Consequences

[Fixed_Cross]

1

The maximal isolation of an entity into itself can only mean its sinking deeper into its natural relating to it’s outside world - i.e. its part of itself that passes, step by step, into a greater world of which also other entities reside. Whatever leads to isolation is not a sinking into a self, but a dissolving. A sense of being strongly particular is the reality of being powerfully interrelated.

The relation between entities is made out of what we could call entities of time; ‘moments’ in which agents coincide and two entities produce an event that alters them both, and changes relations with each other, thereby also changing their relation with the rest of themselves; their self-image tilts to a certain angle and all the images of all the other entities and events, change along.

Man is deep down as easily altered as the electron rings of the atoms in his body; but like the atom he has a stable core that is not easily disrupted and only goes out with very much violence. Man relates much like atoms relate; shifting in particulars, stable in types.

The values of a man are similarly a reflection of himself as the valencies of an atom; in man we experience this as consciousness, and we have conscious notions of values, valuing, being of value; but we fail to put the notion in its proper place; let the semantic root to veracity stand at the grammatical center of all serious concerns. Let it openly and accurately pertain to all structural problems before the particulars in a real world context are brought forward.

What is at stake? And precisely therefore; what is not at stake? Where do we feel safe, secure?
This security is the core value substance that we have to live with to be consistent to the Earth, which has produced a plenitude of types and tastes, along with all the means to fulfill them in the myriad cases of happiness that thrust the self confidence of the animal kingdom.

A wheel that has been pushed down a hill, that gathers momentum; this is happiness in the animal kingdom, this is why they have evolved to such bizarre and amazing specialities. It is the pure bliss of unfolding without knowledge of death that allows for this vitality.

Death must be forgotten to be animal, to be naturally happy - or if it can not be forgotten it must be affirmed, in such a way as to seem a goal rather than something you have to sort of try to be as little aware of as possible. Art is the surrender to death, good art finds a challenge to it.

It is good to have fortune whether one begins with it or finds it along the way is a subject of all stories, it can go any whichever way nature (a more abstract, unnatural notion than value) chooses; it will go where the valuing and the valencies require it to go, so that they continue existing.

In other words, we fail to set the proper context for any discussion if we do not already assume that we are driven by something fundamentally compatible. This is why money is even more powerful than god - why all gods fall or stand with the gold attributed to them.

In order to throw money at a problem without enlarging it, there must be a notion of a solution. The more discretely defined and concretely imagined the solution is, the more chance it has of being realized as money is thrown at it. This is the cause to the splendor of cathedrals; they are large drawing boards of problems and investments to solve them. The marble-work is of the same substance as the metaphor it depicts.

[Fixed_Cross]

Whether the notion of philosophy is valuable; whether or not it inspires the would-be-philosopher.
How to value wisdom? Does one seek it explicitly, even to the point of absolutizing it as a metaphysical finality, or does one simply expect to encounter it on the road?

From the side of the road, nobility is the resistance of the cultured human to seriousness about god (Christian renaissance art is sublime play; a veiled for of play on the sublime); the seriousness involves a universalism of consequence, whereas to be cultured means to affirm ones private realm in this life as a dignified part of nature that requires nor endures justification from beyond or outside. The history of Italian polities, small enough to gain more from a gain than to lose from a loss; the virtue of the unite states, federal system the impossibility of the EU; a EU of regions, parts of nations, might work with obviously a much less centralized form of decision making and yet perhaps, a more fluid way of imposing common values; which originally is simply no war and open borders. The currency issue was a mistake that had to be made because politics works like that. It has created a large advantage for a few, it has caused a cone-resonance filtering wealth to a top united in a sheer metaphysical principle “the good of the whole of Europe”.

The outrageous humor of positing this banality after two of the most terrible and indifferent slaughters in the history of the animal kingdom is worth perhaps the irony, but it is very stupid to believe that the EU is not immediately turned into a machine of war whereby the largest nation simply has the biggest weight.

At this point the table is divided in metaphysical ideologies: “Socialist” “Liberal”, etc where opinions live, those viruses that go from mouth to mouth and are gone as soon as the election fever is over, rather than in concrete regions where the valencies of human prosperity are defined in terms that one can trade and communicate.

[Fixed_Cross]

Whether not indeed the search for truth and the search for wisdom are antipodes.

Philosophy as the search for truth;
It seems to me that truthfulness and politics are antipodes;
If so, political philosophy is the invitation of death -

Philosophy as the search for wisdom;
the realization that truthfulness can only pertain in general and not to specific situations, for it to be received and understood;
the birth of science is perhaps even the result of this ‘flaw’ in the human construct; science as the only way to be consistently truthful without compromising oneself; therefore also without seeing oneself as one practices truthfulness; blindness required for consistency.

Science as meditation: “looking at the stars” - looking away from oneself, as far as possible;
the attraction of the determinate universe, the gleeful elimination of the concept will, soul and freedom; the cold bath after the sauna of introspection, accepting the notion of order as a temple to still the chaotic psyche;

“Know thyself” as the result; the idea that it will be possible to still the chaos, to civilize inner politics of drives, a commandment made possible by the awareness of a ‘higher order’ which functions are only perceptible to us in part (Plato’s Cave as an allegory of man looking out at the stars, essentially of Earthly life)

Science as the perpetuation of this templar structure.
Hence, science is to be made into our ‘Acropolis’; and of all human projects it is the most revered, and the one enjoying most investments.
Science must again become ‘god’ or the link to the sublime, the more-perfect, the ‘superhuman’; for this, science must be focused, to the public eye at least, again on the outer world, the greater than great, the ‘still’, the enduring, rather than on the smallest, the most shifting;

the principle of uncertainty, analogous to the death of God; Einsteins refusal of it a symptom of the human nature of science, it’s human purpose;
But first the question of consistency; finally, the ‘why’ is entering science; entering the temple through the floor, as it were; because the ground to the structure has been corroded by allowing science too close to the human psyche. The two are antipodes; the human psyche is fundamentally un-ordered, and it can control itself only by looking at its antipode ‘up there’ -

this dichotomy may run even deeper than reason is able to divine.

[Fixed_Cross]

Philosophy as truthfulness requires thus a submerging into the chaos to which science was born as antipode; to find ‘the law of chaos’, paradox owing its seeming contradiction to the false notion of chaos, which only means ‘psyche’; or: that which by understanding it dissolves; philosophy must thus become wholly analytics; “Wittgensteinian” - to perfect the “notion” of the “thing” - the unify these, “notion” and “thing”. (This is what I have done)

[Fixed_Cross]

"After all “thing” is incompatible with self enclosedness: any object is understood by virtue of its relationships with other things and with the one who conceives of it. If it were self enclosed it would not be possible to perceive, imagine or speak of it.

A thing thus includes all that to which it relates, and also the way in which it relates. (from the latter we can in turn derive again the notion of difference, relative discontinuity)

The “thing in itself” to evoke an old dusty term would thus really mean “that which relates to the whole of existence”.

It can thus be seen that paradoxically, thing-ness in its most general sense includes undifferentiated being, but is not sufficiently defined or grounded by it."

[Fixed_Cross]

Following, a test of character, of integrity; whether one wants to be understood psychologically, or considers such a travesty; whether one believes that the psyche can be objectified in terms of a ‘general psychological makeup’, or considers such makeup a negation of the very thing a psyche is;

the psychoanalytical method (of pure silence) is sound; the therapist posits himself as the night sky, as silent, inscrutable and cold. All intervening, interpreting methods of psychology are only ‘copulations of psyches’, the psychologist fulfilling the traditional role of the man, the patient of the woman; the psychologist is wedding the patient into the psychologists ‘house’. The patient feels healed, helped only in those fields that she shares with the psychologist. All other fields are being further repressed.

Therapy guided by ethical or aesthetic ideas about the human psyche is pure valuing of the patient in terms of this or that psychological model, ‘object’. Such therapy is always a form of religion; psychoanalysis by contrast is gods ‘sublime absence’ ; “space”.

[Fixed_Cross]

The Grim Prometheus;
[size=95]1; the prejudices of philosophers

“1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this “Will to Truth” in us? In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.” [Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil][/size]
Well it has been raised. Harrowing consequences much in accordance with Nietzsche’s grim prospects, the wager has not been particularly lucky, but at the same not nearly as unlucky as it easily could have been, or so it seems. Humanity passes through the eye of a needle when ideology faltered and hatred of mass death prevailed, when the nuclear standoff came to pass by and humanity proved itself soft, softer possibly than man had been ever before; the Christians among Christians - made tender by two wars of science, where mankind was subjected for in truth to his own powers. Europe now represents a secured crime-scene of the psyche, no longer a proud center of conflict and culture that had reached in the past a natural equilibrium by deterrent of a general consensus that force would be met with international alliances against the perpetrator; this “Westphalian System” as the shrewd and ruthless strategist of international politics Henry Kissinger calls it, was replaced by the industrialization of the military, which was in turn the result of the ever so Nietzschean Bismarck - the similarities between these two men and the consequences of their work is as if they are two hemispheres of the same brain. Between the two of them a form of egotism that had never since Achilles seen the light of day began to rise to the heads of state, with far more terrifying results than one Homeric tribe could inflict even on the mind of of poet; I imagine with glee how Nietzsche would have looked upon Stalin, Roosevelt, Hitler and Churchill - perhaps these four together could be seen as a ‘club of Übermen’ requiring each other as antipodes to properly make a mockery out of man, sardonic “Artist Tyrants” who use war to work on man as upon marble. Hitlers Third Reich was overthrown to set a table of four, a Fourth Order that became the most remarkable scientific period in the history of man, and in which we are now completely lost; the Age of Communication; the age surely of dissolution of every institution of culture; once the internet ceases to work, or let alone with all electricity fails, man is near-absolutely lost. I wait for that day, when the wolves come out of nowhere, with mixed feelings; on the one hand one can venture to affirm this metaphysically, or one can behold the future like a whipped horse; and this brings us back to the to the original rupturing question; what is the value of truth?

Ah - but it seems to me now that in the process of rejecting it, I define truth. “Truth nor non-truth” - Truth had ceased to prove itself as more valuable than untruth; truth had become more powerful than man; man had been overcome, the natural aspect of man was forced back into the dominant position when science revealed his utter puniness.

The most basic truth is perhaps death; the most valuable truth we can forge is another; we have to begin to believe that the question of truth has been misapplied. It has been posited too mercilessly in the age of science, black despair that has crept into it being asked again and again to less aesthetic results and more clinical and unattractive values; This this is because we have been looking at things we can not see, rather than at the things we have already discovered. Philosophy used to be the forerunner of science, but now she is slowly catching up and grabbing the robe as it trails through the dirt and blood behind it; and calls out “you forgot something” - Truth is a loaded concept. Something was left out of the equation of tis veracity; the impenetrable question of the significance of thus or that truth. “Truth to itself” - what can this mean except “entity”? What truth has taught, grown powerful in our adoration, is that it can stand in the way of truthfulness. The concept “truth in itself” appears to preclude contradiction. And contradiction exists, it is even what we are - We are the Sphynx that appears to the question; we are what the question can not solve; we are what dissolves the question. We are the father of truth, as well as the mother, as well as the unfathomable ground to their existence and the even more unfathomable bond between all these things. What the (***) does truth matter? Indeed, that is the truth; or rather, that is a direct expression of it in the case of its appearance to the truthful man, who has seen the relation of truth and being. But truth has not been evil to us without reason; it is simply that truth has been underestimated. It was always assumed that truth would respond to a single denominator, that it would account ultimately in a singularity, a theory of everything.
But this means that the world is solitude and dies without reproducing. Truth is ry, barren if it is not standing in contradiction to itself.
Truth, in as far as it does not self-contradict, is deadly.

Action = - Reaction. Now there is a sound truth; a perfect contradiction that is wholesome, and useful to know. “The world is will to power” - that is a non-contradiction, a concept like a black hole. The truth of the world is in the form of a contradiction; we might even go so far as to say that reality, in order to be real, must be in part unreal.

[Fixed_Cross]

••
•••
••••
••••••
••••
•••
••
•

ªª
ªªª
ªªªª
ªªªªª
ªªªªªª
ªªªªªªª
ªªªªªªªªªªªªª
ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª

; ?

.., : — (!) !

/

…

/?

_/

(!)

!. !!!

II

[Aidon]

youtube.com/watch?v=_KKPjYXKMoo
The Sephirotic Tree
youtube.com/watch?v=THJvkXdSv7o

I disagree with Strauss on this point; the philosopher does not write for the initiate, he writes to initiate.

[Aidon]

Chokmah. Binah.

[Fixed_Cross]

The light and the dark and the real and the unreal are not equal. Both must exist for each other but the parts of it that manifest to us are largely one and not the other; this is why there is in every good contradiction a hierarchy. Time is the most widely used arbiter of such a hierarchy; a cause before its effect. But in all cases there is a doer and a receiver, an agent and an object, a grammatical presupposition that posits an act of will-into-submission. Even the statement a = 1 is terribly forceful, why is 1 being forced to be equal to a? Who is making that claim? It is from the look of it quite obvious that a is not 1. a does not even equal a. The sentence makes it clear that the two have different meanings in it, and the characters are standing in different places, surrounded by different other characters. A sentence is always an imposition. The pleasantness of language has to do with its recognition of its imposing itself; be it by making it fluid and well rounded or hacking and spear-like or things in between and outside of these mere metaphors; in any case a language imposes a character on man; it already precondition his appreciation of the relation in which things stand to each other; especially the ‘master-slave’ relation is a different solicitor of taste in each language. Some even manage to circumvent it; French offers many ways of producing a sentence effectively in reverse, and of placing the significance of a thing to itself beyond its significant in the sentence. Relations become more evocative, less predictable. (The EU is essentially a German system)

[Aidon]

The motive is exposed in the act.
The spirit is revealed in its instinctive reactions.
The preacher preaches his god’s will.

[Fixed_Cross]

The truth of a statement is is geometrical in as far as the world is expressed with indifference. Wherever subjectivity is engaged however the ‘sides’ do no longer correspond; one must make a path of chaos through the perfected universe to exist. This small chaos is what men are, and all men aspire in ways often hidden to themselves to be agents of great cataclysms, until they have children and they are tamed by their own nature. (In this way a philosopher can be tamed by his philosophy)

[Fixed_Cross]

Mme Blavatsky said that the Earth is already hell.

[size=85](What are the consequences of this statement?)[/size]

[Aidon]

Cults into Religions

The last man cometh…and a messiah appears to prepare the way.
Yoḥanan ha-mmaṭbil
youtube.com/watch?v=5HYGZKMptpU

The masculine cult makes use of feminine followers, the feminine cult gives rise to masculine followers, the mother of them all combines and inverts.
It turns black into white, and white into black.

The environment and its challenges forces the brain to maintain and to grow, as would a muscle.
If a muscle, for example, ceases to be stressed for centuries, the muscle will atrophy, will regresses to a form appropriate for the environment and if this environment demands less strength it will stay that way.
Nature abhors the superfluous.
The muscle, like the brain, will reduce to a form that is required, and will not waste energies on large brains and big muscles if there is no need.

[Zoot_Allures]

Mme Blavatsky said that the Earth is already hell.

(What are the consequences of this statement?)

I’m a little ambivalent about it because while it would mean there is ice water in hell (bottled, even), I’m also somewhat disappointed in God. I was expecting something more, you know. Something a little more terrifying.

[Fixed_Cross]

Blavatsky as the woman behind much of the occult activity in the 20th century Europe, not in the least a teacher to Hitler – it is interesting to consider the implications if the statement were taken to be true. If this is already hell, what falls away? Do not all considerations about our means disappear? Surely the will is indifferent to whether its realm is existence is called heaven, hell or Earth - but the conscience surely cares. If this is hell, it seems that everything is justified. That was just a side note.

Thanks to Sauwelios for digging up this gem;

[size=95]“[Q]uestions, what things ‘in-themselves’ may be like, apart from our sense receptivity and the activity of our understanding, must be rebutted with the question: how could we know that things exist? ‘Thingness’ was first created by us. The question is whether there could not be many other ways of creating such an apparent world–and whether this creating, logicizing, adapting, falsifying is not itself the best-guaranteed reality: in short, whether that which ‘posits things’ is not the sole reality; and whether the ‘effect of the external world upon us’ is not also only the result of such active [wollenden] subjects… The other ‘entities’ act upon us; our adapted apparent world is an adaptation and overpowering of their actions: a kind of defensive measure.
The subject alone is demonstrable: hypothesis that only subjects exist–that ‘object’ is only a kind of effect produced by a subject upon a subject… a modus of the subject.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 569 (Spring-Fall 1887), Kaufmann translation, with the original punctuation and emphasis restored.)[/size]
We see how close Nietzsche was to defining the willing subject purely in terms of its valuing. The step of calling a quantum of will to power a qualis of valuing is very small; and one may not make this step before the previous one has been thoroughly grounded; power is to be understood (thereby accepted as fundamental) before value can be addressed. When Nietzsche’s metaphysics (theses about the nature of being, “physis”) have been understood, then value ontology can rightly be understood as the opening chapter of the “Philosophy of the Future”, to which N considered his work the prelude.

To understand ones own values are a direct reflection of ‘what one is’ that is to say ‘the quantum of power that one is’; and to understand this power directly in terms of ones values; to look with open eyes upon / up to ones most ardently held values (that for which one is willing to give ones life, all the values that supersede self-preservation - the order of values that is unknown to the slave-nature, the ‘quasi-existent’) and understand oneself as a function of them - to no longer seek to relativize values, to become ruthless, both in consistency and ambition… all of this is a new kind of joy to the seeker of truth.

[Fixed_Cross]

Well, that is all talk. What matters indeed is the quantum of power; man, animal and inanimate element selected their interactions to the field that allows them their greatest power-expenditure. An entity seeks to discharge so as to secure portions of existence into relations; that is to say in objects. An object is a customary compound of relations; a pot is a relation between man and certain inanimate compound into a ‘function set in stone’ such as to collect fluids, store them and to pour them are all implicit in the idea ‘cup’. It is an action performed on water. Cup thus represents the element water; and elements are represented by what contains them. Fire is cognate with the stick, which contains it, earth is cognate with physical pleasures, open skies are cognate with thoughts, speculations about the future. Elements are selves, they value the world in their own terms, they are able to remain what they are by relating through objects – winds, rains, thunderstorms, fires, the process oxygen working on carbon; in these relations of such elementals as these literal elements, but also such as men, or animals with souls such as the ones that made it to the symbology we attribute to the stars, and to the stars themselves in so far as they are systems; our solar system is cognate with the suns self-valuing; the planets are reflections of its potentials in time, where itself the sun lives in perpetual infinitude of extremities, int the defiance of to what us is time - the progression of change, memetic memory developed into natures, differences and approaches, systems of interactions, ranks, fields, references, etc - but in the sun there is only destruction and fusion of infinitesimals that emit extreme bouts of heat into the plasmatic phase that waits destruction and beyond into the stratosphere, and forming the ore reluctant particles of fusion that we may identify as perfectly identical to those maddeningly furious fuelcells in the core of the sun; hydrogen; everything that reacts with hydrogen is bound to stand in relation to ‘the whole’ of this cosmic order; in as far as the laws of physics apply - this still ends at the uncertainty principle I am sure along with its irreconcilability with relativity field predictions - this elemental possibility of connecting and spinning into reaction continuations of the essential fury of the spheres, as this unified whole at the basis of that which we can properly observe, categorize and predict with perfect certainty is precisely what is most unpredictable; intelligence is her name and she rules even over the will to power. There is no will to be intelligence; there is only ‘that which works’ - which implies a purpose, very vaguely, but mostly a means to it’s attainment; the WtP is modified by intelligence; but intelligence is foremost, in evolutionary terms, ‘betting on the right horse’. Being the right horse, a quantum of self-valuing, is after all a function of there being a race at all - the horse is attributed a defining quality in terms of pure demonstration; speed; it is subjected to terms a godlike form has chosen for it. We are horses to our own ambitions, but in the end there must, or might as well be, a finish - Man has had the time to consider himself as having arrived; but what stood in the way was the divisions between nations, empires, churches, races, continental forces and ultimately magical values or ancestral runes or whatever poison man was brought up to from the unfathomable depths of far superior creed and craft… time does not stop at its heigh-point, it simply becomes invisible from thereon to our eyes. The first symbol recorded in Greece was of a dolphin, the Minoan lovers of steers and young beauties, regal ladies and playful clowns of men - somehow there is the touch of the rule of the woman inherent in Greek society, - Helen of Troy is undoubtably the brightest star of fame, of ‘soft power’ - all ‘hard power’ is an attempt to ‘bring Helen back into the family’; but why the world is corrupted, is because we hail our queens in a bit of an unfashionable way.

[Fixed_Cross]

When he learned to balance his brain, the ape lost interest in swinging from trees. He had found the inner jungle… “play” had for him in all seriousness begun…
The sardonic nature of self-confidence itself’ as a tool an advantage over others - the macabre contrast with its self-help affirmation:: “I am worth it” – I am a sun" - yes a self-consuming monster, not a light for the world to bask in - what man had to do, up till the age of the self, is restrain himself. Aristocracy, as Camus noted, is not so much defined in terms of the privileges it enjoys, as the restrictions and duties it places on itself. this in contrast not with the working class, which has its restrictions and duties placed on it, but with the bourgeoisie, who quite simply live to be free of restrictions. “Freedom Rights” is a license to be an absolute monster; a partaking candidate to the most grotesque parasite the Earth has ever produced; and to find in this the ideal of the ‘individual amongst individuals’ - But it needs to be said that all of this becomes irrelevant each time an artist awakens. I don’t see the world as lost, just as having reached quite unappealing depths.

[Fixed_Cross]

A man came to a well, after which he had sought for years is grailknight like wanderlust born of a dissatisfaction with the levels of purity of the waters he could get his hands on in the realms of his upbringing. When he first laid eyes on the well, as he emerged from the thick forests into the open space, the rocky terrain in the middle of which, surrounded by mean spikes inhabited by creatures one dares not describe, he thought “fucking. I’m going back”. For laying his eyes on purity was the most shocking thing he had experienced, it sent shivers right into the core of his heart and it repelled him with immense force - here was a possibility of existence he had not contemplated yet, a way of life that was beyond even his wildest imaginations - and of this nature is the world, I mean to say; “we” shun purity and what we would theoretically be able to recognize as “goodness” because it is terrible, it is far too different from what we are used to; even our most ambitious attempts at human self-purification have fallen much short of even being able to address those creatures on the sides of the true well… ‘dwellers on the threshold’ I may call them, and there is a Saturnine aspect to their countenance. But when the man had overcome the fear in his heart and started to place his feet into the water, that separated the forest from the rocks, he began to be filled from the soles of his feet upward with that fire that allows the man to face the greater fire; some of us in our current lifestyles may think of it as “indifference” or “desensitivedness” and there is something of these both in the “immunity to purity” as well… but of course it is pointless to try to describe the actual sensation, think of it as “indifference” on the other end of the spectrum; where that which we become indifferent to is rather the extremity of joy ripping through our cardial nerves without ceasing to intensify - we must ‘dissolve’ before the absolute self, our notions of joy and self must die in order that we can endure the power of being as it is given at the well, in the act of approaching it first and then in gaining direct access to it - but here is a riddle - as whereas the bounds of humanity to cease to restrain, the bounds of the mind, and of reason, do not – it appears that even to this bliss of absolute magnitude the faculty of reason has its answer, or rather its questions. And these questions have inspired many of the wells initial suitors to turn back to land and write, prophecize, invent sciences and turn to the aspect of power that is enclosed in the absolute bliss, which is revealed through the questions the bliss asks us, through its mouthpieces, these granite-eyed dwellers sat down mockingly of all splendor and suffering on the wells stone rims, when we approach it. Only once in my endless approaches did I directly answer the questions and disregarded by powers to ruminate on the plethora of possible answers all of which can illuminate all the eyes of men suffering now in the world, were it that a suitable podium of address would exist in this world - and in this time I saw men fall like comets, and the memory of crossing the threshold is the memory of a hell that I set alight - of burning hordes, a horizon processioning toward the slaughterhouse - I saw the voluntariness of the mans suffering and I then forget what is beyond it, except that my entire being now reflects its consciousness, whereby my entire being now reflect an unanswerable yearning in the body of man, and I have become that mirage, perhaps my communicative shape comes across like these granite eyed threshold masters through the lens of human, Earthly standards - this world indeed which is self-chosen hell - which “isn’t so bad” - if only because after all it stands in relation to the absolute and thereby forms an aspect of it. Absolute is no man, no command, no god or no salvation, but it is the simple condition of being among being, the refusal of any indirect form, of any mere relation, it is the stubborn will to incorporate all objects and subjects into the sphere of complete identification, perhaps it is comparable though the obscene best of all - as an orgasm that leads to its own second power, and onward up in intensity, quickly becoming unbearable by consciousness of separateness - by consciousness of not in perpetuality being able to embody that state, the whole world, of which our planet is a speck of dust; ah but the banal so quickly overtakes the sublime and I am wise to return to the well, the landscape, the rocks and the forest, and retreat back from the rocks into the water and cleanse my feet to prepare them for this and that tree, here and there, now and then, and then, and beyond, into the future of ‘success’ and ‘failure’ and chance, the arbitrary event of encountering someone that pleases or not, in which one recognizes something or in which something is repelled, and in the meantime all the bugs in the sediment calling for ones attention, experienced as dirt; the unity of experience calling out to its prodigal son, the one so thoroughly estranged… but it is all a game sublime, this “being lost” that humanity plays out until the very end, until all is indeed properly lost, and posited before the absolute is a question that it, itself, might perhaps have some trouble answering; this is the secret bliss of the lost son, to call into question even that from which he is lost… but oh how futile this hope - how futile any recourse from the inevitable nature of being.