one might add, or rather, begin with: a man should never hope to endeavor to marry a woman interested in philosophy... at best: a man might find a woman endowed to religion... since religion is the better testimony of the feminine fervor of intellect... even in the old days of the Ancient Greeks where prophecy was a skill bestowed upon women... i can return to a place like that where the defenders of Christianity are women... the sacred brothel of the Madonna finally coming to terms with: well... upon his supposed second coming... you know what happens? the incestous Apocalypse where the son ***** the mother and there's no surrogate good willing man to somehow alleviate the god-man tensions... just outright slaughter of the psyche: given our modern prowess of hiding: absolutely nothing... but the standard is set... a a good woman is for whom religion is like philosophy... while men respect that because... as it turns out... given the feminist catch-up tactic: there's a feminism all encompassing: platonism, artistotelianism, Machiavellianism... existentialism... basically there's a feminism for every direction each of these singling out men took... and somehow... that's supposed to be... a "good thing"...

so let's suppose je suis chrissy
crazed all unfathomably true
was so right:
but he didn't live through to old age
and that deaf
without the ordeal staged...

i was just thinking about
arithmetic, the unshakeable foundations
of mathematics in
the simplest form
that could somehow translate
into words:

for that i would require
Descartes and Kant
and Kant is not going to be almost eternal
because he was right:
as most feminist thinkers lay claim:
the noumenon and how there
are things in existence that our senses
can't perceive:
could implore for some secret octopus
funk juice or a sprinkle a magic mushy-mush
without a room but a forest...
could ask to peer through the veil...

unshakeable...
the existentialists might have thought
1 + 1 = 2
i think = i am
    what is "therefore" in the dynamic
of arithmetic?
surely i can't make an "addition"
of "i" with "think":
the form is all wrong...

form: given a number...
2 is a combination of 1 + 1
of i / think...
but 2 has the form: thought...
while thinking is probably the number 3...
in terms of form...

Kant also invoked the spirit of the binary
and modern computing
when he uttered:
0 = negation
   therefore 1 = affirmation...
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
if this is the modus operandi:
not ontologically strict focus
a man negates
affirms
negates negates
affirms affirms negates affirms
to mimic memory:
what we remember is strict
in terms of how we function
but in our leisurely time we forget
so much goodness
and we remember so much ilk
and then repress: which is a heightened state
of negation as repression invokes
a different substance to what consciousness is
the scrutiny of the ego-scalpel of the psychiatrists
with the cobweb of the unconscious...

but is the Cartesian "equation"
so unshakeable as something arithmetic?
Nietzsche tried to claim:
i am therefore i think: somewhere in the footnotes
of more human than human...
i don't know whether that helps
given 1 + 1 = 2
or rather 2 + 3 = 5
as much as 3 + 2 = 5...
          
                 language seems so shaky,
cocktail of jargon and bosoms
and surrogate fathering measures
thinking how could i possibly love a 14 year old not
mine...
while ******* her mother?
well: if it was a teenage boy i'd be in the pig's trough
full snout and **** and **** farts...
but her claim for me to impose the ordeal
of **** *** on her as if to "compenstate"
for my own "missing link"...

threesomes are so unspectacular
i sort of understand ******* in that:
most of the time...
during the act... you don't get the artwork
of full *** on spectacle
you: the protagonist are not the narrator
in the *** act and that only leaves you
snippets of seeing the human body:
it's affirmative of the necessity of art
this ordeal this choke-joke...

sure: Kant was wrong... but i do believe
that noumenons exist...
not a singular presence akin to a God:
i believe in noumenon pluralism
like gender fluid affirmative action
for blah blah b'aaah b'aah bad grammar
and a pronoun fetish which
implores you for bad bad noun hygiene
invariably calling a field of rapeseeds in bloom:

honest to "god"
i was on a bus and a child asked a mother:
mummy... what's that yellow?
that field of yellow...
and the mommy replied: oh... some yellow things...
they were rapeseeds in bloom...
gender neutral pronouns i they to
rapeseeds in bloom are just...         "yellow things"...

thing is (a) shape? not a shape...
thing is not a quality or quantity
it's not anything specific
at least yellow was retained... in the descriptive
dimenion...

but how unshakeable is the Cartesian "equation"...
how many times have i thought
that didn't precipitate into being?
there's thought
a medium: that i sometimes attach myself to:
when i think:
but thinking is a constant medium
that doesn't sleep that doesn't blink
that doesn't do anything but is
the headache that's God...
to imagine thinking constantly without
taking a break is like trying to compete with
the *** drive of insects...