knowledge"...
     bad ******* move...
                  i still don't understand
the mindlessness of accepting both the big bang
theory, and the theory of evolution
as facts...
                       concrete facts...
this scientifically secular dogma
                       with a rigidity that defends
itself with ridicule... oh no... not the religious...
humanism...
       it's not going after religion...
humanism is at stake,
esp. the bridge between humanism and
science... philosophy...
so we evolved to do x, y, z...
  just as the gorilla evolved to do x, y, z...
i find that we're biologically
intimidated by an animal...
the fact that an animal requires
so little, and so little has changed...
to perpetuate its existence...
while we have been forced into an endless
spiral of over-complicating things...
we're not fallen in the classical respect
of what that Genesis metaphor implies...
you chose, the harder route...
doesn't anyone think that...
hell... one monkey in the tribe
gets eaten by a snake...
these days it's a dozen peeps get shot
by a PTSD crazed ape-**** ex-marine...
what's the difference?
   but having a body like a gorilla,
and having the gorilla strength,
from what? a ******* vegan diet?
       how much... whatever the body-builders
take does it take... to have the equivalent
of a fifth of a gorilla's strength?!
see... an over-complication spiral...
and how do animals resolve their
social problems and their fears of death?
on mute.
                  no chit-chat... instinctively...
it would appear that silence can convey
more truths than the logos of man's
blah blah blah...
          we didn't evolve biologically...
but sure as **** we evolved zoologically.
trick question...
  in this... glorious labyrinth of thought...
would you rather be killed
by a tiger... mercifully...
or by a jeffrey dahmer... mercilessly?
              i'd pick the ******* tiger!
evidently psychology emerged after
people inverted their zoological
"evolution" on themselves,
     having, somehow exhausted
their first curiosities with the originally
caged animals.
  we didn't evolve biologically...
what has thinking to do with all
the biological advantage of the current animals?
like bears... who don't have to put up
with the blues of winter, escaping
it to hibernate?!

p.s. and this whole feral animal living
in constant stress of finding food?
yeah... pandas, sloths and koalas
look... really stressed...
and whatever happened to the carnivorous
thrill of the chase?
at least these specimens don't
need to deal with the *******
of having it inverted into a ***-honing
metaphor;
   i suppose a filled stomach
feels much more gratifying than
emptying a ******* sack.