no number of opinions will alleviate this apathy, promised, paradoxically: a pandora's box of pathology, which is why attempting dialectics is a farce, a cheap magic trick for a talk-show host in being "understanding", to attempt in mediating, and then scoffing it off, like some under baked crumpet / scone, and yes, it makes sense, pivoting on the possession of a conscience... it's not that some people appear to now possess it, but that they are comical in possessing, and comedy is always nuanced, an ambiguity surrounds their conscience... the binary opposite of comedy? the birth of the tragedy, a succumbing to madness, a suicide... every person possesses a conscience, as the universal law of unit, but comedy hides a person with a grieving conscience, making the person so callus as to make them donkeys, laughing stocks, spaghetti entangled liars... it's only a conscience triggered into a tragedy that reeks with redemptive qualities ascribed to a person, cf. the already mentioned carl sergeant and 'arvey 'ard on weinstein... in the spirit of the film split: rejoice! for those who have suffered are redeemed! rejoice! said the beast. the comedy is near impossible to avoid in post-script idiocy beaming the letters FAIL; the tragedy of conscience, at least we know some evil doers in death are redeemed with the only puritanical act to redeem conscience: the bride of honour.*
can an intelligent person make a slapstick
joke?
or is it that,
a dumb person cannot make an original
joke?
besides the point,
a question is a question -
and as most questions go -
it's not whether there's a correct
or wrong answer,
rather, whether there actually is
an answer to accomplish
that stated question.
i've noticed a resurgence of dialectical
inquiry, but i have decided to
avoid perfecting the art,
other than in person,
on a park bench, rather than on
a page in pixel white...
oh sure, i have a life beyond this
outlet,
and i rarely write a platonic dialogue
to reinforce my experiences,
i once enforced a question
upon a child in a supermarket:
do you think animals are unable
to see 3-dimensional objects
in / on a 2-dimensional canvas?
he didn't answer, because his guardian
thought i was weird in my
presumption...
which was, however you imagine it:
casual, cordial, orientated
within the adequate use of time and space
for the question to be asked.
personally i find myself if a binary
realm of,
which isn't exactly a left right divide -
as a "schizophrenic" i am marching
down the middle, and asking myself:
there's only the middle to mind,
and the mind is the only thing worth
juggling, sure, but juggling
a thesis hemisphere and an antithesis
hemisphere becomes lost in
the schizophrenic-quadratic -
right down the middle.
which is why i find modern attempts
at dialectics so odd...
i prescribed myself dialectical escapism,
simply because there are too
many opinions i'm simply not interested in.
people seem to have stored these opinions
for so long, they are choking at not
having talked about them...
it's apparent in comedy...
among comics...
they simply say:
if we can't bypass the comedy and sit down
with a cold beer, we can't actually
take the opinion seriously,
if we can't, at first, make a joke of it...
that's hard...
that's near impossible to stage...
you can realise the complexity of
enabling a seriousness with a comic precursor
antics to "soften" the blow of
approach...
that is why i await the awaited for
dialectical artist, who must be much
older than i, frankly the age of socrates,
i can only fathom dialectical escapism,
in that i can fathom an opinion,
but i can't fathom being endearing to it,
keeping it, nurturing it,
maturing it,
making the animate
water into inanimate ice...
which leaves steam
a categorical conundrum of categorisation...
in terms of the human mind,
i can only find comparison with Alcatraz...
i am forever attempting escape,
i know i will be aided by the snitch,
judas, death...
but i have to be lodged into
a vocab that may aid me,
or hinder me.
the human experience is
an Alcatraz because of the a priori principle -
what came before me: set the rules,
the winding corridors where
i'm not the Minotaur,
but the scared victim,
or just the dumb-enough brick of
the labyrinth's wall.
or? the a posteriori principle -
i impose my own graffiti on
the walls, and be the Minotaur of the long
wait of life, with death:
my morphine angel.
but i see no desire to engage in
dialectical endeavours,
hence my choice in attempting
a purification of poetry,
against technique of schooling,
in making poetry less and less
musically orientated, and returned to
its primordial genesis: of narrative.
hence my dialectical escapism,
i really have not stable opinion,
or opinion i'd like to adhere to, to subsequently
hug a pillar of a Parthenon.
- believe me when i say that the english
language has no inclination of
orthography, since it uses no diacritical
distinctions...
and yes... russian diacritics is ugly as
your waning babushka of "secrets"...
- the beauty of existentialism?
avoidance of the thesaurus,
mismatching words, ambiguity -
the phraseology of: for lack of a better word...
fiddly parts, you know,
**** it, you can't exactly
interrupt a waterfall, so why bother
attempting to boil some water in a saucepan?
the world once believed in the enterprise
of dialectics, but since the emergence
of a third party mediator,
what sort of "dialogue's" worth of
the dialectical endeavour is there left?
once upon a time, in ancient,
the mediator of a dialogue was a park
bench, after that a stage for actors...
who asked these third party ponces,
more to the point: who invited these
plebs into our private debate so they can
mere awe and sigh their saturday nights off?!
who the **** let these plebs in?!
i'm a pleb, i can call them plebs,
do i ******* look like i work at 10 downing st.?!
plebs only understand pleb talk,
rude, incoherent, mildly orientated
in journalism, and ever wishing for some
marquis de sade hard-ons.
i encourage dialectical escapism, frankly,
because,
i 've found that i have a bare
minimum, laurel leaf worth of covering my
genitals aspiration to keep opinions...
opinions have become spare change,
you loose them almost all the time,
they're the pennies from heaven,
some other lucky ****** might find them,
and then the resourcefulness of that poor
****** is imminent: spend it,
what's there to debate?
the only truth of opinion is
that one man keeps them,
and by keeping them, idealises them,
thus becoming an idealist,
or that another man discards them
as easily as a ***** peacock,
and by doing the ***** peacock strut,
discarding them,
becomes a chameleon,
a "non-conformist" (**** me that's
stretching the idealist antonym);
if there's a truth: it's a bunch of lies -
and if there's a lie: it's the only truth -
because the rule of pluralism (borrowed from
heidegger states):
one truth = many lies
one lie = only one truth
(there is no pluralism of a truth,
but there is a pluralism of a lie -
the genesis of a lie is?
a continuum beginning
with the original temptation -
truth is "plural" but it is not
a continuum of precipitation,
but even if it is dismembered
it is a whole, already apparent,
or rather: to be made apparent,
it does not require a preceding step
to provide a pro-ceding step...
lies are obstructive,
truth never obstructs; truth rapes,
while lies groom)...
unum verum = falsum multis
falsum unum = solum verum unum selem.