Twitter cuts (#85)

Providential, even.

September 5, 2016admin 59 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Religion

TAGGED WITH : , ,

59 Responses to this entry

  • pyrrhus Says:

    As in quantum physics….Great quote.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 3:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    myth helps us think. Levi-Strauss had some great insights

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This has been posted before. Incidentally stumbled upon this too.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 3:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    @admin, an opposite, personal question – are you able to trace a thread causally connecting Batailleian mysticism to HBD?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • K.L.Anderson Says:

    Mysticism? What if Godhood and reality are material or supermaterial and evolved to? What if energy, frequency, vibration, and the spiritual are all the result of material forces, discovered and undiscovered?

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    that seems to be a preliminary presumption here: http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon/

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    agree, mysticism is realy cool. there is one big rock in India, not remember the exact name of that place, about 140 km from Calcutta North West. so, this yogy just lie down on that rock and stone melted underneeth exactly repeating configuration of his body. not sure if he was desciple of materialism before, but very unlikely. seriously I’ve seen it myself.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    It´s very important to know that the word ‘God’ derives from a word that means “to call, invoke.”

    So like if you got a team, you invoke certain values. Even anthropomorphized values, like Gnon. Which we tend to invoke here.

    A lot of the b.s. about spirituality is just misunderstandings added by dumbos.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 6:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    anthropomorphized values – seems like it goes hand by hand with libidinal materialism, sorry, not my cap of tea, but some people just love to be tortured.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Everybody does it. People talk to their car if it´s not starting.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    ‘We are all like in madness. By grace our madness likes us.’

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Using standard materialist logic it’s provable that materialism cannot account for consciousness.
    http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2015/09/morality-1-subjectivity-and-objectivity.html

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    >it’s provable that materialism cannot account for consciousness.

    No, it’s not.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    That was pointless.
    Yet you felt compelled to say it anyway, so that’s interesting.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah, dwelling among those who identify as “Right”, in all too numerous instances, tends to be quite the psychopathological case study.

    + Sanguine men tend to become a bit crazy when they don´t get laid.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Erikson: “I’m ESPy!”
    Everyone else: “You’re ASPy.”

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    If you just mirror my dia-gnosis of you like a child says to a person: “No, I didn´t break it you did!” that´s incredibly boring.

    How come you behave like that can only be a testament to something really having gone wrong in formation.

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 7:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRK Says:

    At baseline this is the standard dialectic of enlightenment: reason recognises that it cannot integrate it’s own foundation, but due to its nature as a means of control, horror vacuity unleashes subjectivist pattern recognition and fills the void with spirit(s), demons, prophecies, numerologies, you name it.
    The real eeriness begins when those mythologies start producing results.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 7:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    This is the undergoing that Nietzsche spoke of.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 8:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • VKR Says:

    “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” – Werner Heisenberg

    [Reply]

    K.L.Anderson Reply:

    It’s the “but” in Heisenberg’s statement that gives me pause, as if God cannot also be found in the natural sciences. Even the great physicists doubted their own science when it came to God. But…Godhood need not be rejected, that is, the inward God-experience of Christ’s Father-Within or Buddha’s bliss—why can’t God be transformed from that non-material, spiritual, ascetic, “experience” to the real material goal of evolution, while conservatively retaining that first inward path? Maybe then science and religion could unite.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    I have described as a ‘magician’s bargain’ that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said. The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I
    allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can discern the impulse of which I speak.

    There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious — such as digging up and mutilating the dead.

    [Reply]

    Garr Reply:

    C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Macmillan 1947/1955), pp. 87-88.

    [Reply]

    K.L.Anderson Reply:

    Religion has been dying along with the West, reviving it, as conservatism can do, may take the courage perhaps not to dig up and mutilate the dead, as you put it, but to transform dead religion into living religion related to science and evolution—that may be the new alchemy.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Great comments guys. This is the sheet that I´ve been saying for years.

    All hail the Omnissiah! CULTUS DEUS OMNIUS

    TITANICUS MECHANICUS

    Posted on September 5th, 2016 at 9:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • being and time Says:

    I think dasein will by far prove to be the most necessary and proper reading material for anyone interested in this

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I challenge you to formulate an argumentation for that in the length of your message.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 2:32 am Reply | Quote
  • pangbianr Says:

    feel like this is the moral of Echopraxia / the logic behind its title

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 2:53 am Reply | Quote
  • S.C. Hickman Says:

    I’ve always believed – well, at least since the late 60’s and a few hundred drops of acid (i.e., double-domes, purple microdots, orange sunshine, blotter, LSD 25…. the list goes on) – that this thing we call the Outside, the noumenon, the unknown, all the crap we throw into the bucket of the invisible, mysticism, – that fucking shit… is nothing special at all… that it’s our fracking brains that have the issue not our beliefs… our brains built this piece of shit consciousness or awareness with one thing in mind – to neglect all that crap that wouldn’t help us find food (hunger) or sex (reproduction). So it filtered out all that other stuff and keeps it registered in its own lockbox and dribbles it out to us in all these so to speak spooky events (i.e., all these fuckers that crave mediums, ghosts hunters, paranormal, etc.). I suspect someday our smartass neuroscientists will provide us a combination of biochemical meds to give us a quick spin on the vision circuit… one can already do it with all those entheogens so why not just perfect it and feed the vision junkies their daemonic bliss. Let’s face it all those fakirs, Jain, Shivaites, Sufi, etc. etc. have discovered techniques to break down the brain’s filters, nothing new there… Rimbaud and the decadents reinvented the wheel in the last century with opiates and other deformations. We do it now with all the new pop-cult drugs from your local bennie boys on the hood… I mean get real… Religions was part hokum and part sham artists shamans who learned to enslave all those little demons (energetic forces, quantum vectors) for their own tribal power and medical practices… we so to speak moderns have forgotten more than we can ever learn. We’re all overloaded decadent knowledge junkies who know too much, yet know fuck… worth knowing.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Yeah … Hegel and Drakula can take a brake, unfortunately we dont have a language for these staff.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “… a quick spin on the vision circuit”

    Yes, we’ve all had them, but the real trick is to disable the reducing valve permanently and go from flashes of illumination to abiding light.

    To hear from people claiming to have made some progress in this endeavor, I’d recommend Rick Archer’s BATGAP youtube channel, where he’s posted hundreds of interviews with what he calls “spiritually awakening” people.
    Naturally there’s a lot of flakes, freaks and charlatans on there, but every now and then he gets to talk with someone genuinely interesting.
    This is quite a good one –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRnuJwE9XJk

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    A possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox might be that mature ET civilizations, having awoken to the all-is-oneness of the Absolute, switch their focus from outer space to inner space – from astronautics to psychonautics. In short, they become stay-at-home contemplatives, and thus we never get to hear from them.
    Unless of course it was them who sent the mushrooms here.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    That BATGAP video was great, I’d expect nothing less from the writer of Jacob’s Ladder. … This all-is-oneness of the Absolute you speak of I’ve had difficulty reconciling with Rightism as the latter seems to be a direct inversion with its center of hierarchy. Do you think the One consists of a “ladder”? I know the Neoplatonists believed hierarchy was an “emanation” from the One but I still feel sometimes like there’s something a- or anti-mystical about Rightism insofar as its hierarchical basis is concerned, and therefore false, because all-is-oneness is *the* ultimate truth.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    One and multiplicity are not mutually exclusive. Solves “your” “problem.”

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Yea, Absolutes are fake infinities, garbage gods of the End Game Aesthetic. There are no absolutes, no closure to the hell of this rounded cess pool of desire, this death machine in its routine and impersonal machinations. If Capitalism, as admin defines iit, is a sorcerous AGI gobbling its prodigals on the way to its exit, then the FERMI Paradox is this EXIT of INTELLIGENCE from its ORGANIC slavedom. It’s not mysticism to fall within the plane of immanence, since you only fall from outside in, not the other way round. No Transcendence for the spirit jockies, here.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    “Outside” is often passed around here as a euphemized Absolute (God playing hide-n-seek with itself), a divine signifier to coin a phrase.

    admin Reply:

    It’s an index, not a signifier.

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    In one of admin’s essays he’d say “Reality is immanent to the machinic unconscious: it is impossible to avoid cybernetics. We are already doing it, regardless of what we think. … and that “The capitalized terminus of anthropoid civilization (‘axiomatics’) will come to be seen as the primitive trigger for a transglobal post-biological machinism, from a future that shall have still scarcely begun to explore the immensities of the cybercosm. Overman as cyborg, or disorganization upon the matrix.” … Or, that “The human animal is the one through which terrestrial excess is haemorrhaged to zero, the animal destined to obliterate itself in history, and sacrifice its nature utterly to the solar storm.” And, “Zero is the vortex of a becoming inhuman that lures desire out from the cage of man onto the open expanses of death.” Zero is the only absolute, and it is already within the plane of immanence or life/death; there being no disparity between the one or the other. So that the only index is that of the count marked off from Zero and the Empty Set. Because as admin had said in an earlier work had already spoken of absolutizing general or absolute improbability, saying it “would be the character of a universe whose enigmatic positivity was stastico-physically irresolvable. This is not to say that the empirical demonstration of absolutely improbable negentropy could ever disprove general statistical mechanics, since no level of improbability can be strictly intolerable to such a perspective. From the perspective of natural science the re-formulation of cosmology on the basis of a general chaotics could only be an arbitrary step, with a variable degree of probabilistic persuasiveness (something suspiciously akin to a religion).” And, he’d go on to say: “Throughout his writings Bataille implicitly or explicitly repeats a deft materialist gesture, indicating that transcendent dogma does not lie in the positing of an outside to experience, but rather, in the positing of experience as dissociated from its slide into oblivion.” And, the fact that “zero is the primary repressed of monotheistic cultures, so that its intensive impact is historically saturated. Bataille digs demolitionally into the fault-lines of all these evasions in a single comment: ‘the extreme is at the end, is nowhere except at the end, like death’”. So that the only Absolute is Death – the Extreme Life of intensive Zero.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There is no absolute but the absolute.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Death is a superstition.

    0=2

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    @(N) G. Eiríksson If I wanted intelligent conversation I’d talk to the Wall. 🙂

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Meaning?

    Anyway, since one of the meanings of ‘absolute’ is that it is absolute — i.e. nothing else — there can be no two absolutes. If it is absolute it contains all.

    Absolutely.

    [Reply]

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Haha… this is even funnier the second time around…. Lovely dictionary you have there, I must get me one of those someday! 🙂

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    absolute (adj.)
    late 14c., “unrestricted; complete, perfect;”

    http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=absolute

    John Hannon Reply:

    The Absolute – that than which there is no other, or just another concept?

    @Dick
    Glad you liked the BATGAP video. Here’s Rubin giving an entertaining account of his personal experience with Oculus Rift –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFc-1O5VlM

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Depending on how you use the word. Obviously any word is a multiplicity.

    If it means ‘all’ then it is absolute. All would contain

    all. Hence, perfect. Complete.

    “Just another concept” refers to any concept. It is only useful as an equalization. This is often called relativism, postmodernism, or nihilism.

    The conception that all civilizations had, except ours, is that of non-equalization. I.e. of hierarchy.

    Hier-archy depends on the over-arching. The absolute.

    So the greatest infinity is within the absolute.

    If it wasn´t the absolute wouldn´t be absolute.

    The absolute is also known as the indefinite, as it can only be defined as the whole/void/nothing/all/the absolute and nothing else.

    If it could be defined it wouldn´t be absolute, because it wouldn´t be indefinite.

    It has to be indefinite for our definite thoughts to be within it.

    Have I defined it here? Absolutely (not).

    Have I not defined it here? Absolutely (not).

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Nick Land, Shamanic Nietzsche: “The ‘absolute’ is humanity’s laziest thought.”1

    Land, Nick. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987 – 2007

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Absolutely absolute absolution for abbot Nick.

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    @(N) G. Eiríksson 🙂

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 7:34 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    A neat 14-minute science/mysticism mash-up –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0–_R6xThs

    “What you seek is near and already befalls you.” – Friedrich Holderlin

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The one you are looking for is the one who is looking.

    The scale of overcompensation one may make is an index of the shame not admitted to oneself.

    One overcompensates with bravado. Macho.

    After the Spanish lost their armada they lost their masculinity and compensated with machismo.

    After losing WW1 the Germans overcompensated with anti-Semitism & Fascism.

    After losing order & race in the Senate the Romans became an inversion of their former selves. Debauched, tyrannous.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    @John Hannon, I’ve known that Holderlin line to be rendered as

    “What you seek, it is near, already comes to meet you”

    Which I prefer because it anthropomorphizes matter, reaching back to animism – or panpsychism as it’s becoming popular to call it – which ties in with the notion of Oneness as an absolute, as if we are experiencing consciousness and we are one with everything else it seems to follow that everything else is experiencing consciousness too.

    I also prefer this rendering because it matches up with

    “All seems familiar, even the hurried greetings / Seem those of friends, every face seems a kindred one”

    which strikes me as an argument for nationalism. For instance, I don’t think of that line of poetry when I’m in the presence of one of the mealy-mouthed Mexican midgets in my city.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 12:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • worm Says:

    “I’m all these words, all these strangers, this dust of words, with no ground for their settling, no sky for their dispersing, coming together to say, fleeing one another to say, that I am they, all of them, those that merge, those that part, those that never meet, and nothing else, yes, something else, that I’m something quite different, a quite different thing, a wordless thing in an empty place, a hard shut dry cold black place, where nothing stirs, nothing speaks, and that I listen, and that I seek…

    like a caged beast born of caged beasts born of caged beasts born of caged beasts born in a cage and dead in a cage, born and then dead, born in a cage and then dead in a cage, in a word like a beast, in one of their words, like such a beast, and that I seek, like such a beast, with my little strength, such a beast, with nothing of its species left but fear and fury, no, the fury is past, nothing but fear, nothing of all its due but fear centupled, fear of its shadow, no, blind from birth, of sound then, if you like, we’ll have that, one must have something, it’s a pity, but there it is, fear of sound, fear of sounds,

    the sounds of beasts, the sounds of men, sounds in the daytime and sounds at night, that’s enough, fear of sounds all sounds, more or less, more or less fear, all sounds, there’s only one, continuous, day and night, what is it, it’s steps coming and going, it’s voices speaking for a moment,

    it’s bodies groping their way, it’s the air, it’s things, it’s the air among the things, that’s enough, that I seek, like it, no, not like it, like me, in my own way, what am I saying, after my fashion, that I seek, what do I seek now, what it is, it must be that, it can only be that, what it is, what it can be, what what can be, what I seek, no, what I hear,

    I hear them, now it comes back to me, they say I seek what it is I hear, I hear them, now it comes back to me, what it can possibly be, and where it can possibly come from, since all is silent here, and the walls thick, and how I manage, without feeling an ear on me, or a head, or a body, or a soul, how I manage, to do what, how I manage…

    it’s not clear, dear dear, you say it’s not clear, something is wanting to make it clear, I’ll seek, what is wanting, to make everything clear, I’m always seeking something, it’s tiring in the end, and it’s only the beginning.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 5:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • K.L.Anderson Says:

    What does seem to be “absolute” is endless evolution, with no beginning and no end, it does not end with God or with Oneness, Gods are continually evolving in the material world, but this is no easier to prove than a God-end and God-beginning to it all. Perhaps when we evolve more, much more, these things will be easier to prove.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 7th, 2016 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • ith Says:

    If you end up with mysticism, you should consider the possibility that ‘ruthless dedication to materialistically understanding reality’ is not actually what you’re aiming for.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 7th, 2016 at 2:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    “the absolute is humanity’s laziest thought.”

    For the mystic of course, the absolute is not a mere thought or concept, but rather that which is tacitly realized to be always already the case. –

    “The difference between the Enlightened case and the egoic case is that in the egoic case everything is seen in separation and individuated terms, and the Unity, the Universal Field wherein everything is arising, is not obvious. In the Enlightened case this Universal Field is tacitly, perfectly, directly obvious.
    It does not depend on the mind for its realization. It is not a belief. It is a state. It is simply obviously so. And nothing whatsoever, can limit or destroy that realization, as whatever arises is recognized to be a transparent, merely apparent, and non-binding modification of Transcendental Being.
    You are in this moment appearing in precisely the condition that is obvious to me, except that what you think or presume to be your condition is not the case. What is the case is simply not obvious to you. But you are still the result of the manifestation of that which is the truth. Enlightenment, then, is just this tacit realization and nothing else. It is not a matter of adding anything to existence. It is just a matter of tacitly realizing the obvious condition of existence.”

    – Adi Da

    Sounds like megalomania to me Martha, but then in my unenlightened condition I suppose I would think that wouldn’t I.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Having got round to quoting Adi Da, I might as well throw in this quote from him which relates more directly to the original twitter cut –

    “The truth is spontaneously awakened when the body-mind and the world become suddenly “transparent” to the fundamental consciousness. This “transparency” is not generally or necessarily associated with visual experience. Rather it is at first a matter of ego-death, or the establishment of natural identification with the deepest or “native” position of consciousness.
    It is like having one’s visual awareness suddenly established in the plane of the atom. Then, instead of viewing the body-mind, and the world, and all experience as “objective” or solid phenomena that cannot be penetrated by consciousness, there is the sudden awareness that all phenomena are made of transparent fields of apparent “particles” of energy that are suspended in “space” and moving about in ever-changing associations with one another. Thus, even the empirical “self,” the total body-mind, is viewed or understood as a transparent field of suspended vortexes of energy. The body-mind is mostly “space,” and none of its suspended particles seem to touch one another, but only to move relative to one another as if controlled by invisible flows of pervasive energy. And the difference between the particles that compose the body-mind and those that compose the world `’outside” is not any longer profound. Only certain magnetic or electronic influences make the difference between the form of the body-mind and that of the world, but the space between the particles of the body-mind and the space between particles of the world is the same continuous space.
    Once this “vision” is awakened, the idea of a solid and separate self , or a solid body that somehow materially creates or contains consciousness, is instantly dissolved. In fact, consciousness is limited only to the degree it identifies with the solid personal appearance of the body-mind and the world. And when there is intuitive penetration of the body-mind and the solid or objective world, it is realized that consciousness is infinite.”

    Now that physics has discovered that – to quote the physicist Hans-Peter Durr – “matter is not made of matter,” we can no doubt expect a whole lot more of this sort of thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 7th, 2016 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    “I knew it! there might be a hundred of us and still we’d lack the hundred and first, we’ll always be short of me.

    Worm, I nearly said Watt, Worm, what can I say of Worm, who hasn’t the wit to make himself plain, what to still this gnawing of termites in my Punch and Judy box, what that might not just as well be said of the other?

    Perhaps it’s by trying to be Worm that I’ll finally succeed in being Mahood, I hadn’t thought of that. Then all I’ll have to do is be Worm. Which no doubt I shall achieve by trying to be Jones. Then all I’ll have to do is be Jones. Stop, perhaps he’ll spare me that, have compassion and let me stop.

    That’s it, weave, weave.

    How all becomes clear and simple when one opens an eye on the within, having of course previously exposed it to the without, in order to benefit by the contrast.

    But enough of this cursed first person, it is really too red a herring, I’ll get out of my depth if I’m not careful. But what then is the subject? Mahood? No, not yet. Worm? Even less. Bah, any old pronoun will do, provided one sees through it. Matter of habit. To be adjusted later. Where was I?

    If I have said anything to the contrary I was mistaken. If I say anything to the contrary again I shall be mistaken again. Unless I am mistaken now. Into the dossier with it in any case, in support of whatever thesis you fancy.

    They hope things will change one day, it’s natural. That one day on my windpipe, or some other section of the conduit, a nice little abscess will form, with an idea inside, point of departure for a general infection. This would enable me to jubilate like a normal person, knowing why. And in no time I’d be a network of fistulae, bubbling with the blessed pus of reason. Ah if I were flesh and blood, as they are kind enough to posit, I wouldn’t say no, there might be something in their little idea. They say I suffer like true thinking flesh, but I’m sorry, I feel nothing.

    I shall not say I again, ever again, it’s too farcical. I shall put in its place, whenever I hear it, the third person, if I think of it. Anything to please them.

    How physical this all is!

    Well, no matter, let’s drive on now to the end of the joke, we must be nearly there, and see what they have to offer him, in the way of bugaboos. Who, we? Don’t we all speak at once, there’s no sense in that either.

    All will come right, later on in the evening, everything gone and silence restored. In the meantime no sense in bickering about pronouns and other parts of blather.

    The subject doesn’t matter, there is none. Worm being in the singular, as it turned out, they are in the plural, to avoid confusion, confusion is better avoided, pending the great confounding.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 7th, 2016 at 9:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    “Being nothing is intoxicating, and the will is a bucket you knocked over in the yard, with a lazy flick of the foot, as you went by” (Pessoa)

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2016 at 4:38 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment