it was really only about writing a haiku's worth of words.
a bit like listening to an atheist on the internet,
after spending 2 years reading kant's critique,
to find 3 arguments:
- ontological,
- cosmological argument
- teleogical-physics...
and they're all refuted by the author as actually
leading to a "proof"...
and then to later find in his work that he simply
believes... or as i will state in my *******-esque
jargon... that he had the same emotional capacity
to comply with a woman in the grand adventure
of life, as i did, or do...
there's a cheaper word to use to just say
for per se reason other than *****...
atheism is just that...
that thing... really has the emotional
capacity of a gnat... oh look... no silent g...
so three argument by kant,
all seemingly pointless: because we like kings to
exist and be "delusional" by the concept...
of a god/s...
as to say: when did we stop
in being unable to relate? oh right... when we "got together"...
fixed sayings, fixed meanings,
i wish i could have stomached a relationship
with a woman... but then again: i wasn't too bright
to catch-up on being ambiguous...
well... a woman explained it to me thus,
given the ******* profession...
man has to be promiscous type
so a woman can play her role as *amibuity;
no wonder man got bored and started to philosophise /
love of love - you really want to say loaf to loathe
and then see a V pop up...
or at least that's what he said, when he got
bored of living within the capacity of a refrigerator
and being prompted by some hunt for affection...
spices... teasing, sniffing ashes...
you never realise that the woman is an
ambiguity, and that man the promiscuity...
take that poetry... rhyme debukt... words that could
be echo... lying side by side.
too late, doing the elvis aha or ahum or
ahahahum and then having a shower -
so he really did debunk the french theory of
the english stiff upper-lip?
alternatively, some Pollockesque *******.
from kant giving his three arguments
for even trying to prove god to exist:
- ontological, for, but rather from
the basis of how you behave...
- the cosmological argument ...
- physico-teleogical (fizyko-teologicznego)
/ teleogical-physics...
oh look... a θ particle... must be sub-atomic
physics... since why wouldn't i
make the spelling mistake of writing teological?
must be θeology... it's that crux
of digested syllables: tele- -ogical / te- -leo -g...
te- -le- -ology?
tell a leo he's an aquarius?
and he thus concludes in his mini-novel
of easy reading session in
transcendental methodology
that all the three tiers of arguments are
without a scientific argument to be even
attempted...
it's not that the result might be unproven,
or left like a barren desert
that asks for as much rain, as it does for hope...
he just argues that the three categories of
the mode of question attempted are deviod of
any final overcoming sigh or sight to marvel at,
and states that the questions prefigure
a complete negation of asking them, in the first place,
what heidegger later calls: a throwing
into, or: a happening - that's trully necessary,
with any arguments as derelict houses;
or is that just in english, the germanic prefix
self-, that later ends up nothing but a cartwheel?
that's how they put it: self-help,
self-employment... self-confidence...
what's that? motivation for a cyborg?
those are hefty things to consider,
given they are structured a bit like itemising
an atom: electrons (ontology) i.e.
in high-school they tell you electrons have
orbits, at university they tell you they are
clouds... then you sorta lose the plot
when they tell you that they don't behave
like clear units, but like quanta...
like life and death: now you see me, now you don't
type of "trick"...
thus
cruxing on 1, or working from 1...
of what can be said of the unison...
clearly i am not speaking unison, given that i'm working from
a bias of solitude... is it all conforming to a togetherness,
or is it just moving in the many diadem directions
looking awkward when dancing?
it doesn't matter: the language written when drinking
and fasting...
atheism, having reached the end of kant's
critique, simply tells me of the emotional content of a person,
it's nothing too complicated,
it's an emotive construct,
you have different emotional labyrinths for atheists
as you have for theists...
some do things openly, lend themselves to
submission... others protest against such
juxtaposition of the body... since they are not gratifying
the "sacrifice" of women, who make themselves
prostate before the ritual...
sound about right?
it must sound much much simpler:
if there was no phallus for a woman to prostate herself
there would be no god for man to do likewise...
well... wouldn't you think that? esp. these
days with the pronoun war, the unearthing of the nag
hammadi library and it's obvious silent insolence
to be spread and firmly established...
the fact that some people actually own libraries
in their own personal space... and feminism?
let's call it a symbiosis...
the difference between an atheist and a theist / deist
(by now, the close proximity of saying the two
words makes no sense, given the thesaurus and synonyms) -
at best, i can only see an atheist as someone
with an emotional construct that cannot accommodate a woman,
paradoxal: given kant...
who had the emotional capacity to be a theist,
but then able to translate it into having a spouse...
if it really is a case of / for atheism
the person will not speak plain sprechen...
he will provide "looking behind the scenes"
of something akin to autism, the posh word is actually
all theory based: solipsism...
i really don't think actual atheists have the emotional
capacity to inscribe into their heart a word from a woman,
to have a heart capable for a woman's bloated
over-burdening O and A in biography.
atheism (a- -the and no ism)
is like living with the left eye being unable to synchronise
with your right eye... it's not a case of being without
god... it's being without a woman...
a woman is like gravity,
it orientates a man, makes him do things...
a woman is but gravity,
you fall into place as a man,
i don't know how much kant too pleasure from the feelings
he had with that she-devil he invented up there,
in the celestial library of licking out anuses...
there really isn't a better way to probe the matter...
not after i spent such a long time
reading his three-tier argument, to only be rewarded with
the fact that he still said, at the end of it:
i believe.
who does that to a man?
someone who will later laugh and say:
better you invested your time in some darling Clemency,
or June, or something that might be of use...
something that might make you sing akin to eric
clapton: wonderful tonight...
it would actually help doing what i do if
i didn't have an artistic transcendentalism to back the argument
up with... testing the nerve and the part of me that
likes going to the toilet gym for a bit of sitting yoga...
alas... it's not there...
the bane of living in england in the 21st century
compared to living in poland in the 20th century...
men went to the army for 3 compulsory years
after graduating from school aged 21... or 19...
anyway... later than in current england, when you can
******* aged 16...
what a mistake to have entered university...
i'll never stop slapping myself for having
made such a mistake...
as of those who believe in gods, we also believe
in being titans: basically at war with ourselves;
having written that, i'm going to dread having
to reread the rest i wrote, for typos in the excess of being
drunk.... and actually listening to eric clapton...
ugh! what's that word? that americanism?!
it's so nasal i don't even know how to spell it:
poodle / coo d and the plural e? sounds like ease,
or thereabouts.
