there's much gesture in thinking out the nonsensical,
the un-thinkable - the un-pardonable - with sheer gusto
you tend to think out the unsolvable -
the nonsense people are afraid to
think about - the impractical -
and that's for one reason alone -
it doesn't create real problems...
you do not engage with real struggles
people encounter - because by doing
all the above stated... you are not the one
who says to a person: you can't do this,
and you can't to that.
which is why i don't understand
the English aversion toward philosophy:
say the word, and the English immediately
succumb to the notion of pedantry and
snobbism - when in fact: it's hardly that -
perpetually philosophers entertain
themselves with invoking awe, as with ageing,
and seeing the many pitfalls of romance
and comedy and tragedy... awe becomes
very hard to find... it's simulated ignorance
in a way... for example Heidegger championing
Aristotle is a gesture intended in this direction -
and his concept of dasein is another
way to stage a coup against the world...
it's an antithesis to what would otherwise
be regarded as activism... or more piquantly:
hedonistic activism, which primarily encompasses
staging a higher moral authority -
but never reaching for the fist making a signature
for the cause... that phrase: just empty words...
and humble pie. well... if you're a bachelor,
have this instilled aversion toward having a private
relationship with women: suitor - Kierkegaard -
well... you are bound to create pointless problems...
because... to be honest... you'd rather throw
"imaginary" problems into the metaphysical arena
than sit there... as a competent English gentleman
and speak of philosophy with about two or
three terms... reality... god... monkey...
or at a chessboard with a desire to provoke
a telekinetic pandemonium.. x-men apocalypse and
all that ****** imagery...
it's odd... but it's just so...
the English had an idyllic life,
as any island dwellers might...
which is why they don't like impractical problems...
because they blabber about practical solutions,
to practical problems... that never get solved,
i.e. engrossed in more politics than anything:
the English have no ear for philosophy -
the mere word frightens them should anyone admit
to being the stated adherent: for god's sake,
the Scots are perceived as barbarians with the
deep-friend Mars bars (and pizzas) - but Hume
rang the eardrum in Kant's ear... and wallah!
a new chapter... Locke? only Darwinism,
popularised with images, as they say:
best leave these skeletons in the closet.
what am i working up toward?
well... it's a bit specific...
first... the easiest proof
of solipsism... a crowded train... someone farts...
guess what... the person who farted is
the only person on the train who appreciates the stink...
hence: the theory - you like your own -
hence the abstract of the self, competing for a theory,
the self - as an optical itinerary: from head to foot,
from hand to toe - a long list of self-serving
accomplishments in detailing all acquired
difference... but it's not about that...
for all the reasons that life can become perfect...
at precisely that moment people began to
philosophise - and that condemnation
of reading a book on the topic in youth
rather than old age? well... the glory of old age
is kinda slipping away... if not now? when?
obviously you might jump the wagon too eagerly...
but at least you'll soon realise how
a philosophy book (excluding Plato) can actually
help you in forming a dialogue -
i think that's what they teach primarily,
the art of dialogue... not the art of persuasive speaking
(rhetoric) - but the art of dialogue... after all...
Plato... right? all dialogue...
and they do: it only takes one book
in this literary region, i became convinced of it
after only being introduced to the subject area quiet late
in life (21)... prior to that? fiction and poetry...
and science... nothing else...
like a fish to water...
the necessary 21 years of strain having avoided the subject
(not on purpose, mind you).
yes, a glorification, why not?
it's because these nonsensical problems arrive
as a reflection of a defence mechanism...
the English don't like "too many words" or
the continental verbiage they coin as the psychiatric
phrase word salad - precisely because, sometimes,
language is not about entertaining someone with
tragic choke-jokes and songs...
great singers, great comedians,
great engineers... but in this field? obnoxious *****.
the English are the first instigators of
enshrining a quicksand pit of a person's
esteem in his ability to use and comprehend language,
primarily because they can't comprehend
the complexity of language being thus expressed
they immediately conscript against him
this... odd... quack-wacky need to teach
the person in question refer himself to the Jane Austen
clinic of correct language parameters -
nothing beyond! nothing foreign and
original! we need novelists who only travel in
straight lines (preferably on a Benelux plateau)
and never dazzle with a tarantula bite of
disorientation (akin to the cut-up method)...
and you will find that the English are primarily
concerned with making people suspicious of
their sanity... strange... i once had a work-horse
work ethic and that became undermined,
then my use of language became undermined
because, as already stated: the English don't
do impractical things with their thought:
it has to be practical...
like the Germans and time... everything has to be
efficient... or the Japanese and space (*******
cardboard sized hotel rooms)...
which brings me to the point of my
original intention:
deleuze's and guattari's searching ambition -
the anti-oedipus, or: body-without-organs...
in turn the dark ages of Cartesian thinking (in England)
or how mental health is somehow a lesser
health to physical health -
sweat... and exocrine glands v. endocrine glands...
<yes, telegram mode, precursor to a detailed
explanation>
i'm just proposing what i dare believe
to be a thought-object, or more precisely a
thought-***** -
no point looking for a shortcut with this,
it's either the sort of verbiage compound you'll
reason with... or you'll treat it as *******...
as ever, whether that's investing in
a gym membership and a suitable diet...
you won't get the ****** six-pack on your torso...
this concept is reserved for what i find problematic
in mental ailments - which, in turn... somehow,
"miraculously" translate into physical ailments -
but of course, amputees get the priority seats
in the eyes of every Jack and Dolly... because it's easier
that way...
my back-reading in psychiatry? well,
it's not exactly limited... on the plus side -
a theory is nothing more than a placebo trial -
you're not thinking about it being effective,
that's the default point of applying thinking where
pharmacology cures are pretty crap and its side-effects
catastrophic... and talking therapy ends up being
a monologue with a table filled by notes with single
words on them and being asked: to identify their meaning...
anyone who has experienced these practices
can also say: i'm actually conscious you're making me
feel like a ******* ******... you've just insulted my
intelligence... and i'm back to square one at kindergarten...
have you ever watched you-tube frustrations?
well... a thought-***** has nothing to do with
that map of the brain...
feeling goes here,
seeing goes here... a mash-up and a mess akin
to the map of the European union...
because some rich boy scumbag drew it
in crayon at the beginning of the 20th century means
it has to be right...
but if i treat thinking as a thought-*****,
i know how the ***** works...
a heart is a muscular pump...
the stomach is a digestive acid swamp...
the esophagus is stretch-armstrong...
should i feel guilty writing about this?
should i? touchy subject? well... you won't
find any pills around here... well, apart from the sleeping
pills... they're sacred (to me, at least, as if the bourbon,
but that's my private affair... you walk down this
route: it heals me... not necessarily you) -
this is to simply end the whole pseudo-Cartesian dichotomy
of philosophy popularised by psychology and
psychiatry - for these two areas are bound to simply
popularise philosophy... and given that most people
don't read a book in that area... it's easier to manipulate
people in therapy with the knowledge passed down
from on high.
and it's there...
the dichotomy parallelism is primarily due to the fact that
most people think of the brain with two categories:
a. when physical pain strikes it (a headache)
and b. when physical pain is absent (with what ease
they think)...
the problem lies in the perception of b.,
most people can conceptualise that there's something
deeper than the raw physicality of things...
i do remember times when i encountered that
ease of thinking...
i experienced it...
it was there... ****, i lost it... but that provided me with
an un-inhibitory trance of a writing capacity...
the question is... how can merely thinking be painful?
most mental health problems never ask this:
thinking is painful...
isn't that what most melancholics
state, but with a more emotional language of
feelings and emotions?
if the thought-***** is damaged...
then all thinking coming from this compartment of the brain
will be painful...
so what sort of paracetamol
do you take? it's not as easy as being prescribed
high-blood pressure pills...
popping pills like that
you're only escaping a conscious moment of what
an automated ***** feels