i treat profanity as i'd shakespeare, given it's the 21st century, its mightily odd, but necessary, given the specialisation of bypassing the middle-men, and becoming engrossed in mint-fresh "print"... hell, imagine marquis de sade without profanity, all i can imagine is a calculating constipation artist.
the ego's worth of question,
given that thought is:
question perpetuated -
do the gods remain worthwhile
toward the child... or the man?
is man worth a gods' presence,
or is it, a child?
i find that thought, being
an anti-thesis of sense -
overcomes the sensuality
of the five, that be
the sixth refining "achievement"...
if thought be not a sense,
why is it, sensed?
the question is
not that of morals:
why do we sense a moral question,
when while sensing a question
there's no guarantee of a question at all!
mere thought does not translate
into a "sense" of hearing, or of seeing,
or any other parameter akin...
to summarise beyond sense:
a moral, question.
cogito esse caecus sensus:
to think is to be blind to the senses,
and to think via a blindness regarding
the senses, is to be morally upright,
and to be morally upright,
is to have a morality cleansed from
having to make a "moral" choice...,
the trinity that god exists,
is as measurable as whether god, does
exist, as is the sameness of the argument
whether thought exists,
as is whether god can exist
beyond the animate or the inanimate -
or whether thought can concern
itself beside narrative, without a
desire to incorporate choice....
whether thought can be anything
beyond the lazily invited narrative...
to imply a desire to express
the nadirs of either good or evil,
or the zeniths of good, and, evil.
god is just a minor enigma in the scale
of things worth investigating,
thought is the most recurrent phenomenon
that cannot be grasped by
schoolboy error of phenomenology -
mere thought is more interesting than
god...
given that
there's no kantian antithesis for
the patriarch of existentialism:
what can arrive from noumenonology -
given that post-modernism arrived from
the precursor of existentialism, i.e.
phenomenology?
i'm subject to as fascination,
regardless of the almost ancient dualism
which is actually a dichotomy, akin
to medicine and quasi-medicine (psychiatry) -
in that there's
the notion of *cogito reflexo -
and the cogito cogitatio -
thought as a leisure activity -
to think reflectively,
but at the same time not conjuring up
narcissus...
and then there's thought as reflex,
which is hardly a thought (an ought)
to begin with...
for all i seem to care,
thought believes itself to be the puritanical
narrator,
it is vox primo se,
per se, pro se, and nothing more,
which is just a nibble off the idea of "god" -
the freedoms we adore to exist in our
heads, we translate into a belief of
the same mirror-bound object of our
original intent,
the the child in us dies,
and the games we pleasured ourselves with
so do too.
imagine:
to fear madness more than death...
as they say and continue to say:
a death is the end of life,
but alzheimer's?
that's a death within a life that knows
not either the beginning or end
of its life, nor the beginning or end
of its death.
god is but an inanimate object
in the enigmatic sense, compared
to the animation of mere thought...
human thinking overshadaows
an existence of a deity...
by said calculation,
to imagine an animated god,
is to make the idea of god non-existent,
which is also to imagine
an inanimate semblance of thought
consistent with a counter-inanimate body...
impossible!
the irritability of the existence
of thought is comparable with the already
irritating answers to the pentagram "questions"...
but when it comes to by bewilderment,
the existence of thought is
more devastating to question,
than the existence of god is to be
answered...
after all, thought does not
implore prayer, but a god does...
thought is self-perpetuating,
it's the only genesis ex genesis ex non genesis...
at least: deus habeo autem genesis -
at least god has a beginning...
thought?
thinking as no
genesis...
the mere existence of thought
is more perplexing than either the existence
or the non-existence of god,
since thought could be the balance for
a moral ought that we transgress...
and not abide by...
or could be much more than:
a narrator's preferential desires to
mask behind a puppeteering scheme
of wild-card antics.
to merely contest the existence of thought,
is to immediately distrust the
existence of god,
since that sort of belief is
invested in an inanimate object,
whereas the concern is to form an
inanimate narrative from a holistic animate
"subject", worth a "competence" to
be guaranteed an ego.
who the **** cares
if god exists, i care whether i exist!
i better not be plagiarising someone,
or running the text verbatim
of an "original" intent!
existentialism, the bastion of saving grace
against post-existentialism,
i.e. deconstructionism -
paving the way for reconstruction -
a language once opaque -
once this that & the other -
necessitating a revival in an interest
in poetry, and the instruction manual
simplicity, of an i.k.e.a. staccato put together;
because authoritarian rule
couldn't decide whether to call it
index, or whether to call it, thumb;
i hate stressing a "need" for an uncomplicated
use of language...
the crude tongue for limb attempt -
even as much as the post-modernists
are worth being despised,
an overly simplified use of language
is twice are bad as the jargon of parisian
jeromes...
because the antithesis of
the postmodernists is that:
there's always some impeding
and a necessarily "to do"...
actually...
there is no "necessarily" to do...
there is, rather, necessity of
the necessary being...
we can do blindly,
it's only by being enlightened
can be forthright: beyond
illuminated, i.e. illuminating;
and yes, i always imagined
myself being a con artists,
esp. this current vocab of mine...
a con artists, who conned people,
writing motivational self-help books;
i wonder whether i could pull off
being a con self-help guru.
