it would best appear that:
talking really aids talking to flesh -
and yes, beside the psychoanalyst
triad theory of the "narrator" -
the ego can become an ailed
limb - a limp arm,
an amputated food -
when the square
doesn't fit through a square shaped
opening: the ego become fidgety -
and it aches beyond the ache
of being, a physical inconvenience /
convenience...
the ailing ego is an ego
that can only construct a cogito
without the ergo dynamic of trickling
toward a "satisfying" sum...
because there really isn't
any other suited adjective -
other than the already aired:
because there is.
i wanted to concern myself
with the dynamic of what is sickly
or at best: an unease unit
of fathomable concern...
ego must,
ego = limb...
it's not a central
foundation to all things apparent...
and believe me when i state
that i require verbiage to make these
statements...
when the ego is a cubus,
and thought is the "river"
quadratum -
having to encompass the perplexity
of the Freudian Triad...
it doesn't really matter,
does it, to concern a cube passing
through a square, when a triangle is
concerned, is it?
a mental "illness"
needs to encompass a "flat earth"
akin to reading maps: no good knowing
a spherical globus exists if you
can't get from A. to B.
that is why i don't
understand a stigma with regards to
a "mental" to "physical" dichotomy -
which it has become having divorced itself
from dualism...
the ego being a limb and
thought a body,
reiterates my concern with how
mental illness cannot acess the freedom
of a body, or thinking,
in a fluid manner:
akin to the thoughtless extracts of
a disembodiment ascribed to
ballet dancers...
hence the sickly limb comparison:
the whole affair isn't worth
an atomists' venture to find: a middle,
a nucleus...
a sick "ego"
disvalues a concern
to think: akin to any worth of
****** function...
the conscious-unconscious
paradox of the ego is that:
it's health is supposed to coexist
with the way one treats a hand, finger, elbow...
the fact that a "sick" ego is by no means
sickness apparent doesn't mean that
it is not a form of: dis-ease -
not a bad word, merely a reformulated
aversion of saying it quickly...
there does exist as - negation
of ease...
i have found this with
myself...
apparently
it was necessary to outdate Latin grammar
once again, while keeping the ego
a necessary ingredient worthy of theory
when cogito ergo sum was
summoned... because where is the ego
in that? the ego is the antithesis of
a narrator of fiction!
who ever said that fiction
was without Trojan walls and biological
membranes?
the ego is either foremost
an ailing limb: or the unscathed narrator!
it can't be both!
- but the limb comparison makes
more sense, since what is primarily
distrupted is thinking: rather than writing
a book!
i have experienced
the distruptive ego like a fidgeting snare of
a limb in metaphorical Parkinson...
but i am not keen to
sub-assert a division of it worth a sub-ego
and an id... without an ob- prefix to boot.
a "sick" ego disrupts cogitans
in that there is no ergo
to make a cohesive translation into:
wanting to be a bellerina - i.e sum...
i.e. sum *** non cogitans...
and that's because the ego is a heavy
load, already not stressed in
the original maxim "prompt" of:
think - and you will be...
well no... most of the time it's a case of:
don't think, and you will be...
the fact remains:
the ego treated as an ailing limb is
akin to an ailing limb disrupting
the sigma of ****** expressions -
with the sigma of ****** expressions
being best met with mere: thinking...
hence the irony of
a "mental" illness -
there is no ailing thought -
but an ailing ego -
which is a contradictory summation
of character, presupposing
a character is at the same time narrator...
the stigma? well...
a person of interest is asked to
have both status of a healthy character
and an ailing narrator -
or rather: a character
incompetent of having a narrator...
or whatever this constricting observation
implies...
the fact still remains:
the ego was allowed a Ronin status
when working from the Cartesian maxim...
it allowed itself to flourish in Freud
who took to impregnating it with
a pseudo-Christian analogy...
if there is an element of medicine
in philosophy... ha...
odd...
how can the mind be ailed by
the body prior...
there must be a paradoxical intersect
of ergo ( = ), i.e. ≠...
whereby the same is true
for: the mind can be ailed by the body:
but the only prior to a body is a mind...
since there is no prior to a mind
to express: body...
otherwise why are we to concern
ourselves with a "mind" of the underdeveloped...
ah... but the underdeveloped body...
hence? | a ******* stick
in the ground!
it's a simple juggling act of
two *****... on thinking terms,
but yet it is simpler to juggle three *****
on un-thinking terms!
all i "know" is that
a sick ego dissonates the fluidity of thinking,
and it doesn't aspire to anything
but that in its ailment -
to make it any more complex to
suggest an atomic caricature of
the Freudian id - neutron / superego - electron...
an ego that distrupts thinking
does not make a cohesive unit worth
a theory...
you put a stick into the river
of Heraclitsus: the stick will remain
a stict - the question is always asked
concerning the river!
- as far as i am concerned
the disruptive ego has "unfathomed"
the fathomability of thinking -
notably:
the mundane cul de sac thinking
of ordinary people -
a lost day-dream break from inacting
a "greater-good" focus of: transcending society...
and attaining: "the" individual...
i've experienced the sick ego
unable to convine itself with staging
thought: akin to an theatre with
a stage unable to consider itself:
not fit to hoist actors on it!
hence my concern with
res vanus...
the "thing" within res cogitans!
the whole point of: (ego) cogito ergo sum!
which is why those who have
reached the status of, say: prima ballerina
exact a "cogito" ergo (ego) sum status!
- at some point i really will be
starting to digest the VII-XI ponderings
of Heidegger...
bewildering myself as to how:
1939 a.d. was conjured.
