Descartes' verb interaction is perhaps a shallow fact to grasp, but given the word therefore is an adverb, there must also be a counter to this, given some people are introverted, or extroverted as the original cartesian model suggests - so therefore can also become what the daydreamers get up to, for if thinking precipitates a sort of being, it can also precipitate a sort of non-being (the limit of such reasoning to suggest non-existence is a bit like reasoning the existence of god); i.e. therefore (ergo) apart from being an adverb (toward action) can also be an abverb (ab-, the prefix expanded in modern tongue as: absence - the commuters on the train... just sitting) - hence the after-mentioned mathematical stimulation of deciphering would be better suggested as not =, but as ⇌.

i've noticed this when reading philosophy books,
after engaging in one, you suddenly run out
of steam, you are creating a void, and by creating a void
through lack of hope for originality or demanding it,
and by creating a void you become stalled in what
you deem to be the adequate waterfall of lettering
arrange into word on paper, you create this vast
chasm that's an "antidote" to the cartesian res cogitans...
upon reading a philosophy book you turn into
a *res vanus, or should i say, an empty thing, a vacuum,
upon rejuvenation you do encounter thought,
but by turning yourself into a res vanus you
encounter thought as equatable with your ego,
as in: this is you, narrating in secret -
unlike the 26 unit equation of Hegel plagiarised
by Ginsberg in his poem the end:
i am i, old father fisheye that begot the ocean,
the worm at my own ear (new testament quote
about escaping hell, the worm at your own ear
gnashing its silica SiO2 teeth turned into glass,
glass teeth that then shatter) - the three words of
genesis are borrowed from Hegel's outlines
of the principle of rights, he too states the same,
the i am i, and furthers it by ascribing the word
am with the mathematical symbol =,
i wonder what word could be ascribed to other
words... perhaps in original terms ergo could be
Gemini as + and ÷... the latter case obviously
symbolical of schizophrenia, - (minus) typical of
depression, and x (multiplier) and ego trip,
that ultimate trip without intake of any Amazonian
substance or ingestion of a Swiss chemists' champagne
moment on a bicycle? i wonder. **** it, i digressed,
moment of rereading to find the river once more.
ah yes, this conception of a res vanus came to me
unlike Paul McCartney's yesterday, right in front of me,
first i read the day's newspaper, very depressing
material... then i picked up Kant again,
only briefly, i felt this sudden suggestion that upon
reading philosophy you are emptied, emptied in order
to become a blank canvas for someone to paint
something into your mind, the reason being is the
championing of thought in philosophical books,
to read them you seem to have to assume being empty,
rather than being brimful with thought,
i.e. jumping to too many conclusions and nodding
or shake-of-the-head assertions - there's no
parallelism with that notion of being a thinking thing
(a res cogitans), it can only come by a stance of
emptying or a pervasive adjective (quality) omni-
as regarded emptiness. i realised that the only way to
reattach myself to my own narrative was to engage
with a philosophical dynamic once again,
prior to yesterday i hadn't bothered to peer in once more
and wrote a detail of yesterday's events, not to my liking,
a lack of continuity rose up, a fizzing nugget of
phosphorus on water. if i left my eyes strained on
merely the newspaper i wouldn't have written this,
it had to be Kant, again.
but indeed upon turning into this res vanus of my
own invention, the principium is followed by
a definite articulation (mediating away from a definite
article) in Hegelian sense with mathematical grammar
via (+, -, x, ÷, etc.) to say: well if am is suggestive of =,
mediating expressive egoism and repressive egoism,
then res vanus, has to provide a similar product,
not a parallelism whereby one man thinks himself
extroverted in the medium of thought, but actually
introverted in the medium of being, but rather a
convergence (Oxford will take years to ascribe an -ism
on this matter)... since after disengaging from res vanus
upon reading a philosophy narrative,
it is a convergence of the pinnacle of decisive identity,
in that i = thought, of course Kołakowsi would
argue counter specifications of this grammatical construct,
he already did so when referring to dancing the tango
in his book culture & fetishes, i'm obviously disregarding
grammatical categorisation as a rigid Eiffel tower
monument to human endeavour,
i can state i = thought since both are personal associations,
Heidegger's famous contribution: we're still not thinking.
i don't care to suggest that thought is an Atlas with
the nouns world, helplessly balancing the many attributes
of what we call thought: the thought to steal, the thought
to care, the thought to obey, the thought to lie...
within such a list thinking is hardly definite, it's indefinite,
but what is definite in this respect is that we can identify
thought as ourselves, this is what stems from the res vanus
principium, a principle that allows for philosophy books
to be actually read, since reading them is permitted when
the contradiction of the cartesian res cogitans is lost.

men attired in canadian chequers:
like jumberjacks...

          and what becomes
the heaving breathing of that,
which constitutes a horizon:

upon that wood's horizon...
        i entombed meine herz...
as i told it...
in those wooden scuttle
for morph & skim-reading
of books, i.e.:
speak to the few,
and fewer still for any chance
of the morose moor
of more..
  
          boot-lick without
an SS-mann's schuhcreme...
i too see
                 the moon
in the basin reflection of a lake:
der mond...
                    die alles...
                 und meine gesicht zü!

seems: i have no apparent
reason to stage a fright
for the dodo project
in a language: "becoming"
exinct...

                what becomes
mecca was already persepolis...
in that:
bowing in tow,
the deity of the sun...
has... become whiff
of corrupt pleasure...
   sonnegottheit...
   lovely **** lovers,
as dictated by
a w. Burroughs...
strapped to an enclave of
Tangier...
      as much homosexuality
under Islam as...
            what is worth
the "natural" world,
with a buffer of ideology
counter technology
for the onto-;
gentlemen?
     on your knees:
please bow...
            
that...
   how to tell the german
philosophers apart...
i.e.
   dasein &
                    daßein?

              ᛋ:ᛋ....

          ­   hahnohr zü krächzen!

diese deutsche:
mein mütter...

                  and i could have been
such an idle:
sycophant...
    such a toy-boy-shoe-shine
worth of a punk: agenda...

come the rigid whip...

these days: it is no longer
worth its due to
write poetry to escape
the world...

one needs...
to read some philosophy,
to escape the world,
for sure,
but one also requires
an ability to fathom
a construct of a fortress
of a vocab.,
that only:
the systematic application
of language
for the understudy
of philosophy:
breaks, fathoms,
beckons with.

oh, i actually know very little...
but what i do know is...
the basis of all wordly
fade-out vogues...
containing a man...
  
whatever "begins" with
the Cartesian res cogitans
(thinking thing)
"ends" with the Kantian
res per se (think in itself)...
one even begins to hope:
that's a tautological
statement...

              but now...
cogitans ≠ per se,
i.e. thinking does not equate
itself to either being
or the in-itself...
since thinking can
become corrupt...
           since thinking is
corrupt...

           ergo?

             well a revisionist take
on Descartes via Kant is
worthy:

     supposing cogitans = esse per se...
   res ≠ res,
via                 res cogitans ≠ res per se...
when, once upon a time
res cogitans = res per se...
yes, once upon a time
a thinking thing would equate
to a thing in itself...

                    not diesetage...

we are liberated by the "knowledge"
that man's thought is: "know"
when his ontology is
the metaphor extract from
the natural world,
and not from the ontological
world, barricaded by
technology and...
the craft of a 3D tongue
of nuance...

              there's no verb attachment
as simply put as: cogito ergo sum...

    it requires
the "thing", i.e. res...

                         a res cogitans
non est res per se...
          
                 but thinking can be
deemed a "per se"...
                  to mind:
         there is no ergo-cascade to
fathom....
  since the Kantian reinvigoration
of the Cartesian heave is
equally balanced on
the ergo:
     qua cogito per se qua
                sum per se (est, est)....

ergo?
  res ≠ ego / id...

             but the verb: cogito
is an eventuality of: burrowing...
i.e. clarifying:
both the fathomable depth
of thought, and the unfathomable
shallowness of being...

we "awaited" the discovery
of the D.N.A. helix...
but never "expected"
  james watson to be: shunned...
thank god i didn't
take part in one of those
D.N.A. investments of
collecting data...

well sure... why would you read
"modern" philosophy...
i.e. something by a German
from the 17th or 18th century
apart from Nietzsche...

   you'd become stiff!
quadratic!

                mind you...
everything spoken in the English
tongue from
the 20th century onwards,
apart from:

love, love me do...
you know i love you
i'll always be true
so please, love me do...

rhyme:
always the highest source
of wisdom (purpose
for life, and subsequent
invigoration for it
being pursued) in
the English tongue...
so... who am i to judge?

i'm just a stiff collar
remnant of what would have
become a "what-if"
schutzstaffelbüro -
ja... die S.S.B.

i know... fetischgrund;
as implanted into me
by my history teacher,
in England...
while studying
WWII...
she said:
pointing at me...
out of all of you...
he would be the only
one left alive...

hell...
   i'm still trying to find
a grimace to live with
to counter her.

p.s. but i thought
the englischspreschenpublikum
   gesucht für, die "knotted-si-si"?
nein?
             ooh... wäß schønde!

if by revision, there be a cartesian "archetype"
we'll require a blank slate, a canvas,
res cogitans isn't exactly a blank slate,
a canvas -
     then again it can be -
   but at the same time this thinking thing
primer is already brimming full with
an ingredient -
         namely? thinking.
                    so how can it be a starting point,
a blank slate, a canvas?
       for some reason i can't imagine thinking
at being directly correlated in translation
into being (esse) - it's more easier
imagining gods, than this sort of translation:
i.e. - how many mindless tasks have we
performed, how many accidents &
subsequently how many automations?
my guess is? too many, or enough to conjure
up the notion of common sense:
that communistic attention seeking ideal
of darwinism: yes, selfish as we are:
the cosmos is a claustrophobic space,
if being a poet, you stand next to a plumber
and how we're in all of this together;
i hardly think you can argue with that
sort of perspectivism.
           that's why i invoked an "antidote"
to the already apparent jackson *******
of res cogitans -
       it's so randomised - so already fresh,
in your fresh, already a cursor's sight away
the next pawn move on the chessboard
of life...
              res cogitans in classical terms
was already a presupposition conundrum -
it wasn't a case of supposing we thought,
or think,
     and by that statement the conundrum
is all the more apparent: we don't...
morality is a construct of acting upon
a thought that really doesn't need translating
into an act, rather: a possibility;
nonetheless it's translated, and thinking
disappears into a sane facade surrounded
by institutional mechanisations
that coordinate it into a: cradle unto the grave
scenario of the abled person:
strapped into a wheelchair of ambitions
primarily the one to: be able to walk again;
which is the don quixote aspect of the "quest".
there is no sense in working from
a cartesian standpoint -
   the res cogitans model was so outdated
that it was almost invisible,
   it was easier to see a beginning -
a god, a "bang", a monkey,
than it was to see a thinking thing...
     a thinking thing translates, precipitating
into a being - with that being said:
what is not objectionable about thought's
loss of an ought to still continue in making
being?
        never mind the crucifixion as a "sacrifice",
the fact that man question himself and
never manages an adequate plateau answer
is already a sacrifice worth enough
of other "worthy" sacrifices:
           and so too, as the universe "exploded"
so too man imploded;
the universe modelled upon an "explosion"
toward the infinite, is also a universe
modelled upon an implosion of man
toward the eternal...
         man has no archetypal cartesian
"currency", there is no cartesian wager -
hence the starting point of thinking is lost
to the sisyphus tract of ego-tripping, "winning",
and all other minor debasements -
    intrigue by insult -
               man was not born to think -
he remained in his unconscious developmental
state for much much later than expected...
i might as well say: i considered myself blind
until i first engaged in memory lego...
     i can't expect to have seen much else
other than the recount of my first
stage of internalised sight - i.e. memory.
again, i cannot consider res cogitans of
classical cartesianism as directly responsible for
esse -
i right thought to be an erasing project,
memory we can escape,
by forgetting, thinking and the imagining of
far better: that's harder to escape from,
memory was never a form of escapism
unlike imagining and thinking have been...
    which is why i asked to begin
with res vanus: for the mind of man
to become a womb, with the ego a foetus -
because it's hard to begin with
a jackson ******* of a res cogitans to
prescribe or even ascribe a "sort" of being...
            what needs to become is what already
is: a blank slate, a canvas,
           imaginative being in the form of punk -
or the thinking being in the form of einstein -
   but both begin with res vanus
rather than res cogitans -
       thinking has its own chronology and
narrative - like any claim to a hierarchy -
    but it cannot begin by stating that
thought was and is the first fact...
    cogitans non est facto primo -
   thinking is not the prime fact -
            it's like a numbers game -
there are the prime numbers, and there are
the composites -
     thinking is composed of imagination,
memory, ethics etc. -
        yet, as is all the more apparent -
    we all sometimes do stupid things sometimes...
and we do them: because we're not thinking;
which means that the prime fact that
we're thinkings things,
                                 is false,
we have to vacate ourselves for a thought
to enter our domain of emptiness -
               ***** the thought, ego the *****;
**** me, i always end up writing the most
bogus crap, after listening to a psychologist,
who has had the advantage of having raised
children, and become less severe a guardian
with some grandchildren, for it's a common fact
that grandparents make better parents
to their offsprings' children
    than a direct relation of mother to child...
even if they were alcoholic communists
            who still managed to buy you a collection
of philosophy books.