what heidegger's conjectures as being
                                                     (archaic with a y
                                                    that replaces the iota) -
                in terms of the cartesian
  "simplicity"...
           via a misnomer application
           of a certain type of wording,
you bypass using a thesaurus -
    that congested form of "eloquence"
for the aesthetic of variation(s)...
                for heidegger the "in between"
if being...
                    an antithesis of the pluralism
that's beings...
            less the concern for
the cartesian precipitation of the ergo...
as much as i'd like to envision
thinking to be as coherent with being,
the fact that heidegger doesn't allow
          the ergo equation to
allow thinking as a fathomable
                 vector focus for being...
             even as kant isolated "i think"
from the ergo, via the a priori
         and the a posteriori observation(s)...
                  simply: to be, or not to be
          (a priori and a posteriori, respectively)
what heidegger explores is
   the both singular aspect
                     of individuation in the plural
sense, as he explores
the pluralism is the singularity of inviduation...
          vary that:
    a pluralism of being feeds no pluralism
of beings, in that there is no plural
outcome of the ergo...
                                      even if there are
multiple variations of being via beings,
there are only a limited attempts to ergo
an individuation process when
the pluralism ergo only breeds
a coin's flip of circumstance...
                but unlike heidegger i speak
english...
        and unlike the german instance for
the singular / plural distinction,
      i have inherited the
                            a- / and the the-
                scissor hands
               of things associate with
indirect & direct expression...
       on the categorical basis of grammatical
articulation...
                          for in terms of rethinking kant:
i can only ingest a categorical imperative
as a way to read into the "subconscious"
of a language's structure on the grammatical focus...
because how can not be a concern to
replace
        german concerns for pluralism,
                           and the singular orientation,
when in english the notion of being,
as opposed to beings
          i matched with the cartesian ergo
promise to never attain a clarity
                between things definite (the-)
                         and between things
indefinite (a-): or simply lacking?
                         came shrapnel thinking,
or unfathomable physical debility
   by mere thought...
                             to state it differently
with a modern twist, on applying a revision
of a categorical impetus of grammar,
rather than the idea-unfathomable
kantian categorical imperative(s)...
         ergo?
             the act of cogito is no more
                         an ergo of a sum
              to guarantee it a synonym status
synchro.,
                              because with how many
instances there's an ergo missing
to conjugate these antonym prospects of
expressing existence?
           on how many occassions
         is cogito an asynchrony
that bears no relation on the enforced logistics
of the ergo, i.e. via mathematical
script, that easy foundation of
    1 (+) 1, 1 (-) 1, 1 (x) 1, 1 (÷) 1?
        H         H        W          Y
               the four prime, mathematical
verbs...
                      i.e. as one mathematician told
me: mathematicians are not
supposed to be good at arithmetic!
because the cartesian ergo,
       when applied to knowledge
grounded in the study of a thesaurus?
     cogito is no more an ergo
that provides being, rather beings...
              since cogitans is neither
synonymous, nor antynomous with
               esse...
                           since on how many instances
did thinking not precipitate into being,
but rather, the observation of being,
in the architecture of: beings?
            for people who don't read
the philosophy genre,
       i'll be an easy target, once they grasp
the little of the content in psychiatric
literature...
                 easier to box people in
  easily accessed jokes,
    easier to reduce reading philosophy
to reading the bare scraps of psychiatric
literature...
                 philosophy for dummies?
   any psychiatric literature...
                people who want to take
shortcuts when reading philosophy books,
tend to read psychiatric literature...
     the sad, but the nonetheless, sorry truth...
          when people attempt intellectual
endeavours,
  they fall short of having patience
in reading philosophy books,
   and instead read psychiatric literature...
  after all, easier to pill a man,
than to listen to him...
                      i'd still climb into
a cage with harambe...
                             given he dragged that infant
from a waterpool and saved it
from drowning...
                   the gods hide behind
animals...
                    i'm starting to really picture
shen dzu...
                          even though you can milk
the **** beast,
        you get to experience a 100% economic
return from its body...
                  at least some people have
enough respect for this slumbering god,
as to not waste as much as is wasted
in exhausting the oink.

that daft, the overworded: implictiness of
                                                                         fakery,
                         what is implictness by relativism,
                     has no explicit
"conversation" / dialectics,
  expressed indirectly via
a dependency of variables...
      as some might say:
we have rules, we have social norms...
the form, ex-,
  either odd or even,
         with regards to reiterating
numbers into words...
              explicit:
             expressed direcrtly via
an independent set of invariations...
        considering that in psychiatric terms
a depression, cannot be gesticulated
as such, "fathomable",
      easily understood / categorised
when an existential focus takes hold
of the "problem"...
             almost all psychiatric diagnostic
terms are shut off from
performing a medical practice,
when stated by: existentialist constraints...
              past the french schools,
and into the feral land of the germans...
the english?
   with their heritage?
              easily at loss with regards to
giving explanations, adequate to
satiate the "sufferer" with a excuse,
or rather, a...
                             a justification.
                my fault at reading more kant
than hegel and not fathoming
any economic model-answer...
                                    just give me a blank
workable canvas,
   and i will give you a vocab that will
probably muddle a few grey-beards
of the sufi community of kabul...
             because i ******* have to mind
this virus, like i might mind
ensuring the bulgarian prostitutes
check themselves to a methodological
clarification of donning the rubber...
well, if there's an explicit ergo libra,
and if there's an implicit ergo libra,
to balance cogito never actually meeting
the sum balance of either argumentation...
       what a funny scenario!
               ergo appears in two forms:
   parallel, similis, consimilis (=),
                       or via-parallel, anti-similis,
                        contra-similis (≠)...
           because thinking rarely
manifests itself in being, but rather:
in beings...
                       the common thread?
deficiency!
                     most of the time
the factum: cogito = sum,
          is actually a fact of:
                          cogito ≠ sum...
which is why the cartesian libra of ergo
is so, confusing with regard to how
the two aspect of consciousness
as governed to "allow" a balance...
  in that they don't...
                    the fact of thought
as thought being the ideal,
never, or rarely, translates into an
ideal existence...
         of simply not-thinking
    but rather over-simplifying life
by a per se,
              of a lack of sensual distrust...
the (1,0), (0,1), (0,0), (1,1) binary
over-simplification
of the cartesian ergo that mediates
cogito and sum...
                  you can't allow yourself
three immediacies of the same fact
in the tri-medium of
variant substance expressions!
              the fact of existence
cannot be grapsed by a fact of thought,
in the same way that a "fact" of either
an explicit, or an implicit application
of the interchangeable of stated fact
can somehow find a balancing libra
                 artefact of a mythological
stature to simplify the argument!
                       i simply find the cartesian ergo
too simplifying,
                   the problem of cogito never attaining
the potential of a sum,
as well at the problem of the sum never
attaining the potential of a cogito!
                given that
in the simplest mathematical grammar
the ergo is either expressed as:
cogito = sum,
             or cogito ≠ sum...
                  is that ego + cogito = ego - sum?
        or is that ego x cogito ≠ ego ÷ sum?
             what's that's 4 to the power of 8
in terms of variations?
              put me against the mathematical
punctuation marks, past the colons,
semis and commas and write it out
in math...
                       to have added to thinking
is to have taken away from being...
  to have multiplied thinking, is to have
divided your being...
                ergo = (= / is), but also (≠ / isn't) -
to have divided your thinking,
  isn't to have multiplied your being...
              to have added to your being,
is to have subtracted from your thought...
         show me the rubric of
the existent variations!
         show me!
                             philosophy per se,
is something that the koran can never teach me,
and never will,
even if in the slightest it only attempted
to teach me how to sing...
                   i have my own labyrinth
to mind,      
   let alone the common citizen of Istambul.

ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo
ergo