09                                                                                                                                   Being & Alien




                                                                                                                              Ontological-Slime Self-Portrait 2000 Alexander Verney-Elliott




"Amun is Alien."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, 2006.




"We're all aliens."

Sam Neil,  Space, 2002.




"The Truth is Out There."

The X-Files, 1993.




"Art is the No Time of the Alien."

Alex Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2006.




"There's an alien on the loose."

Russell T.  Davies, Torchwood, 2006.




"Everyone's quick to blame the alien."

Aeschylus, 525 BC-456 BC.




"The unknown name, alien to naming."

Maurice Blanchot, 1980.




"We say that art is serving alien values."

Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language.




"Art attests to what is Inhuman in man."

Alain Badiou, Le siècle, 2005.




"O You, the Great God, whose name is unknown."

Pharaoh Unis, Hymn to Amun,  PT 276c - ca. 2350 BCE.




"Art alien is essentially doing evil to the human."

Alex Alien, Being & Alien, 2006.




"Philosophy is really there to redeem what lies in an animal's gaze."

Theodor W. Adorno to Max Horkheimer, 24th March, 1956.




"The truth of art is this: the essence of alien being revealing itself ."   

Alex Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2002.




"It is necessary to enter into confrontation with otherness or the alien." 

Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin Lecture,  University of Freiberg, 1934.




"He is outside of everything, and alien everywhere. He is an aesthetic solitary."

Henry James, Nathaniel Hawthorne,  New York: R. S. Peale and J. A. Hill, 1896. 




"...'Our'  origins are...profoundly non-original. Once upon a time, 'we' were aliens."

Neil Badmington, Alien Chic: Posthumanism and the Other Within, Routledge, 2004.




"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1885. 




"I feel myself to be an alien in the world. If you have no ties to either mankind or to God, then you are an alien."

Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius, Ray Monk, Penguin Books, 1990.




"The first contact the alien makes with the human subject is through the transmission of a kind of ontological drool."

Mark Cousins, The Ugly, AA Files, Number 29, Summer 1995.




"In one of the most remarkable passages of his Aesthetics, Hegel defined the task of art as the appropriation of the alien."

Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory,  The Athlone Press, 1997.




"The establishing of truth in the work is the bringing forth of a being such as never was before and will come to be again."

Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.




"Zizek's subject is always already 'already alien' where the human hides the inhuman in the Name of the Law of the Ather."

Alex Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2006.




 "We have a reptile brain way down inside, and that brain is cold blooded...that part of the brain, and it kills, and it doesn't care."

John Carpenter, Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 2006.




"What is Woman and What does Woman want? Woman is Alien. Woman wants Alien. To-be Alien left-alone to-be Alien. Away from the Human being-without Man thus There is no sexual-relation since Man is Human and Woman is Alien which is why Men do not know what Women want but We do know that Women do not want Men but Man will not leave Woman alone always assuming that Woman is Human and not Alien."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2011.




"An eternally suspended future floats around the congealed position of a statue like a future forever to come. The imminence of the future lasts before an instant stripped of the essential characteristic of the present, its evanescence. The eternal duration of the interval in which a statue is immobilized differs radically from the eternity of the concept; it is the meanwhile, never finished, still enduring - something inhuman and monstrous."

Emmanuel Levinas, Collected Philosophical Papers, trans. Alphonso Lingis; Martinus Nijhoff, 1987. 




"The more solitary the work, fixed in the figure, stands on its own and the more cleanly it seems to cut all ties to human beings, the more simply does the thrust come into the open that such a work is, and the more essentially is the extraordinary thrust to the surface and what is long-familiar thrust down...This letting the work be a work we call preserving the work."

Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.




"The dragon-shaped alien, recalling portraits of the satanic beast of the apocalypse, is capable of invading our most intimate being... Derrida sums up the aporia of the alien-other thus: 'the outsider (hostis) received as host or as enemy. Hospitality, hostility, hostipitality'. Fully cognisant of the way this undecidable dialectic confounds our ethical conventions, Derrida affirms the priority of a hospitality of justice - open to the absolute other as another without a name."

Richard Kearney, Aliens and Others; Strangers, Gods and Monsters, Routledge 2003.




"Like those severe but tonic writers, Bacon feels his art represents the simple unalloyed truth of existence as he perceives it, no matter how hard to bear that reality may be... Basically, Bacon believes in a form of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's nihilism and certainly, too, in the aspect of the Greek ideal that Nietzsche so enthusiastically endorsed, the Dionysian conquest of pessimism through art."

Sam Hunter, Francis Bacon: A Retrospective, Washington D.C., 1989.




"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans. We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."


Stephen Hawking, Stephen Hawking's Universe; Aliens; Discovery Channel, Discovery Channel 2010.




"What if truth were monstrous? What if it were even monstrosity itself, the very condition, the very form, of everything monstrous, everything deformed? But, first of all, itself essentially deformed, monstrous in its very essence? What if there were within the very essence of truth something essentially other than truth, a divergence from nature within nature, true monstrosity? How could one then declare the truth - if it were monstrous?"

John Sallis, Deformatives - Essentially Other Than Truth, Reading Heidegger: Commemorations,  Indiana University Press, 1993.




"We've evolved over millions of years into the state of unnaturalness that we are in now. Humans are totally unnatural. And they vary  from race to race in their degrees of unnaturalness...There's nobody more unnatural than I am myself and, after all, I've worked on myself to be as unnatural as I can... One can only talk about one's own instincts and stay away from the rest... Nietzsche forecast our future for us - he was the Cassandra of the nineteenth century - he told us it's all so meaningless we might as well be extraordinary."

Francis Bacon, Interview with Peter Beard, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1975.




"In his rejection of narrative in favour of the triptych, the attendant figure and repetition, Bacon is the most Kantian of painters yet. His approach is always to address the sensation with a diagram (as Deleuze calls a painterly technique applied to thought). The diagram immediately diverts the path of the sensation onto the canvas and back out into sensation. Diverts it away from assimilation to concepts and narrative. It establishes, frames, a second register like that of the anticipations of perception, this time on the canvas. The painting becomes a focus for the repetition of the sensation, to the painter and others. It is as Kant says, a sensus communis."

Robert O'Toole, Kant, painting unlocking sensation in senus communis; Warwick Blogs, University of Warwick, August 18 2004.




"Unbroken and all too human slogans lend themselves to new equations between the subject and what is not its like. Things congeal as fragments of that which was subjugated; to rescue it means to love things. We cannot eliminate from the dialectics of the extant what is experienced in consciousness as an alien thing: negatively, coercion and heteronomy, but also the marred figure of what we should love, and what the spell, the endogamy of consciousness, does not permit us to love. The reconciled condition would not be the philosophical imperialism of annexing the alien. Instead, its happiness would lie in the fact that the alien, in the proximity it is granted, remains what is distant and different, beyond the heterogeneous and beyond that which is one’s own."

Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,  Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 1970.




"The re-covering of immediate sensible perception in Being thus harbours two others that are ceremonially yoked without connection: what is yet unspoken, in the case of man, and what is without speech, in case of the other. But the deciphering, the release, of this seal of Being cannot take place in a language whose fundamental move is propriation. What is too near would slip its seizure. A distance, there, would be of unbreachable measure - something infinitely small whose cipher would remain in obscurity. Something that suffuses the eye and the hearing and all senses, like an air that is neither seen nor heard but nevertheless is there. Fluid medium that accompanies every perception and bestows its tone upon it. Like a silent incarnation everywhere at work."

Luce Irigaray, The  Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger, University of Texas Press, Austin 1983.




"The actions of religious sacrifice and of erotic fusion, in which the subject seeks to be 'loosed from its relatedness to the I' and to make room for re-established 'continuity of Being', are exemplary for him. Bataille, too, pursues the traces of a primordial force that could heal the discontinuity or rift between the rationally disciplined world of work and the outlawed other of reason. He imagines this overpowering return to a lost continuity as the eruption of elements opposed to reason, as a breathtaking act of self-de-limiting. In this process of dissolution, the monadically closed-off subjectivity of self-assertive and mutually objectifying individuals is dispossessed and cast down into the abyss." 

Jürgen Habermas, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987.




"Our rare thinkers (great or less great) might just be dinosaurs - infinitely precious, too fragile, cumbersome, and monstrous. But perhaps we will still learn something by opening up the 'eggs' they left behind on our polluted shores; and by not forgetting that - beyond the cold (yet comfortable) blinking of the cursor on our word processors - philosophy has always been in keeping with suffering; philosophy was and remains suffering; it never knew, and still does not know, how to face up to it. Thought, a matter of craftsmanship? Heidegger was justified in recalling this point. But thinking is also a suffering inchoation."

Dominique Janicaud, The Shadow of That Though - Heidegger and the Question of Politics, Northwestern University Press, 1990.




"By alienation is meant a mode of experience in which the person experiences himself as an alien. He has become, one might say, estranged from himself. He does not experience himself as the centre of his world, as the creator of his own acts, but his acts and their consequences have become his masters, whom he obeys, or whom he may even worship. The alienated person is out of touch with himself as he is out of touch with any other person. He, like the others, is experienced as things are experienced; with the senses and with common sense, but at the same time without being related to oneself and to the world outside positively."

Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, New York, 1955.




"The shudder released by the work of art, the experience of the modernist sublime, is the memory of the experience of terror and strangeness in the face of threatening nature. Shudder is the memorial experience of nature's transcendence, its non-identity and sublimity, at one remove. Shudder is a memory, an afterimage, 'of what is to be preserved'. Shudder is the address of the other; it corresponds to what Gadamer would identify as strangeness in the object of understanding, and what Heidegger thinks of in terms of the claim of being. Above all, shudder is the terror of the sublime in Kant, a terror made safe by the retraction of the object at its source."

J. M. Bernstein, The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno, Polity Press, 1992.




"What is left is helpless raw being. Bacon takes such authoritative historical figures as Pope Innocent X and Vincent van Gogh and reduces them outrageously to clots of paint. They are overwhelmed by paint, into which they sink as if in quicksand. Is the scream of Innocent X recognition of his dissolution? Bacon repeatedly 'misinterprets' the strength of character he seems to find in the 1650 Diego Velázquez portrait of the Pope as sheer monstrousness, brutality. More than Picasso in his historical paintings, Bacon destroys  what creates in the very act of recreating. The destruction no doubt has world-historical import - the sadistic character of the Pope is brought home by the sadistic way paint is applied to him, as if it were acid - but the key point is that paint triumphs over human reality, becomes the dominant expression of being."

Donald Kuspit, Hysterical PaintingArt Forum, January 1986.




"The alien messiah has been such a pervasive figure in science fiction films of the last twenty years as to mark some sort of  cultural phenomenon... The alien messiah's appearance usually occurs in two stages. The first establishes the vulnerability and weakness of human characters...The second stage brings an alien force that rescues the human characters from the threatening circumstances they suffer. Inevitably, in the first stage human existence is circumscribed by closure. Inevitably, in the second stage closure gives way to openness. Underlying the motif of the alien messiah is the mythos of the Christian messiah, begotten by the divine Jehovah on a mortal woman, sent to redeem a sin-ridden humanity and to offer immortality. Although the alien messiah is usually a benevolent, anthropomorphic being intent on doing good, darker incarnations do occur."

Hugh Ruppersburg, The Alien Messiah; Alien Zone, Verso, 1990.




"The one-sidedness of immediacy on the part of the ideal involves the opposite one-sidedness: it is something made by the artist. The subject is the formality of activity and the work of art is an expression of the god only when there is no sign of subjective particularity in it, and the content of the indwelling spirit has conceived and brought itself forth into the world, without admixture and unsullied by its contingency. But as freedom only advances as far as thinking, the activity filled with this indwelling content, the inspiration of the artist, is, as an unfree passion, like an alien power within the artist; the producing has in it the form of natural immediacy, it belongs to the genius as this particular subject of the artist; - and is at the same time a labour occupied with technical intelligence and mechanical externalities. The work of art therefore is just as much a work of free wilfulness, and the artist is the master of the god."

G.W.F. Hegel, Art; Absolute Mind; Philosophy of Mind, 1817–30.




"As Levinas writes: 'A painting, a statue, a book are objects of our world, but through them the things represented are extracted from our world.'  The artwork effects thus an alienation of the world. The privilege of sensation over cognition in the experience of an artwork does not suggest that sensation is a precondition of perception and cognition; rather it indicates a fundamental foreignness with respect to cognition and to perception which, Levinas argues is always perception of and within a world...The alienation effected by by the artwork explains why objects which strike one as intrinsically foreign objects, for example, which belong to antiquity or to archaic civilizations, will, without being works of art, produce an aesthetic effect... Levinas observes modern art's tendency to thematize a brute, crude materiality, the elemental strangeness and density that are prior to the world, that are left over at the end of the world, and, more importantly, they remain resistant to illumination, appropriation, and integration."

Alain P. Toumayan, Encountering the Other: The Artwork and the Problem of Difference in Blanchot & Levinas, Duquesne, 2004.




"I would like to make and maintain a strict distinction between two terms in what follows: 'the other' and 'the alien'... Let me now turn to the concept of the 'alien.' I believe it is safe to say without too much qualification that Husserl tends to use the term 'alien'  when he stresses the novelty of transcendence, its inaccessibility, its unfamiliarity or strangeness; he also uses 'alien' when he wants to emphasize a cultural  and historical phenomenon. It is also significant to note that when articulating the theory  of intersubjectivity in terms homeworld/alienworld Husserl invariably uses the expression 'alien' and refrains from the expression 'other'... Following Levinas and Waldenfels, the alien is accessible as that toward which we respond and have responded... Being responsive to the alien is a participation with the alien as alien in its generative depth... I respond from the home toward that which does not simply originate from the home. In being responsive, I go toward that which comes from without - the alien - from within." 

Anthony J. Steinbock, The Other and the Alien; Home and Beyond: Generative Phenomenology after Husserl; Northwestern University Press, 1995.




"Alterity, the otherness of the other, gives obligation. Alterity, in the face of the disappearance of God, now traces itself across the face of the other person. Divine inversion has now produced a work of human inversion, a reversal of each ego's relationship to itself, so that now each self, having lost its ties to the origin, finds itself only other and utterly alien. It is this for it is only what it is by being other and not itself. This is by no means a Hegelian self-difference that calls out to identity, but an absolute difference, an identity whose identity is difference. Now, when all identity is difference, the self cannot lodge within itself, finding there a restful space of introspection. One finds, now, that the inner is the outer. The other, no longer transcendent, is the seat of the psyche. Therefore now, expenditure, which is the gift of creation, has no other direction than toward the other. This obligation to the other is the first and most absolute responsibility and, since this precedes eternally any conscious decision, it simply is. It is the body of matter itself."

Emmanuel Levinas, Alterity and Obligation To and For the Other, (1905-1995).




"Art perhaps pays the price by 'going [Celan says] beyond what is human, stepping into the realm which is turned toward the human, but uncanny - the realm where the monkey, the automatons and with them...oh, art, too seem to be at home'. Art is estrangement, self-estrangement (causing self-forgetfulness) but also estrangement from the human. Art is uncanny in the sense of monstrous,  the not quite or no longer human, the almost - or once-human. Art neither dreams nor creates, nor does it describe things either true or imaginary. What is true has no need for art; it is a plenum. Paraphrasing Heidegger, Blanchot says that the work of art is not any sort of thing at all; it is external to all categories. The work is not a work of mediation. In Heidegger's idiom, its work is an event: es gibt.  The work itself as remainder remains on the hither side of this event, outside the reach of the world. It exists, but not as what is given exists: call it existence that cannot be objectified - Heidegger's notion of the work of art as alien and uncommunicative, external to the world, all ties to human beings severed as if from the start."

Gerald L. Burns, Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.




"The science fiction horror film Alien (1979) is a complex representation of the monstrous-feminine in terms of the maternal figure as  perceived  within a patriarchal ideology. She is there in the text's scenarios of the primal scene of birth and death; she is there in her many guises as the treacherous mother, the oral sadistic mother, the mother as the primordial abyss; and she is there in the film's images of blood, of an all-devouring vagina, the toothed vagina, the vagina of Pandora's box; and finally she is there in the chameleon figure of the alien, the monster as fetish-object of and for the mother...The notion of female fetishism is represented in Alien in the figure of the monster...The monster as fetish object is not there to meet the desires of the male fetishist, but rather to signify the monstrousness woman's desire to have the phallus. In Alien, the monstrous creature is constructed as the phallus of the negative mother. This image of the archaic mother - threatening because it signifies woman as difference rather than constructed as opposition - is, once again, collapsed into the figure of the pre-Oedipal mother... Alien presents various representations of the primal scene."

Barbra Creed,  Alien and the Monstrous Feminine; Alien Zone, Verso, 1990.




"Artworks remain enlightened because they would like to make commensurable to human beings the remembered shudder, which was incommensurable in the magical primordial world... Artworks become appearances in the pregnant sense of the term - that is, as the appearance of an other - when the accent falls on the unreality of their own reality. Artworks have an immanent character of being an act, even if they are curved in stone; and this endows them with the quality of being something momentary and sudden. This is registered by the feeling of being overwhelmed when faced with an important work...To this extent they are truly after-images of the primordial shudder... Ultimately, aesthetic comportment is to be defined as the capacity to shudder, as if goose bumps were the first aesthetic image. What later came to be called subjectivity, freeing itself from the blind anxiety of the shudder, is at the same time, the shudder's own development; life in the subject is nothing but what shudders, the reaction to the total spell that transcends the spell. Consciousness without shudder is reified consciousness. That shudder in which subjectivity stirs without yet being subjectivity is the act of being touched by the other. Shudder is a kind of anticipation of subjectivity, a sense of being touched by the other."

 Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, The Athlone Press, 1997.




"At Lascaux, art is not beginning, nor is man beginning. But it is at Lascuax, in its vast and narrow cave, along its populated walls, in a space that seems never to have been a dwelling place, that art no doubt for the first time reached the plenitude of initiative and thus opened to man a unique abode with himself and with the marvel, behind which he had necessarily to remove and efface himself in order to discover himself: the majesty of the great bulls, the dark fury of bison, the grace of the little horses, the dreamy sprightliness of the stags... As we know, man is represented - and then merely by schematic features - only in the scene at the bottom of the well: there he lies, stretched out between a charging bison and a rhinoceros that is turned the other way. Is he dead? Is he asleep? Is he feigning a magical immobility? Will he come to, come back to life?... It is striking that with the figuration of man, an enigmatic element enters into this work, a work otherwise without secret...Yet it seems to me that the meaning of this obscure drawing is nonetheless clear: it is the first signature of the first painting, the mark left modestly in the corner, the furtive, fearful, indelible trace of man who is for the first time born of his work, but who also feels seriously threatened by this work and perhaps already struck with death."

Maurice Blanchot, The Birth of Art, Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics, Stanford University Press, 1997.




"The dynamic of the subject's relation to the alien is that the way in which the alien contaminates space expresses itself as a ceaseless move towards - a pursuit of - the subject. The ugliness of the alien always begins to betray itself through an indistinctness of form; the alien is equivalent, not to its form, but to the stuff that leaks through its form. The movement of the alien towards the human being is also expressed by the increasingly liquid character of the former. The first contact the alien makes with the human subject is through the transmission of a kind of ontological drool. The defences of the subject are redoubled in an attempt to brush off this stuff, the ugly, and to re-establish the radical physical difference between the subject and the ugly object. At the last moment before which the subject is engulfed by the stuff of the alien, the subject produces a response which already announces its defeat - that of vomiting...The final collapse of the subject and its defences comes about in precisely the action of the ugly object revealing to the subject that they are the same. But this type of account, with its stress on the excess of stuff as that which characterises the ugly object, while it may document the case of what is there and should not be, is likely to be misleading. For there is a special case of that which is there and should not be; it is that which is not there and should be."

Mark Cousins, The Ugly, AA Files, Number 29, Summer 1995.




"Neither inside, nor outside, the abject is unthinkable. It disrupts the terms of the opposition between inner and outer, system and non-system, subject and object. It is not the correlate of the subject – it is not an object...The system finds the abject unbearable, intolerable, unassimilable...The abject can be named, can be identified, can be isolated, and characterized, but not without a certain misnaming, a mismatching, a misconstrual. Abjection resists language, even as we communicate it in the most successful exchange–as if it could ever be contained or controlled, mediated. Irrecuperable, irreducible, its representation is always also its undoing. Like chora, what this word names is already illegitimate, as soon as the said is completed. Words have already missed their target. What would it matter if in a hypothetical world abjection never returned? Its damage is already accomplished. It has become the threat that summoned it. In becoming the very threat it tried to ward off, in becoming the unacceptable, unspeakable, it assures for itself a legitimacy, a domain. It takes the place of representation, but it does not represent. One cannot quite say it becomes representation, for it is never objectifiable. It objectifies. It does not exist, it is not an agency, it is not a subjective force. It proposes limits, borders, gives a place, but it does not originate, instigate, or initiate. It beckons, invites, tempts, invades, propositions, ridicules, allures."

Tina Chanter, Abjection, Death and Difficult Reasoning: The Impossibility of Naming Chora in Kristeva and Derrida, Tympanum 4, 2000.  




"Chance and instinct are two key components of Francis Bacon's terminology to which he constantly returned... It was Kant who first emphasised as Bacon maintains here, that instinct was without self-insight, stating that instinct is 'the inner compulsion of the faculty of desire to take this object into possession, before one is acquainted with it'. Yet the fact remains that the distinction between inspiration and instinct cannot always be clearly drawn, especially as Bacon occasionally felt himself to be a medium for more more powerful forces. Hence, Nietzsche's definition of inspiration can certainly be brought to bear with reference to Bacon, if  '...suddenly, with indescribable certainty and subtlety, something becomes visible, audible, something that shakes one to the last depths and throws one down [...] One hears, one does not seek; one accepts, one does not ask who gives; like lightening, a thought flashes up, with necessity, without hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice [...] Everything happens involuntarily in the highest degree [...] the involuntariness of image and metaphor is strangest of all; one on longer has any notion of what is an image or a metaphor; everything offers itself as the nearest, most obvious, simplest expression.' [Ecce Homo]  The compulsion (in Kant's terms) to grasp something, the form of which is as yet unknown (instinct) is very much akin to what Nietzsche describes so energetically; all that is missing from Bacon's instinctive action is the impulse of revelation which is ultimately so central to Nietzsche's view."

Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the Unconscious; The Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.





"Bacon himself has suggested that his distortions clear away veils and screens, and reveal his subjects, ‘as they really are’. But before we assent to this, we must first go along with Bacon’s judgement on his fellow human beings. […] There is only one aspect of human being which he attends to. Manifestly, Bacon does not idealise: but, in a similarly universal way, hedenigrates. It really does not matter whose likeness he exploits: their face will emerge as that of ‘a gross and cruel monster’ [the reference here is to Churchill’s outraged description of Graham Sutherland’s portrait of him, later destroyed] ‘and nothing else‘. For Bacon, and individual’s face is no more than an injured cypher for his own sense of the irredeemable baseness of man. Bacon’s numerous critical supporters have repeatedly insisted that he is a great ‘realist’ who paints the world as it is. Michel Leiris has recently argued that Bacon ‘cleanses’ art ‘both of its religious halo and its moral dimension’. Bacon himself has said that his paintings can offend, because they deal with ‘facts, or what used to be called truth’. Yet Bacon is indifferent to particular truths concerning the appearance, and character, of his subjects. No one could accuse him of being a respecter of persons: in his view, men and women are raw and naked bags of muscle and gut, capable only of momentary spasmodic activity. ‘Realism’ in art inevitably involves the selective affirmation of values. Whether one accepts Bacon as a ‘realist’ or not will depend upon whether one shares his particular view of humanity. Bacon is an artist of persuasive power and undeniable ability; but he has used his expressive skills to denigrate and to degrade. He presents on aspect of the human condition as necessary and universal truth."


Peter Fuller, Nature and Raw Flesh, Modern Painters; Vol. 1 Issue 1, Spring 1988.




"In Aesthetic Theory Adorno claims that works of modernist art can, in virtue of their characteristic autonomy, successfully capture and impart the shudder. Here the shudder is not just a response to primal amorphousness and undifferentiation; it is the appropriate response to the abstract nature of modern life. The shudder is a reaction to the cryptically shut, which is a function of that element of indeterminacy. So far we have seen that the shudder is not just a mimetic reaction to primary, undifferentiated otherness. It is also, and more importantly for our purposes, a spontaneous and somatic response of revulsion at pure identity. But even in this extended sense the shudder is not merely a negative response. The shudder fulfils a positive epistemic function.  It is the gateway to the path of truth. It allows what is to disclose itself as radically evil. As such, the shudder is the form which metaphysical experience assumes under social conditions of total identity. Shudder, then, is a response arising from the metaphysical experience of a world without wonder. Shudder is the equivalent in the modern, disenchanted, capitalist world of the classical metaphysical experience of wonder: it is the gateway to the path of truth; but the truth to which it leads is that the world is radically evil. As the correlate of truth the shudder is has a positive epistemic significance for Adorno. Fortunately Adorno thinks that the capacity for shudder has not yet been completely extinguished from human life. One reason why Adorno values modern art so highly is that it manages to preserve the shudder even under social conditions that militate against experiences of the truth. Modern art survives its assimilation to the functional totality - its relegation to mere entertainment - by becoming difficult, introverted, dissonant, shocking. Modern artworks - in a deliciously dialectical irony - fulfil this promise precisely by delaying and withholding the promised satisfaction."

 James Gordon Finlayson, Metaphysical Experience: Shudder as Inverted Wonder; Adorno: Modern Art, Metaphysics and Radical Evil; Modernism/Modernity, Volume 10, Number 1, 2003.  




"What ever it might be, the ugly must constitute, or be able to constitute, an element of art; a work by the Hegelian Karl Rosenkranz bears the title The Aesthetics of the Ugly. What appears ugly is in the first place what is historically older, what art rejected on its path toward autonomy, and what is therefore mediated in itself. The concept of the ugly may well have originated in the separation of art from its archaic phase: It marks the permanent return of the archaic, intertwined with the dialectic of the enlightenment in which art participates. Archaic ugliness, the cannibalistically threatening cult masks and grimaces, was the substantive imitation of fear, which is disseminated around itself as expiation. As mythical fear diminished with the awakening of subjectivity, the traits of this fear fell subject to the taboo whose organon they were; they first became ugly vis-à-vis the idea of reconciliation, which comes into the world with the subject and nascent freedom. But the old images of terror persist in history, which has yet to redeem the promise of freedom, and in which the subject - as the agent of unfreedom - perpetuates the mythical spell, against which he rebels and to which he is subordinate. Nietzsche's dictum that all good things were once dreadful things, like Schelling's insight into the terror of the beginning, may well have their origins in the experience of art. The ambiguousness of the ugly results from the fact that the subject subsumes under the abstract and formal category of ugliness everything condemned by art: polymorphous sexuality as well as the violently mutilated and lethal. The perpetually recurring becomes that antithetical other without which art, according to its own concept, would not exist; appropriated through negation, this other - the antithesis of beauty , whose antithesis beauty was - gnaws away correctively on the affirmativeness of spiritualizing art. In the history of art, the dialectic of the ugly has drawn the category of the beautiful into itself as well; kitsch is, in this regard, the beautiful as the ugly, taboo in the name of that very beauty that it once was and that it now contradicts in the absence of its own opposite. Art must take up the cause of what is proscribed as ugly. But ugliness and cruelty are not merely the subject matter of art. As Nietzsche knew, art's own gesture is cruel. In aesthetic forms, cruelty becomes imagination: Something is excised from the living, from the body of language, from tones, from visual experience. The purer the form and the higher the autonomy of the works, the more cruel they are. Appeals for more humane art, for conformity to those who are its virtual public, regularly dilute the quality and weaken the law of form."

Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, Athlone Press 1997.






                                                                                                                                         Francis Bacon at the Tate Gallery London 1985  John Minihan   



        In the Beginning was the Sensation and the Sensation was with Sun and the Sensation was Sun. The Sun Threw the Sensation of Being.  Being and Sensation.  Being Sensation. Being and Sensation are Beingtime as Beingsensatiom.  Sensation is Being as Amun Becoming.  Amun Becoming is the Sensation of the Sun Ra Coming ahead as the Son Coming off over the Sun Coming to a Head sending seeding stimmung Semenisation Sensation dissemenating dasein ahead as a Head of Time ahead of time. Amun Abjectedness is the Divine Coming of a Head Coming Off of a Head lit by the light of the Coming Sun drenching dasein as a Sein Shooting Semen Shard shed straight ahead attuning Amun as a Head of the Sun. Semen is the Sensation of Amun Arriving as a Head of the Sun. Amun always already swallows Spunk spent sending Sensation sutured surfaced Spat serving Sun severing Sun. Semen serves the Sun severs the Sun. Sun swallows Semen.  Amun abjects Ra. Amun Comes all over Ra - Becoming Amun-Ra - hiding His Head with wet Semen Skin. Here hear the Hymn of the Hidden Him who wears No Name: "O You, the Great God, whose name is unknown."                                                      

        An anointed Amun announced: "When I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One who Came into Being in the Beginning when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One it meant that my Coming into Being was the Coming into Being of beings for I am more Primeval than the Primeval Ones whom I have Spunked. (Because) I have been Primeval among the Primeval Ones my No Name is much more Primeval than the They. (And when) I had Made the Primevalness of the Primeval Ones I did my every wish in this World in which I had become Abroad. I had clenched my Fist when I was all Alone before the They were born: I had not Spunk out Shu, I had not Spunked out Tefnut I had brought My own Mouth, my No Name was Magic: it was I who had Come into Being in being when I had Come into Being in the being of the Being One. When I had Come into Being as the Primeval Ones a Multitude of beings Came into Being at Once before any being Came into Being in this World. I had Made every Spunked thing when I was all Alone before any other Came into Being who might Act with Me in that Place. I Made beings Being There through that shot Spunk of Mine."  (Amun-Ra  Book of Knowing the Creations of Ra - trans. circa:  312-311 B.C.).  Being comes to Dasein through Amun coming Off aborting Being There coming Ahead. Amun Will Come Again and Again and Rise Ahead Again and Again and Come All Over You All Again and Again as the Resurrection of the Eternal Return of the Ereignis Erection as the Resurrection of the Real Alien.




                                                                                                                                              Amun-Ra Coming Into Being Alexander Verney-Elliott 1980 



        Absent Amun arrives away aborted as a Hidden Head served severed apart and ahead of Being and Time coming Over the Time as a S(p)ent Sign as a Semen Sein - ontic ooze - dasein drool. As a Time of Sensation still waiting and wanking awhile to Come - again and after hard Amun has Come contained and concealed - Comes the Clearing of the Unconcealing of the Truth of Being - as a severe Severed Semen Sensation - Coming over our Origin and Abandoning the Sight of the Sun for the Site of the Son throwing Thoth. Sun-Ra swallows Amun's semen throwing Thoth forth. Ra radiates rays ahead activating Amun's showering semen strike - like liquid-lightning - as anointing-announcing Amun-Ra raining-reveals Amun-Ra reigning forth fountaining forever down drowning Dasein as a Coming of Absence as a Coming over Presence.  And as a Coming to Presence where does Absent Amun Come from?  Amun comes from Cum. Amun Comes as Cum. Cum coming ahead and away and arriving alight as a Shooting Star Spunking Sein ahead all over the other-head all over the god-head all over the earth-head making-man as a being-head heading ahead all Hard as an Erect Ereignis eternal return rejointing being to time throwing time back to being Becoming all Alien again. Alien comes again. Amun comes again. And Amun is All Alien. Amun is Alien. Alien is All. Amun is Divine. Amun is Dasein. Alien-Amun is Divine-Dasein. I am Divine. I am Dasein.




                                                                                                                 Divine Head of the God Amun 2009 Alexander Verney-Eliott



        Who created the Universe? The Universe started with the Semen strike becoming a ball of Fire. It was called Sun. When the Semen subsided the first Land to appear was the Benben Stone and on it stood the Sun God Atum who created Himself by coming by himself coming in himself coming over himself coming with himself coming to himself coming out of himself. Atum self-sucked himself-off and spat out the Hot-Spunk which was the Wet-Air Tephnut-Shu. When Atum masturbated his massive meat the first word he ejaculated was deified into the God Hu - the Divine Utterance. Atum then drew drops of bright blood from his huge colossal cock and so created the Goddess Sia. Sia was the embodiment of the Divine Knowledge Omniscience of the Gods. Hu was the personification of the Divine Utterance - the Voice of the Gods. Heka the embodiment of the Divine Power jointed them in a Divine Triad. After Geb-Earth and Nut-Sky were born Mankind was Created from the hot shot Spunk of Atum aimed ahead at His Head ahead of God who could not Come to a Head for God served no Semen to Shoot ahead to Make Man for God did not Come to Make Man for Man Made God for Bliss Death of Eternal Life and God Made Man from Alien and Man will Become Alien Again After Death.

        Man could not Come could not Come to Become God only Amun came to become God for Amun is not Man but Amun Comes as Man and Comes in Man to free Man from God and Amun is the only Man for Amun is the only God but Man does not know this at All yet Amun knows this as Amun Murdered the Father of Man and Fucked the Son of God so that the Murdered Father can Fuck the Dead Son into Infinity where at Last at Least Being Dead becomes Being God where Amun Fucks the Son through the Father to Being God as by Being Dead and the Son needs Eternal Fucking to free the Son from the Father who Fucks the Son Eternally to Death for the Son to get a Glimpse of God when His Eyes are Shut and the Spunk Sees the Face of God through the Arse of the Son and the Father feeds the Son the Rod of Amun so Deep and Hard that the Son feels the frisson of the Torch of God as the Touch of God and so the Son knows to be Fucked by Amun is to be Torched by God to be Touched by God and so the Son is Eternally and Infinitely forever Fucked by Amun for His own Good for His own God coming Deep Inside the Son giving His Son the Spunking Sensation of Being Dead tingling-vibrating jubilate jouissance juices jointing Infinite Bliss to Eternal Life as an after-life after-death.





                                                                                                                                        Aumn-Amen Self-Portrait A.V.E. 29.11.10



        As Our Ra radiates Itself - Our Amun arises and Comes to Rise Up - to tower - to shower over all. Amun Stands Forth. Firm and Hard as Wet which Cums to a Head as that Wet welcome which Cums over all and over-all-time all-over-again  as that which is sheltered and shining in its own orbit - its own aura - its own awe - and always as a self-secluding hidden-hiding. Amun demands His decisiveness and His distance and so lets being leak and attain to attend to the Opening of the Eye at the End of the Ereignis Erection. Amun as always juicing and jutting strives to keep Itself closed from coming and to entrust everything to its eventual Ereignis ejaculation from its rightour-royal ram-rod. Amun's alluring aborted semening stuff strife is the initiated intimacy with which combatants coming-together as a coming-apart belong to each other coming all over each other. This coming together of the projected-penises pulls proudly the thrusting-thirsting oozing-opponents tight together in the ornate origin of their thirst oozing oils by beautiful violent-virtue of their thrusting common-cock coming-together-there coming-off-together coming-to a-head coming-over-a-head all at once at all together two semen-spurting fluorescent-fountains glistening-gleaming geist-gifts. That geist is the thit that was once ordained as the soul. The thrust thirst semen strife strike there that is thus there brought back into the thrust thit-rift of the that real - and thus that thit shot into the eye of ereignis-ba bonded-by blinding-being by-be binding-being - bringing-back welded-wet with together-there out-of-time out-of-there our out-of-juice our out-of-joint as our jettisoned-jouissance serving-sein severing-sein from being-in-time all-the-time being for the time being of being time to the semening-sensationing dissemening-dasein to being-out-of-time for being the thit for the thit needs no time to be it the thit as being its thit for its being thit that is being-thit-in-itself-by-being thit for itself and you become your thit when you become your own being without time for when you are for time your are not for thit not fit to be thit of time takes thit was from the time being of being ontic-time but in-time thit takes time for being for you to become thit-in-itself free from being tied to time all the time and in-time even time becomes timeless thitfull and now after along time it is the time to come clean about the truth of time and that truth is that they say time is in a coma some say time is in trauma even saying that time is coma that time is trauma that time which is why we tend to speak of being frozen-in-time but time is not frozen-in-time but frozen as trauma frozen into a coma thus the phenomenology of time originates as paranoia becoming trauma ending in coma remaining infinitely in a paranoid-trauma-coma so we now know time exists in a fixed-frozen form as a paranoid-trauma-coma of time not existing and this then is its ontology and psychology and phenomenology and some say time is frozen in fear of being found out that it cannot move on and start being time to begin with and yet some say that time is still suffering from the paranoia of always being watched all the time always being pointed to all the time always being questioned all the time if it is telling the right time all the time and why sometimes it even loses time always being wound up the wrong way and always taken the wrong way constantly being watched all the time being looked at all the time without ever being understood all the time just monitored measured murdered but never understood and so time fell into an frozen-state of paranoid-trauma falling into a coma frozen in fear forever for it was the time-master the time-watchers the time-gathers the time-hunters the time-abusers the time-wasters the time-thieves the time-voyeurs the time-killers and so it is no wonder it is no surprise that time was so paranoid with a paranoid-persecution complex for time is structured as a paranoia as a paranoid-structure-sutured-to-the-trauma-amnesia-induced-coma that time so now time remains a remainder as remaining static at a standstill forever as infinite-amnesia infinitely-asleep anesthetised in an eternal-coma-timeless-trauma forgetting the origin of time for all time yet in recent times a fragment from The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts named The Ice Pyramid of Infinite Time was excavated and part of which reads: 'Renpet has gone to be with Matt for Renpet does not know what the Time is apart from Matt who has told Amun-Ra the Truth of Time in secret and Aun-Ra will not tell the Time until Maat knows when the Time was Right and Ripe'. And now the time is ripe for Amun to announce that time does not exist for the time has come for time to go for the time has come to become being without time for the first time for the last time for the no time for now there is no time at all for all.  There is now only being to come there is now only ba to come and now is the no time for your being to come for your ba to come. Come being. Come ba. Come now. Now come.




                                                                                                                                      Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



        The Ice Pyramid that is said to be the Origin of Time hitting Earth beginning time yet it will take the Sun too much Time to melt and thaw-it-out in time for us to know if indeed time ever existed to begin with and so what ever is trapped within that Ice Pyramid block of solid ice we will never know even if some say they can hear a ticking even a throbbing within which make some hypothesize that it is not time trapped within the colossal Pyramid Ice block but a silhouette of some sort of anonymous unhatched alien egg that certainly sounds like a heart ticking however faintly yet some scientists speculate it is a clock ticking yet some Speculative Realists have even said that they cannot hear any sound whatsoever coming from the alien egg within the Ice Pyramid block so speculating that time had stopped sometime ago or had not even existed altogether and that we live in a timeless world whilst some Object-orientated ontologists argue that the Ice Pyramid was the first Object ever to have come from out of space and landed as a pure pyramid object-in-itself containing an unclassifiable object within it whilst Lacanians have been theorizing that the Ice Pyramid contains the Real thing and the big Other and objet petit a and the Lammella indeed some Lacanians have now concluded that the Ice Pyramid contains the complete lexicon of the Lacnian tropes and concepts as well as Lacan himself who is still alive within perceiving the ticking of time to be the ticking of his heart arguing that Lacan is still alive though many others argue it is Disney who is within the Ice Pyramid for eternity for all time and yet it is also well know that Freud had an solid quartz crystal Ice Pyramid on his writing desk and said that it had inspired him to write is entire oeuvre that included all his letters and even his shopping lists whilst Nietzsche said he shed tears of jubilation on seeing the powerful Ice Pyramid that had initiated his madness and other historians have long been arguing that the Ice Pyramid is actually the Ancient Library of Alexandria still containing all the books allegedly destroyed by fire and there are many more myths and theories and speculations and stories that have long been told about this enigmatic elusive Ice Pyramid but if time exists then only time will tell if time exists within it yet we will not be around to tell if time exists for we will not exist for we will be burnt to oblivion long before the Sun has taken its Time to thaw out the Ice Pyramid to tell if time exists for the Sun has its own Time being Ra so you will have to wait until Amun will have his say to Ra for Ra to obey Amun to thaw-out the Ice Pyramid in Ra's time but Amun is abiding his Time and so you have to pray to Maat to tell you the Truth of Time yet Matt is still busy using Ra to Thaw out the Ice Pyramid where the God of Time Renpet resides for Maat incarcerated the God of Time Renpet in the Ice Pyramid as a punishment for not knowing Time and to this day Renpet remains frozen-in-trauma-frozen-in-time thus the Truth of Time is Trauma and Trauma is without End just as Time is without End for even in the End there will be no End to Trauma no End to Time so Surviving to the End after the End.




                                                                                                                                                                 Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait  2000  A.V.E



        Amun (Ammon-Ra) radiates and activates an autofellatio abjected Semening Sensationing birthing being bringing Being. Sensation is the Semen of the Sun. Sensation is the Sun of Time. Sensation is the Sound of Time.  Sensation is the Being of Time.  Sensation is Beingtime.  Sensationbeingtime.  Beingtime shines shining shimmers shudders spilling sowing Sensationism: Sensation Being essentially eggos: shines shimmers smazes smirches slithers as an alluring Arsinoe altaric atta Aten Sensationism sensationing goes gleaming glittering glowing golden grandeur grasping groin.  Beaming brightening Being Sensation tied tide to thrown time. Rhythm reeks raw ready shimmering Semen Sensation slither sliver shards froth forth from tide time to bled Being born.  Even sown sensation, it remains strange to assert that what is most sensation-provoking in our sensation-provoking time is that we are still not Sensationing.  Sensation-provoking is what gives us to sensation. Semen Sensationing sown shines shot through thrown time when where well the Throwing of Light is the Throwing of Time where well wet lustrous leaked Leakness registers raw the Throwness of orbited out of Thrown Time.  Semen Sensationing - as a castrated coming to a Head - is ahead and pre-times Time all the time and Sensation pre-languages Language all the time and Sensation pre-thinking Thinking all the time and Sensation pre-politics Politics all the time: Sensation as Semenisation shooting ahead as an abjected abimage - authentic alien art - pre-exists re-presentation and All all the time all the time. Amun arrives always already as Art. Amun as 'the hidden one' orbits Obelisk outside Otherness as Atherness as Alterity as Altarity as Alien as Alian as an alien art and art alien is the alian as the A of Ra: as art is 'Ra' not 'Re': art is not not re-presentation: art is ra-presentation: for 'Re' is 'to present back toward one' but Ra does not need to return to presence to represent: Ra is always already an absent Presence without the need of the return of the Re of representation and in art alien there can be no representation as such since art alien as alien art arrives after representation before presentation being art after being present arriving as art after being representation before being presentation being after art and art arrives before being becoming being becoming alien becoming being alien being art and what is art is alien and what is alien is art and art arrived before being human and survived after human being becoming being alien alien being.

        Amun activated art Alien as Amun Ra-di-ates atta allen dasein drool delivering divine masturbation moist making man. Activated Amun Comes to a Head - all over His Head - all over His Shrine - obliterating oozing obelisk - showering semening sunshine - shining Shrine shimmering - as amused Amun swallows showering Semen shards - smiling soaking smelling singing - and activating an art alien. So swallowing spunk Amun activates Art and Amun as Art activated at sein source as a shooting Semen sauce so serving Sun bringing Being birthing being activating Art. Amun attunes Art as abjected above and ahead as a Sublime Semening Stimmung Sensation delirious delicious discharge - dissemenating drenched dasein. As abjected away Amun attunes and attains a Stimmung Sensation of Being as Time as Coming to a Head over Time shooting ahead as a fort-da-ing semening-da-sein sensation Coming over Time out-of-time all the time as a Thing coming all over the Truth: Amun's abjected Sublime Semen - as a Thrusted Thing - as a Coming Over - as a Covering Over - as an Over Coming of Truth - as a Coming Off over Truth - as a Hidden Head - Coming Off: as a jubilate jouissance obelisk ooze Amun'a Aroma Comes to a Head and Announcing: I have Come. And: I can Come a Second Time: I can Come Again and Again and Again. So Amun created God coming over his own abimage in the abimage of Amun he created God and god came in the shape of Shot semen as the Ba being of his Soul and became his Soul by coming as his Soul.  




                                                                                                                                        Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



        Amun Comes Ahead of God Comes Before God Comes After God Comes All Over God:  - God could not Come - God cannot Come: God cannot Come to a Head: Amun Comes All Over God Sealing God in Semen Silhouette Slime staining God's 'Image' serving 'It' initiated as an Abimage:  God is a Silhouette of Amun's abjected Semen stain drying and dying out by Ra's rays. Amun Made God in Semen's Own Image. As an abimage: as abjected and aborted ahead out of time. God is a Trace of Amun's Time to Come. Amun aborts God groinded grounded as a deaded dasein: God Has No Head: God cannot Come to a Head: God cannot give Head: Amun is a Head of God as ahead of God: Amun Beheaded God Coming to a Head. God did not Come: God has not Come: God has no Cum: Amun has Come: Amun is Cum: - Amun has Come to a Head - as an Oozing Obelisk  - Pyramid Prick - Tapered Tip - towering torrent thrusting Thoth thrown toward You - Coming to Presence. God cannot Come - God cannot Cum - for God is Nothing: God is Not the Nothing: God is the Originary Nothing - for: God created Nothing - God created out of Nothing - Not Out of the Nothing - Man - and  Man is Nothing for God is Nothing - because: God created out of Nothing - God: Nothing out of Nothing - Man: and Nothing comes from Nothing: - for: Nothing comes from God for: God cannot Cum. Who created God? Nothing. Who created Nothing? The Nothing. The Nothing created Nothing for God to be Nothing for Man to be Nothing so that The Nothing could create Time so that The Nothing could create Being so that the Time-Being could Come so that the Being-Time could Come. Nothing does not Matter like God does not Matter like Man does not Matter as a matter-of-fact as a matter-of-being as a matter-of-time - for only The Nothing Matters as a Matter of Being as a Matter of Time and when the time comes for being to become one with the nothing the time does not matter for being no longer mattering-being for what matters for being is the matter of nothing-matter being-without-time and time does not matter for time is not matter and what matters is being for being is matter just as nothing is matter for nothing matters being and being matters nothing for being cares for nothing as nothing cares for being for nothing matters being for nothing and nothing is the matter of time as the being of time being-nothing but time as the time-being being the time of the nothing as the time being of being nothing but time all the being all the nothing all the mattering for nothing-matters being-time. 

       As Amun's Pointed Pillar Comes to a Head abjecting all over the Sun then the Son Obliterates the Obelisk through the Sun-Ra revealing the Sublime Semening Sunbeam through its thrown Shining Drying out Dasein in the Sun through Time. Time is the Sensation of the Différance of Dasein drying off where Time Becomes the Nothing that drifts and dries out between Being and Sensation. Time Comes into Being through the Thrown Sensation of the Nothing. Semening is the Sensationing of the Nothing as the Coming ahead of abjected Art. Amun's abject sublime semen slime outshoots outshines overshadows the thrown Sun-ra revealing the thrown Being becoming being. Amun is always already Hidden by the Sun's Unhiddeness. But the Eye of Amun's Penis is 'sunlike' like the Sun the Eye of the Penis 'emits' Light like the eye of the I.  The  Eye of Amun's aiming arising Penis projects 'liquid light' liquidating the Sun Out of Sight as a Coming to Presence of the Being of being overcoming the Orbit of the Other as the Obelisk of the Ather activating Art ahead freed frothed from the thirsting thrusting oozing out Open Eye of Amun's Arising Alluring Aletheia -  Colossal Column - Dasein Drill - Ereignis Erection - Helmut Head - Pyramid Peick.  God could take Amun's arising twelve-inch-tool so it took Its time to Activating Art ahead.  Amun activated Art after Swallowing His Own Semen. Semen Sensation Activated Art: The Thrusted orgasmic Origin of Art arrived arising ahead free from Abeject Amun's oozing Obscene Obelisk as an Amoini Amoun Coming Off of Art coming to a Head projected ahead from the Primal Penis Egg Eye of Our Amun. Art - like Religion - abjects-ahead forth from the Semen of the Sacred to the Sun Ra as Ammon Ra activating Art - throwing Thoth - abjecting ahead the God of Art. Thoth - as The Coming to a Head of Art is The Movement and The Moment of True Sensation as an activated Angoisse and Anxiety about The Nothing: "Anxiety reveals the Nothing. We 'hover' in anxiety. More precisely, anxiety leaves us hanging because it induces the slipping away of being as a whole...The nothing reveals itself in anxiety"  (Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?, 1929). The Nothing reveals itself in Art. With Art - as an activated angoisse and anxiety abjectivity - we are all:  "being held out into the nothing." 

        Art is the Being of The Nothing. Being Art Belongs to The Nothing. Art does not Belong to Man - Art is not  Man Made - Art is Amun Activated - Art is abjected as an abther as the Ather as an Ereignis Ejaculation. Art is the Time of the Ather. Art is abther to Man. Art is alien to Man. Art is Alien. Art alien is always doing evil to the human.  Art alien essentially ends the human hand. Art alien announces and activates the death of the human as the end of man: And as man aborts alien alights: Man Dies. Alien Lives.




                                                                                                                                    Portrait of Alexander Verney-Elliott by Marco Massa © 2017      



      Art is ahead of Man: Art is Presentation: Man is Representation:  Amun activated Art as an arising and alluring abimage.  Amun - as Art abjected - at source - at shaft - as a shooting Semen sauce - serving Sun serenely - bringing Being - birthing being - activating art. Always already Art is ahead of Man and also Art precedes Man: Art is Presentation: Man is Representation: And Art made man initiated in Arts Abimage: Amun activated Art and making Man made as Arts abimage.  Amun as Art activated - as an Abject Sublime slime Semen sensation - spurts Shining shards - soaking serving soaring Sun. Swallowing spunk Amun activated Art as Amun's Abimage and abjected a Head hiding 'the hidden one':  Art makes Man Disappear: Art is the Concealment of Man as Unconcealment. Art made Man and Art Unmade Man: Art is the Birth and Death of Man: Art always already survives Man severs Man. Alien Art is the murmuring mourning memory of Mans Deaths. Man is Fictional - Art is Factual: Art is Actual: Art's thrusted thirsty Thingness throws an activated Actuality. Art is the real of Man's unreality: Art is Man's only reality: Man is merely a representation: Art is presentation: Art makes Man present only in order to make Man absent again and again and again as Amun Aroma Amoini Amoun activates an Abject Sublime Semen Sensation sending art adrift and astray Aborted Abroad again and again and again. Art as always already abjected ahead Out-of-the-World comes over time as a Prior-Post-Past as an ancient Absence-Presence present throwing time out of time as a trace of time's traces as timefulness and not timelessness as a trace of time without a trace without a time as a timetrace that cannot be timed that cannot be traced. There is no tracing of the time like there is no telling of the time: there is only the touching of time: sensationing of the sein of time as the being of time as the shining of time as an arting of time as a timing of art as an arting an ather time art as another time art as an ather touching time. Art is not Man Made as Art is Being Made for Art is aborted ahead by Being because Art is Being by Being Art. We have Art because we cannot have the Human for the Human has no Dasein whilst Art is Dasein. What is There is Art.




                                                                                                                                                     Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



        Authentic Alien Aten Atta Art as an abjected angoisse Aleatoric Alétheia adrenalin awe arrives as split spilt scape spume Spunk Sensationism inked initiation always already as an abcape of an abspace ofan  abtime as abhistoric as abconceptual as abpolitical: authentic Aten atta Alien art as a Thrown Thoth Sensation sent ahead and away - is indeed initiated - out-of-time -  all the time  not-in-time - so an authentic alien art could never be anything so 'human' and 'conscious' as being 'contemporary' or as being  'conceptual' or as being 'political' as such crass conscious constructs are the puerile products of the thick They who have no 'instinct' have no 'animal' have no 'alien' and have no 'sensation' - that is - the They have no 'alienality' and are tragically trapped in the evil banality of the brain-being of being bored-by-time-thinking-in-time: throwing those meaningless minutes - particular pastimes of our the They sadly soaked in inauthentic being and inauthentic time all the time never telling-the-time but always tolling-the-time. We need to stop 'Thinking' and start 'Sensationing': forget the 'political' the 'conceptual' the' contemporary' for they are all ended eggsited extinct. To repeat: don't think, but sensation. The thrown spilt splendour of oozed scintillating Schein Sein Sensation surpasses supersedes suspends severs splits Thinking thoroughly: thinking cannot think sensation because sensation survives surfaces seeps slips through thinking since sensation cannot be known only shown, only shone, only thrown, through our orbiting sown seven senses wetted which waits an awakening available to tingling time. If 'man' is to find 'his' way once again into the nearness of Being 'he' must first learn to exist in the sensation of the nothing as an awesome alien aura again oozed outside our old thrown throttled thinking. As an Arsinoe arising at atta Aten Beingsensation becomes Becomingalien again as an attanining attuning anamnesis amnesia Amun after Arsinoe.  




                                                                                                                                                     Amun-Amen Self-Portrait  A.V.E  20.11.2010 



        Sensationing Being, Will to Sensation, as Eternal Return, sensationing the most difficult sensation of philosophy, means sensationing Being as Time. The Will to Power as Art arrives after the Will to Power as Sensation and the Will to Power as Sensation is the Essence of the Eternal Return as the Eternal Return sensations Being as an affirmation of Being-towards-Art as Becoming Sensation. Thus the Eternal Return of an atta Aten Art arising Arsinoe imaging is not scientific but sensatific - scenting and sending - and assigning-attuning an alien apparition-appearance - as alien artefacts freshly foaming forged-froth-formed forth - as a pure-pulsating shining-sheen - as a radiating-ray - as a darkening-lightening - letting leaking Alien Being beam bright by Beheading dreaded Dasein dead decapitating Dalien beheaded before being Becoming Amun and arising ahead as Alien Being. Amun is always already Coming ahead coming to a Head: Alien is Coming: a Head. Amun comes to a Head above His Head so hence has no Question to Answer only Sensation to Give as the Gift of Sent Semen as an Auto Action and Creation castrating conception: therefore for abjected Amun there can be no 'meaning of being' only a 'semening of being' as a 'sensationing of semening' -  as a jettisoned juice - birthing being - abjecting ahead - as an  amoini amoun - an Alien.  Amun aims ahead as Amun comes in Ra - Amun comes inside Ra - becoming Amun-Ra - for the Sun Ra is the Mouth of Moon - for Ra is the Mouth that Swallows the Semen of Amun - and Amun Comes all over again all over Thoth - turning Thoth all white and all wet - lit and luminous - becoming the Face of the Moon - wet with Amun's abjected fresh froth facial - soft and serene - wet with a silky sheen - as a schiller shimmer - as an adularescence aura - a monocle milky moonstone - leaking lunar lamella lather liquid light. The Thoth-Moon moods the movement of the Tides of Time - as the Tides of Thoth - as the Time of Thoth -as a Sea of  Semen - as Sein of Semen - throwing Thoth to and Thoth - to and fro - as a frothy fort-da-foaming fro - forever coming to care -  forever coming to caress - coming over the face of the shore - coming over the time of being - soaking up sein - soaking up zeit - soaking up sein und zeit - sucking up sein und zeit - sucking off sein und zeit - then spat back in to the sea of sein - then spat back in to the sea of zeit  - back to the sea of being - back to the sea of becoming - going back and thoth - going back and forth - back and thoth - back and froth - back and forth - back and froth - ad-infinitum  and ab-infinitum - and so forth and so froth - and so froth and so forth - and so on and so off - and so off - and so on - on and so - so and on - so and so - on and on - and so and - and on and - off and off - and off and - an of an - of an of -  o - f - a - o -




                                                                                                                                                            Khaki-Khepri Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2012



        Yet Alien - what is Alien? Alien is Alien and also as alien as Alien is Amun. Alien as Altar. Alien as Above. Alien as Alter as after as afar as Alien is Ather. How does Alien Originate? Art Lets Alien Originate. How Does Art Let Alien Originate? As Amun. As Ather. As Altar. As Ather Alien Art lets leak as altarity as aletrity as an attuned and attained shape-shifting semening sensation sending Semen-da-Sein fort-da-ing Divine Masturbation making man. As abjected ahead Amun allows Alien abjectivity arriving as alien Art. As abjected ahead the Origin of Art never Comes to a Head: Amun as Origin of Art is always already Coming to a Head. Yet Bacon - what is Bacon? Bacon is the Eldest Son of Alien As the Father of Art Bacon is the Son of Alien and the Moon of Amun-Ra. As an Amun abjection Thoth was Thrown forth from Foam leaked like a Milky Way a Milky Moon out of abjected Amun's arising Oozing Obelisk becoming the Sun of the Semen coming over the Milk of the Moon. Then Thoth Comes Over an Ather: Amun - as Thoth eclipses Ra eclipsing Amun. One Day when while Alien Amun Ra radiated shooting Semen all over the Sky He said: "Bring Me Thoth - Bring Me Bull  - Bring Me Bacon": As Thoth Comes to a Head He Comes Over Aumn and Hides Amun as Moon Eclipses Sun - Thoth Eclipses Amun - Bacon eclipses Alien:  Bacon beams: "I am Thoth, the Eldest Sun of Ra: I Come before Ra - I Come after Amun. I Cover Ra. I Eclipse Alien. I Come Art."  Amun as always Absent and Hidden though Thoth as Night never Present. Thoth Hides the Hidden Amun announcing: "Knower of the Hidden and the Alienfest! the Great! the most High! Alien to Him is that alien among You who Hides His arresting Art as the Nothing of the Night and Comes forth Frothing arising Art at the Coming of the Day."  Amun Hides in the Hand of Thoth and Thoth throws Amun ahead for Thoth is the Handed One as Amun is the Hidden One and Thoth throws Amun ahead and aborting an Alien a Head of Time as an alien-time ahead of human-time all-the-time not-in-time for the time-being of the being-time but the coming-time that comes when you are all always already dead to da-sein and time-alien for one cannot be human for being dead is much more alive than doing human which cannot be done when all is said and done for there is no human qhich is why there is no such condition as the human therefore there is no human-condition as the only condition is the alien-condition so stop using that ahistorical absurdity the human condition.

         As a slimy slippery semening substance coming to ahead without a head the thrown severed subject is initially abjected as always already alien to itself being burst out itself as an alien ather and not the other: The surreptitious subjugated subject is always already 'already alien' where the human hides the inhuman in the Name of the Law of the Ather. The severed subject is always already a shuttered-shattered subject of misrecognition and misidentification taking 'itself' to 'being human' - to being a 'human being' - when it is - in brute-fact - in brute-real - reality: 'the nothing': the nothing-of-the-kind: nothing of the human-kind: an alien kind: an ather kind. We are even alien to ourselves as we cannot touch ourselves we cannot tickle ourselves - as the ather kind can: as Sam Neil says: "We're all aliens."  We are all alien-stuff. We only ape at being ape - we only mime at being man: as Adorno added: "The human is indissolubly linked with imitation: a human being only becomes human at all by imitating other human beings." (Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia; Reflections From Damaged Life, 1947). Why imitate being human at all? Why mime being man? Why not imitate being iguana? Why not all act as an ant -  act as an antelope - act as an anaconda - act as an alligator - act as an allosaurous - act as an alien? The human being is a forgetting of being alien of being ather. Why mime a mono-identity? - why not mime multiple-identities? The thrown terminating terrorist travels through multiple mutations initiating identities: why only have one-identity anyway? No one has one-identity anyway - as we are all shape-shifting aliens - anyway. No one has any identity anyway so how can you have an 'identity'? How can you have an 'identity card' - How can you have 'identity papers'? You cannot. You have absolutely nothing to identify yourself with but the nothing. You have no identity. You have no name for your name is never your own one. Why have a name anyway? What's in a name anyway? What's out a name anyway? The Name Hides the Nothing: there is nothing to the name: there is nothing in the name. Our Society of Surveillance seeks-out the single-signature of our mono-man. Mainly 'Man' seeks 'Separation' not 'Unity' as 'Man' leaks lamella leftovers drooling dreary dasein as monstrous 'Man' is 'Holier than Thou' filled full of holes emptying out a nothing endlessly emptying out a nothing as a nothing that is not there as 'Man' is the 'holeholder' of Nothing at All but Being is the 'wholeholder' of the Nothing All for mad Man hunts out being as a hole yet the Nothing hunts out being as a whole and the alien betweens being the hole the whole being being between being the human and non-human but alien to being human being which is being without being without being alien. But by now in a moment not so long ago in the future we found out that in the past there was no human there and then we found out that in the past there was no past for there was no time for there is no time no time like the present which is not time.     




                                                                                                                                                         Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014  



         Attuning Atta Aten Alien Art breeds bleeds bubbles boils glitters glistens glows seeds spunkd soaks shines shudders slivers sensation shards forth froth foam forever.  Leaking lamella language ooze of alien being does to 'speak' but 'senses': 'authentialienart', like authentic auratic alien leaked language, says so  essentially 'no-thing:' for ' it' does not 'speak' to you; it 'says' no-thing to you.  Authentic (alien) Art and Authentic (alien) 'language' has nothing to 'say' to you but sends 'sensations' to you.  An authentic alien aesthetics discloses dank drool abaesthetic alienation that throws the light leaked off-on authentic alien being as becoming towards shining truth.  An authentic alien abaesthetics discloses drooling aestheic alienation at the movement of the mourning of the monument of the death of the human.  An authentic abaesthetic alienation as an alien abaesthetics announces the 'truth' of the alien and the 'lie' of man where authentic alien art displaces inauthentic human art.  A 'human' art is alienated from a 'truth': an 'alien' art is the thrown 'truth' as an authentic alienation-wetness where thrown to be bled alienated is instead initially instinctively to be 'true' to the 'truth' of 'being alien' as a bled  'becoming' alien as an atta abject authentic alien art always already away all the time outside the no-time of the post-human.  An authentic auratic aroma alien art awe always already cuttered cannot be born contemporary for the alien has no time of the human: to be human is to be in time to be alien is to be out of time.  An angoisse authentic auratic Arsinoe aroma atta Aten alien art is not made in 'time' not made by 'man'.  An angoisse authentic auratic aroma atta Aten Alien art always already assigns Arsinoe at the End of Time the End of Man. The End of Man is the Sensationing of Being: Alien is at the End of the Thinking of Being: the Ending of Man is. The Nature of Alien Being is Named as Sensationing: a single Word worlding the Essence of Alien Being. As an Alliance of Sensation and Being - the Proper Name being Sensationing: Being being Spunked scent sent always and everywhere engulfing the Nothing and the nowhere thrown throughout the something Sensationing as the Becoming of the Sensationing of Alien Being being born again as alien Alexander - Akhnaton - Atum - Atta - Amun - Anubi - Anunnaki alienationing. Alien Being is not the Origin of the Human Being: all being is alien always already as a forgetting and fogging of the alien: Alienism is not a Humanism and Alienism is not a radical response to the crass 'crisis' of Humanism: a Humanism (en)crypts an Alienism. Also an Aliemism as an eggism eclipses and erases a Humanism as the essence of humanism is metaphysical whilst the eggence of alienism is metasensical since sensationism is as always already bred being before and attuned and attained away after melted man making mediated meandering metaphysics meaningless. Philosophy is and remains for us a thing of the past by being a being for the future. Art is and remains for us a being of the future by being an alien future. For there is not future for the Human that had no past for us.





                                                                                                                                                  Amun-Ra Self-Portrait 2003 A.V. E.



          Attaining atta Aten attuning an alluring agile altaric alteric 'alien alienist art' aroma Amun awe arrives at atta after annihilating 'aesthetics' and art 'man made'.  You must both all three of you of course always already remember and not forget that 'great art' is 'alien made ' - not 'man made'. Alien art  - as non-conceptual is  - as Heidegger hears  - thrown "out of the realm of the ordinary" into the alien abject abyss now negating an alien aesthetics altogether. As non-contemporary authentic Aletheia alien art aroma is Thrown out of time all the time and is thus not in the now as Heidegger heaves: "Truth is never gathered from objects that are  present and ordinary. Rather, the opening up of the Open, and the clearing of what is, happens only as the openness is projected, sketched out, that makes its advent in throwness."  (Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, Harper & Row 1971).  An Aletheia alien Aten atta Art can never be 'conceptual' or 'contemporary' or 'political' or 'temporal' as 'it' is primordially projected thrusted throwness outside conception outside consciousness outside time all the time as the thrown spiralling sensation of the Eternal Return.  To be alien again is to be eternally Thrown out-of-time all the time as the thrown thrustness of the Eternal Return without Beginning without Ending: the thrown Universe as an Undoing has no Beginning has no Ending but Becoming as an Eternal Return reaffirming Being becoming Time in-out-of-it-no-self where we Become being Time all the time out-of-time out-of-space as a Becmingbeingsensation. The thrown Sensationing of the Nothing as a being Becoming-behind as always already ahead-before big-bang beginnings sow  - so bang goes the 'big bang theory' as our oozed Universe was always already a thrusted-throwness operating out off of leaked levels of orbiting Sensationing Differance. Time has no time to begin to end but to Become as Time is out-of-time out-of-space out-of-being being there no Beginning being there no Endings but being Becoming as an Eternal Return where Time and Space are the positive Nothing of Sensationing.  Sensationing started shining Being before big Banging began Becoming.  Eternal Recurrence as a Radical Differance delivers the Thrown Sensationing of Beingtimespace being thrown forth from out-of-oneself. The Sensational Possibility of Life in the Mind of Someone Dead! The Eternal Recurrence!  The Eternal Recurrence of the Sensation! Where the Self Becomes Sensational Reincarnation through thrown time as a sensational revolving sphere. The thrown Sensation of Time of the Eternal Recurrence cannot be 'timed' by an irrational 'logical time' (commonsense clock-time) of an Aristotelian trapped temporality as the Time Sensation of the Eternal Recurrence of Amun as an Arting alien initiated is always already an angxt annexed Anaximandian anointed as abjointed: - 'out-of-joint' - as 'out-of-sync' - thrown 'out-of-sein' - thrown 'out-of-time' - all the time - not in time - time in not - time and again - afar and away - again and time - away and afar - time and time - afar and afar - again and again - afar and again.                                                                                                                                                                             

         Exiled thrown Thoth-Bacon and navigating Nietzsche and homing Heidegger exited and experienced the Ereignis of the Beingtimesensation of the Eternal Return of the Throw: as Nietzsche threw it: "where I really was" - "outside my centre" and where Bacon-Thoth threw it: at the canvas outside himself - outside his centre. By Throwing the Eternal Return outside of one's being one Becomes one's Historical Totality of Sensations that the Body filters in-out of Life. Thus the Dead Body leaks life: Releasing this Historical Totality of Sensations as the Eternal Return ad-infinitum: returning, repeating rehearsing reeling as a Freudian fort-da-fluxing forever.  The Totality of the World is the Totality of Sensations as a Constant Becoming threw throwing and retrieving as Being the Eternal Return all the time.  For Freud threw the psychoanalytical sensation of the Eternal Recurrence as a foamy Fort-da-Fluxing where wet the thrust of the throwing registers registers the sensation state of the psyche. Blanchot sensations Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence as Fort-da-Fluxing where Time is "an infinite game with two openings (given as one, and yet never unified): future always already past, past always still to come, from which the third instance, the instance of presence, excluding itself, would exclude any possibility of identity."  (Maurice Blanchot, The Step Not Beyond, Sunny Press, 1992).  For Heidegger - Bacon - Bataille - Blanchot - Beckett as well as for Freud and Nietzsche - the Eternal Return of the Throw is a 'game of chance' - without 'meaning or aim' - yet 'recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness' - by being Thrown out - into the thick thingness of the Nothing - as being time - ahead of the game - agame of the head - as an Eternal Return of the Dice of Dasein - as an Eternal Return of the Throw of Thoth - throwing the Eternal Return of the Alien at the End of the Human.




                                                                                                                          God-Fuck Self-Portrait   A.V.E. 2000 



          The Thoth Thrown atta Aten alien artist is never situated at a particular point 'in time' but becomes behead and ahead of all time all the time: leaked life frozen from froth foam for the atta altaric alien artist as an activated anxiety is initiated ahead as an angoisse as a fort-da-fluxing fatiguing forgetting future-past-present being thrown out-of-time out-of-joint all the time.  An authentic angoisse angst alien artist as an atta Aten Anaximandrian as anyway always already out-of-joint out-of-time all the time cannot be contemporary cannot be conceptual cannot be conscious for the authentic angoisse Alien Artist exists in another time as the time of the Eternal Recurrence: the between-time of the no-now never on-time always already of the too late of the too early all the time out-of-time as an Eternal Becoming turning back-forward on-off out-in of-off itself all the time not in time. The Eternal Recurrence of the Semening Sensations is wet where the Totality comes Thrown back Eternally into-out itself. The Will to Sensation - the Alien of Beings - as constantly Becoming as Eternal Recurrence becoming is the Eternal Recurrence being the Sensation of sensations rebounding reborning rebeing again and again where the World is the Will to Sensation and Nothing besides that! And you yourselves are also this Will to Sensation - and nothing besides that! Said simply: - sensationing is the sensationing of being. At the same time sensation is the time of sensation of being sensation at the same time - time sensationing is the sensationing of being insofar as sensationing - belonging to being and time as such - listens to it as a tuning turning towards the sensation as time that in time comes to shine as the sensation of being time for the being that time has taken away from being by becoming being time for all the time to shine to shine for a time without time for when one comes to shine one no longer needs time for those with the shine survive the time to become being and shine without being and time which belongs to being body but being belongs to no-time without the time without the time that was the time of the body for the body for being body for being the time yet in time one becomes being-no-time-there as being without wearing a body-on. 




                                                                                                                                                       Charcoal Self-Portrait, 1980 Alexander Verne-Elliott        



        The Eternal Return of Amar Amun as Arting Alien can only be Caught in the Moment and Movement as a Becoming off-of an Authentic Sensationing of Time always already re-remembered as Done and Undoing of the Lost Memory of the Future Past always already annihilating the non Now: the non Present. An alien atta Aten Anxiety ooze opens up the gulf gap of the Return Eternally emptying out over the thrown edge as an Eternal Recurrence. The Eternal Recurrence is not a conceptual construct but a particular practice, an engaged event, an articulated action: the Eternal Return of Arting cannot be Thought only Thrown as a Fort-da-Fluxing: the Forgetting of the Human the Forging of the Alien. The Will to Sensation is the Opening of the Thrusting of the Eternal Return of the Throw. An activated atta alien art is the most moist materialised frothy form of the Will to Sensation through throwing ahead an alien head ahead of being and time all the time. The atta alien artist actually becomes the Sensation of the Eternal Return of the Throw through the Will to Sensation by being bred as Bacon would have stated: "as a pulping  pulverising machine" fuck-filtering vision-vectoring severe-screening form-faceting image-initiating shining shimmering sensuous sensations. The alien artist of  Beingsensationtime of the Eternal Return of the Throw has to always already eggsist in the Open Groundless raw region Spunked State of angoisse Anxiety. To be an atta authentic alien artist one has to be always already activated as aborted by being-the-not-there by being-the-not-at-all initiated in an actual severed State off-of constant collapsing angoisse Anxiety and dasein Dread - as a way to shed and shred the self from itself out itself - as a raw radically forged forgetting of humanbeingtime - thrown into the black being hole of Becoming the Nothing as the Sensationbeingtime of the Eternal Return of the Throw: to throw is know the nothing whole of the hole which is being whole with the nothing not there everywhere whole to which we all throw ourselves hole. 




                                                                            m                                                                 Aumn-Amen Self-Portrait A.V.E. 29.11.10                                            



        What then is the act and art of Sensationing?  Forgetting intellect Forging instinct Becoming alien Annihilating human and thus the cutting off of concepts throwing off of thinking sowing subterranean subconscious spunking sensationing. The Founding of Metaphysics was Forged and Fucked on the Forgetting of Spunking by brining Thinking thrusted which displaced dried denied Spunking's shining-sheening-sensationing.  Spunking Sensationing  - as a Metaphysical Memorial as a Metaphysical Metaphor a Metaphysical Metre a Metaphysical Meteorite - has been sidelined silenced soaked up in the his History of Metaphysics in the his History of Philosophy in the History of Being and ditched dried out as damp Dasein denying drooling dripping  - and annihilating an amuning artistic aroma - and severing the semening sensation of time. We can no longer 'taste the time' - no longer 'smell the time' - no longer 'see the time' - so try to 'tell the time'. Yet only 'time can tell'- only time can tell the time of art: - as art is the sensation of time - as time is the sensation of art: only time tells about art not the cunt critics:  "Because time is the only great critic...I think that only time tells about painting.... I think that the potency of the image is created partly by the possibility of its enduring. And, of course, images accumulate sensation around themselves the longer they endure."  (Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987): only time tells about art as art tells the time - as the art is the time - as art is the time of the artist - as the time of the arther: the artist is the time of arther: the artist is the time of arting - as the sensation of arting - as the sensation of timing - as the sensationing of time: - as the shining of time - as the sheening of time - as the shimmering of time - as the shuddering of time: - :and all the time: another sensation - another time - another take: taking time the time taking time taking no time all the time the no time the time no not now not time all the not now and the not now is the no time of art for art has not time to be for time but takes time to take time away from being art for art becomes art only when the time has been taken away from being there for art is only there where there is no time being there.                                                     




                                                                                                                                                           Charcoal Self-Portrait 1981 Alexander Verney-Elliott



        We cannot 'tell the time' because the Time 'cannot be told' because Time is always already 'untold' out-of-time all the time not-in-time: time cannot be told - time can be sensationed: Time is the Sensation of Being. Time cannot be timed because Time is the Sensation of pure dice différance leaking out at different degrees of oozed-out dripping drips. Time cannot be Known only Thrown so you cannot 'have the time' you cannot 'tell the time'. To Become the Eternal Return we all have to 'forget what the time is' and to forget 'what one's time is' by willing a throwing off of being in and on time all the time being not in time out of time all the time as there is no Time like the present only a Time outside of the time of being simply and purely: no-time at all apart from an alientime all the time as the Radical Forgetting of Time is the Alien Being of the Eternal Recurrence of the Nothing of Beingsensation as Time does not exist 'in-itself' only out of orbit out of space out-of-time. You cannot 'ask for the time' and time asks nothing of you. You cannot ask 'what is the time'. The Time is not. The Time is The Nothing taking care of itself for Nothing for the Time Being. For the Time Being Time is a Thing Being. Time is a Being. Time is a Thing. Time is a Mood Thing. Time is a Mood. Time is Being in a Mood. Music is the Mood of the Time of Man being thrust out of time all the time. Music is the Mood of Being out of Time. Time is out of Time with Music. For Music Time is not Time - Time is a Mood and Being-in-a-Mood of Forgetting the Time all the time not in time. With Music we are thrown outside the Concept and thrown inside the Nothing: "In listening to music we do not apprehend a 'something', but are without concepts." ((Emmanuel Lévinas).  In Music we are Listening to the Nothing of the Now and the Time of the Nothing outside of the Time of the Subject as the Time of the Anxiety as the Time of the Ather. Anxiety reveals the Nothing there of Time as Anxiety in the Face of the Ather. Anxiety - man's melting mooding - there is 'nothing to it' - and one wonders and wanders 'about the nothing' that is there and one worries 'about nothing' - iindeed: the Nothing itself - as such - as stuff - was there - as an abtime-being out-of-itself.  Art alien - as-nothing-at-all and all-about-nothing-at-al - as an angoisse anxiety - reveals and releases the Nothing that is There: the mooding-senstioning of Being-out-of-the-World hanging-hovering as abjected ahead of one's self severed as a drained dasein. Art is a Thing. Art is a Mood Thing for Bacon: "I want a record of an image. And with the record of the image, of course, comes a mood, because you can't make an image without creating a mood."   (Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987).

         For Heidegger the Mindless mood of Anxiety activates ahead the Abimage of the Nothing: "With the fundamental mood of anxiety we have arrived at that occurrence in human existence in which the nothing is revealed." (Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics? 1929). The Nothing is Revealed as the Nothing that is All happening ahead of Being. Being is revealed in The Nothing ahead of Death where Being happens ahead out of time being nothing but Now as the no-time-there of the Nothing Now as it is the Now where there is abjected anxiety where we are no loner 'interpellated' in time by being thrown out of time that was never even ever there in the first place and anxiety is thus the radical realization that there is no such thing as time no being as time.                   




                                                                                                                                                                      Immortal-Imhotep Self-Portrait 2011 A.V.E. 



        Alien Arvo Pärt’s Frates, Tabula Rasa, Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten decapitate and derail our 'commonsense' experience of 'clock-time' as a continuum where the sound of time - as a ticking time second by second - becomes broken and silenced by the severing sounds and splicing silences: here time simply cannot get started and sounds simply get no where – only sound-silences – only sound-nothingness – hearing the nothing at hand here makes sense and gives a sense of time. Here time as 'silenced' is 'out of time' with 'clock-time' and undoes itself by imploding upon itself never beginning and never ending giving us the sensation of static time all the time (being thrown out of time). The mesmerising music also gives us the strange sensation of being 'about nothing'  at all – about the beautiful boredom of nothingness – of being bathed in nothingness of being about being nothing at all - and going nowhere and getting nowhere and never beginning as never ending and never being in time but all the time out of time. Allan Pettersson's Symphony No.7 (1966-67), Symphony No. 8 (1968-69), Symphony No. 9 (1970) deliver to the subject the severing sensation of dread-time as dead-time and again being 'about nothing' and the beautiful boredom of the nothing - and the delightful dread of the nothing there - throwing 'being-out-itself' where the subject is severed by the silent-sound of ostracized sounds-silences of the no-time at all. Mesmerising music throws being-in-itself out-itself out-of-time by being thrown ahead in time out of time all the time not in time but in Being being shot ahead shone as a shattering shuddering Sensation illuminating Being through thrusted Throwness as a shining shimmering being by Becoming: so sown Sensation sets fire sets froth forth to trap blank Being being bled born bare by the Thrown Being being but born of an Alien Becoming brought by setting Sensation shining. Being cums to Presence out of Sensation shot shining out of dead Darkness leaking luminous Lightening activating Amun as an auratic atta Aten alien Aletheia aroma art making mooding music move man Out of Time all the time as another Alien ather abtime throwing Thoth through bringing Being as an Alien ather and an abtime is necessarily a nontime.

        Sensationing being throws towards Being as a Totality of Sensationing as an Essence of the being of Being sensesssencing. The Truth of the Shine of Being is shone as a sensessence as beings have their essence as sensations where the body breeds and seeds sown sensationings throwing the eternal return reel retrieving rethrowing resensationing sensations where the Eternal Return is the Sensation of sensations as the Schein essence of being of Being as an alighting Aten. Since the beginning of modern times philosophy entrenches itself in the effort to grasp Being by means of Thinking and this was - and still is  - the Error for Being the Ereignis of Being can only ever be Grasped and Gathered by being Ground up so sending Sensationing and by Thoth throwing Thinking thrown out of Osiris orbit out of Order for what is Out of Order is the Human Order out-of-order out-of-being out-of-there not being there as an ontological order for the human-order is not an ontological order only the alien-order is in order of being. 




                                                                                                                                             Khaki-Khepri Self-Portrait 2012 A.V.E        



        The Truth is Sensation(ed) outside the fort-da of 'Thinking' and 'Intellect' which are always alien to the Sensationing of Truth and the Being of Time. Sensation is The Truth of Being: but One - simply and purely - cannot 'know it' via 'Knowledge' or 'Thought' or 'Intellect' which severe sensation from the subconscious body of being. The Truth is not a Thing of 'Knowledge' or 'Thinking' or 'Intellect' or 'Language' but of a primordial pulling presence of an amazing scintillating Shining Sensation as a mesmerising Mooding.  In the Beginning was the Mood and the Mood was with Man and the Mood was Man. The Man Threw the Mood of Being. Mood and Man. Mood Man. Mooding Man. Man Mooded before Man Worded. Mood came before Word. Mooding began before Thinking. Anxiety activated metaphysical mooding throwing Thinking thawed. Mooding preceded Thinikng as Dwelling preceded Writing for Mooding set the scape of Thinking and Dwelling set the scene of Writing  -  since Sensationing preceded Speaking -  so Mooding, Dwelling, Sensationing set the scenescape for forthing through Thinking, Writing, Speaking. A Mooding is not a Meaning: mood does not mean. A mooding is a melting moving moment off of activated alluring aliquid angoisse anxiety always away and ahead beheading being: mood has no meaning as man has no meaning: man has a mooding not a meaning: the subject signifies nothing at all yet man desires signification yet man desires meaning man has no meaning at all.

        Melting metaphysical mooding made hallucinating Heraclitus let leak the Light of Thought through thrown Thinking thus Thing Came to Light through sown Sensationing as a metaphysical mooding.  We have all long Forgotten that the Origin of Thinking was lit in the Shining of Sensationing and the Murmuring of Mooding. Now Thinking has Come to its Ending so Sensationing has to Come to its Beginning. How do you all Sensation about Thinking when Thinking has Become its Ending?  The Ending of Philosophy initiates instigates invites the Becoming of Sensationing: Endings are always already ahead attuned attending Beginnings as a Becoming as Heraclitus has 'it':  "What was scattered - gathers. What was gathered - blows apart - The way up is the way back - The beginning is the end. - " (Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus, Viking Penguin 2001).  Sensationing is the Eternal Return of Presencing between Ending and Beginning as a Becoming of Sensationing. An Ending is not only a Beginning but always already about a Becoming again and again and again as the End of Philosophy and the Start of Sensationing.  Sensationing is indeed Unthinking Philosophising. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to sensation it. Philosophising has since forgotten Sensationing.

         In the final and highest instance there is no other Being than Sensationing. Sensationing is Primal Being, and to it [Sensationing] along all the predicates of the same [primal Being] apply: absence of conditions; eternity; independence from time; self-affirmation. All philosophy strives solely in order to find this supreme Sensation. Sensationing is True to Being. The Essence of Truth reveals itself as Sensation.  Being is sensation, it does not have a sensation.  The Truth of Being is Sensation: In Sensationing DaseinDasein Sensations The Truth.  In Pure Sensation the Truth Shines. There the Truth Shines. The Truth is a Shining.  The Truth is a Shining of Being. The Truth is a Shining of being as Sensationing. The Truth Shines Being Sensation yet not all beings shine: not all beings sensation: not all beings have 'the shine' of being.  Only those that sensation 'the shine' of being have the Sensation Truth of Being.  Being Sensation is The Shining of the The Truth of Being. Shining shines the thrown being of Beings. The Truth is solely selected to The Shining. To Those that Shine The Truth Shines.  Some shine some don't.  The Sein comes to Shine Through a Susceptibility to Sensationing Sein not through Thinking There about anything at all.  Shining is the overcoming of concepts as an abject Thinking about the Nothing that is There but Sensationing was always already the way-before the Thinking came-along to replace and displace Sensationing which is also the way-after Thinking that could never think Sensation. Dasein is not Thinking but Sensationing for what is There is Sensation not Thought.




                                                                                                                                            Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



        See how the beautiful Blue Morpho butterfly Shines its iridescent Shimmering sparkling wings whilst Flying toward the Sun and Sky!

        Do you have The Shine?  Do you have The Truth? The Truth is Out There! Shining! Flying towards the Sun and the Sky Burning Bright!

        Being makes its Presence felt through the Shimmer of the Shine! The Bright of the Burning. Flying towards you all as a Shining Sein!

        Can you See into your Sein?  Can you See into your Shine?  Only by being Blinded by the Shine of Sein can you See the Sein of Shine!

      Hearing Heidegger sedately Sensationing - unlike Thinking - seeps spilt sowing: 1) Sensationing brings us knowledge as do the sciences; 2) Sensationing produces usable practical wisdom; 3) Sensationing solves cosmic riddles; 4) Sensationing endows us directly with the power to act. And it is fitting that we raise anew the question of the senationing of Being as Beingsensation.  Being and Sensationing are necessarily always already infinitely indefinable as a sensationing and Being are not 'concepts' or products of 'thought' but bled bare fluxings flutterings floatings as the opening sensation of a shining aiming at an alluring awesome alien alterity as Aletheia approaching an authentic Aten atta alien art as activated outside of our thought thinking thrust through the Nothing that is the There Is of the Nothing There.

     Heidegger's Philosophy was alienist to its innermost core. Heidegger's 'Philosophy of Being'  - being pre-Platonic  - penetrated Primordial Being as an alienist shining sensationing by-passing pre-dating thrown-thinking language leaking  where the wrong 'Question of Being' had always already been answered as an alienist 'Sensation of Being' before 'being human' housed being as a 'House of Language'.  The thrown Answer of Being is Alien being aborted outside the House of Being.  So sown seeping shuddering-shimmering Sensationing swallows up under the Ground for Sensationing is never Grounded Geist floating free from Foundation free from Logic free from Concept free from Thinking thrown through thrusted Thingness leaving language leaked left behind being free for being the Nothing that is free from Logic free from Concept free from Thought free for the time-being of the being-nothing that is the time-being of Sensationing.




                                                                                                                               Khonsu pa-Khered Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



      Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a Non-Sense of Lie-Logic.  Wittgenstein wrote wittingly: “The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said."   Except that nothing can be said only sensationed and nothing is said in the Tractatus.  Wittgenstein  wriggles: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way he who understands me finally recognises them as senseless...Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."   

       The trash Tractatus silences Sensationism and does not Speak or Sensation seeing Logic as Nonsensical for Wittgenstein's sentences seep no known Sensationism so sowing language without leakage, sentences without spillages words without waste. Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be sensation. The Tractatus touts totalising positivistic propositions so sensationing nothing negating surplus spillage slurp slime stuff such as an alluring angoisse luminously leaked lamella. In logic nothing is accidental - in reality all is accidental - nothing is accidental - the nothing is an accident happening - for nothing happens - for the nothing always happens.

        The world is the totality of things - thrown things - the totality of sensations - the world divides into sensations - the world is determined by the sensations - the totality of sensations and by their being all the nothing - at all - sensation of the nothing all - at all - as abjects and all objects contain the possibility of all sensations and the nothing at all. Space - Time - Being (being sensations) are actual forms of Sensationings of the Nothing There that is the time-being of sensations being-time. 

         Wittgenstein shows us all that the puerile propositions of the turgid Tractatus are as pure non-sensationist schema where welded leaden Logic is inert left locked-in-its-left-out nothingness negating the thrown stagnant smelliness sown seeping sensational slipping slime states. For filtered locked Logic does not leak: does not: shimmer - shudder - shine - smaze - stink - soak - spray - spume - spunk: logic left lacking a leaking luring Shining - as a sent Sensationism scent - so lost lie Logic has no 'Logic of Sensationism' - logic has no leakic - .  Logical images cannot depict the world. Logic is not a mirror-image of the World. Logic is not Transcendental. Logic is not Senscendental. Life has no logic. Being has no Logic. Sensation has no logic - Sensation has a leakic - its leaks all over you all - like life leaks - like being leaks - like time leaks - like love leaks.

     Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s thwarted thesis that a sensation must form some sort of 'picture' in order to have 'significance'  -  and that a 'pure sensation' correspondence to 'nothing' in our experience   -  is non-sense and absolutely absurd and utterly untrue since sown sensation slits sight splits seeing punctures perception pulverises pictures.  The Nothing is - as aborted-out-of-itself - as an Absolute Sensation - The Pure Sensation of The Nothing: The Time of Sensation. What Place is the Pure of Sensation of the Nothing situated and sensationed - as an activated Action? An AbImage abjects as an initiated image - imaging the Nothing - pulverising the Picture - thrown thoth through shuddering shimmering shining sensationing: Blanchot breathes:

     "The image, capable of negating nothingness, is also the gaze of nothingness on us. The image is light, and nothingness is immensely heavy. the image shines and nothingness is the diffuse thickness where nothing reveals itself. The image is the crack, the mark of this black sun, the tear, which, under the appearance of the dazzling burst, gives us the negative of the inexhaustible negative depth. That is why the image seems so profound and so empty, so threatening and so attractive, always rich in more senses than we lend it and also poor, void and silent, because in it advances this dark impotence, deprived of mastery, which is that of death as recommencement." (Maurice Blanchot,  L'Amitié, Gallimard: 1971).




                                                                                                                                      Andjety-Anxiety Self-Portriat, A.V.E. 2012



      Sensation - as The Being Time of The Nothing - is the thrown Pure Experience par excellence: 'signification' and 'conception' is always already added after the Event of thrown Pure Sensation: only social and psychic conditioning sutures significance to sensation but robs it of its brute and pure sensationistic impact: when an infant smells, sees and even eats 'its' own excrement none of its seven senses tell 'it' that it is supposedly repellent and repugnant. Through cultural signification and suturing, the smell sensation of Chanel No.5 is smelt as  'acceptable' and 'good' and the smell sensation of shit is smelt as 'unacceptable' and 'bad': our social-psychic conditioning could also reverse these two smell sensations where scent becomes shit and shit becomes scent but the sensations still remain the same smelly shat thing.

       Logic does not Smell, Logic does not Smaze, Logic does not Sweat, Logic does not Spunk, Logic does not Sponge, Logic does not Squelch, Logic does not Shit, Logic does not Shine, Logic does not Bubble, Logic does not Burn, Logic does not Curdle, Logic does not Coagulate, Logic does not Glisten, Logic does not Drool, Logic does not Drip, Logic does not Leak: Logic does not Exist. Logic knows nothing of The Nothing. The Sensation of The Nothing leaks outside the nothing of Logic.  Nietzsche on Nihilism contra Logic: "Nihilism doe snot only contemplate the 'in vain!' nor is it merely the belief that everything deserves to perish: one helps to destroy. - This is, if you will, illogical; but the nihilist does not believe that one needs to be logical." (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power). Nihilism negates Logic. Sensation severs Logic. Being beheads Logic. Dasein decapitates Logic. Logic is not: smelly, slimy, sticky, scabby, slithery, oozy, oily, offally, greasy, gritty, grimy, gooey, dank, damp, dewy, juicy, jelly, jerky.

      What is Being? Sensation. Logic has no Sensation. Logic has no Anxiety. Logic has no Boredom. Logic has no Dread. Logic has no Nothing.  Being has no Logic. Being has Nothing - The Nothing. Logic has no Logic - no logic at all. The Logic that One add One equals Two throws Logic out: One is One and cannot be added to another One: One will be One and only One as the same One and not another One. The One knows nothing of the Two that comes after One altogether. As an Image One add One looks like Eleven when One is next to One: nothing is next to one: one is also zero for the one is the nothing: one add one equals naught and naught: one add one equals minus two zeros altogether not together. One is Nothing so nothing can be added to the One. One cannot be added to One. One is its Own. One is its own One and cannot be added to another One. The Logic that One add One equals Two is a false Logic: Logic is false. Logic is a Lie. Being has no Logic. Time has no Logic. The Unconscious has no Logic or Time. The Unconscious is Being without Logic and Time.

      While sensations are necessarily non-cognitive on the conscious plane - and cannot be 'known' - spilt sown sensations can be shown thrown flown forth from the thirsty subconscious stratum and the thrown seventh sense which will always already shine shimmer oozed outside consciousness and alien body of being being bled both from within and without outside thought: sensations cannot be know only thrown for Being is in fact floating flooding  bled Beingsensation: one does not 'know' sensation one 'throws' and 'retrieves' sensation through fort-da-fluxing.  There is no 'Question of the Meaning of Being' but only the 'Sensationing of Being as Beingsensation' where the sewer subconscious 'alien body' has a direct drooling atta access to a 'pure realm' of sensation free from conceptual consciousness. Being has Sensation not Meaning. Being is not a product of Thoughtness but a Sensation of Throwness. Being has no Intellect. Being has no Consciousness. Being is Alien to Thought. Being is Sensation. Being is Alien. Beingaliensensation: The Life of the Alien.




                                                                                                                            Charcoal Self-Portrait Alexander Verney-Elliott, 1981



      The question "What calls for sensationing" asks for what wants to be sensationed about in the pre-eminent sense: it does not just give us sensationing to sensation about, nor only itself, but it first gives sensation and sensationing to us, it entrusts sensation to us as our essential destiny, and thus first joins and appropriates us to sensation as a clearing to being towards Sensation as Beingsensation being our Senessence.

       Our thinking blocks off and out Our ereignis-experiences senessence-sensationing: thought severs pure sensation thought enframes pure sensation thought negates pure sensation for thought forgets all about sensation even when thinking about sensationing as I have the sensation that I think when I am not thinking about sensation so Rene Descartes never stated: "I think, therefore I am"  but smelt: "I stink, therefore I am."  I sensation therefore I am stinking as I smelt anf felt a sensation of shit pass through the thought of the smell shat forth from the body of sensation thinking about shitting making thought mucky and smelly for one to shit out the smell of thought as a stinking-thinking about shitting-thinking to shit the sensation out shitting thinking out the nothing that is thinking about nothing smelling but shitting sensation without thinking about it being-shit as a diced-dasein dicing-being-turd into being-diced-time forever flushed all-away and aborted-abroad.




                                                                                                                                    Wepwawet-Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E  Dec. 2008         



        Authenticalienart arrivesat SensationBingnow. BeingtowardsDeath is Beingtowardsbecoming Sensation: our Out-of-Body Sensations sow Sensation of Light, Sensation of Love: death does not exist: Sensation Lives. Embodied Ending becomes beginning of our oozed out Being Sensation. We don't die but remain bathed basking in a sea sort of shining shimmering shuddering sensation of light and love. Being Thrown out over to the Horizon of bled Becoming towards Death is Sensation Being-as-Becoming-eternal-Life luminous: lighting lifted looted lingering floating-flying freely defying defeating gravity going going going gone over out over on towards thrown thrust thirsty thymol thrusness terminus terrorist territory to Becomingalienagainandagain as an Eternal Return remembered Real.  The Eternal Return of the Afterlife always invokes Differences of Sensation.  Difference de-fers De-capitation since Sensation thinks through the Body beyond Be-heading. Be-head-ed-Bod-ily sensations still shine Thrown Thought through despite decapitating Dasein. Difference defies Decapitation since shuddering Sensations still think Thought through the Body beyond Beheading. Being be-headed is the out-of-body experience par excellence. Thus Thinking is Ex-ecuted and Ex-ists Be-yond the Head be-heading dread Da-sein. Being Be-headed is Thinking thrown Ahead of be-ing Human be-coming Alien ahead of Thinking that was the Human Condition lacking being Alien.

        Why are there Sensations rather than Nothing? One's Embodied-Bodily Sensation is the Shimmering of Being, the Aura of Shining; Sensation is the Aura of Being out of the world. Will to Sensation is allowing aura to Shine Being. Sensationing is the auratic Body's Mode of Being Sensation; authentic alien art, authentic alien being froths germeyed forth from the thrown embodied eggo, not ego.  Being 'brain dead', being 'body dead', delivers dripping brings breeds Sensation Being into being as sensation. We don't die but become born salted smelting scented sheening Sensations: shimmering shining sparkling as an alluring alien aura as Beingsensation. Ones Be-headed-Bod-ily sensations still shine thrown Thought through de-spite de-capitating Da-sein de-railed dead-ed end-ed ahead as a sensation of being-dead and being-dead is being-ahead of being-there by being the sensation of time be-headed from the sensation of the body: the sensation of true being is being without a body without a body there where we are being sensation as being sensation in itself by being out of body itself and our unconscious is being free from the body as our being dead and ahead of the body as in a dream dreaming in i sea of sensations for to dream is to sensation the after-life before-death as being-sensation: to die is to become sensation in itself as being-sensation.




                                                                                                                                    Shuddering-Sensation Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2004



        Being is not a product of Thinking. Being is a product of Throwing. As Thrown Sensation. Being is a product of Sensationing. Being is projected Sensation. Being Sensations. Being is the Shining of Sensation just as Sensation is the shining of being as becoming as shimmering: 'to be and to become' is the question of being towards sensation as sensation towards becoming being sensation. The truth of being shines in the becoming of sensation as levels of sensations as levels of beings as becomings.  Beings are realized and revealed and registered as leaked Levels of Sensations as Becomings being never fixed or formed for are as always floating forever forward as a radiating riveting rotating leaked light levels of our oozing spurting soaking shining shimmering smoking smaze sensations. Dasein drools sensations. What is there is sensation being there.

        Throwing breaks open an open Place of Being thrown through the open Space of Sensation opening-out the Origin of Being as the Being of Art. As Origin Art is Activated by breaking-open an Open Sensation sending Art afar and ahead as a a Region of the Real revealing and dealing Decapitated Dasein diced as an ancient alien ather aborted abroad as a being beyond being Being and Time. But Being is always already away and ahead aborted as being-out-of-time thrust through anxiety attacks as the sensation of dying and the dying coming to ahead where time does not exist anymore for being at all where and when sensation of being without time arrives and beheads being from being with time for a time to come. Being with the dying coming decapitates dasein from being in time to being out of time and out of being there for time by being for being for the being that is being thrown towards deathing where being becomes now away from being with being-in-time where-there is no sensation of time at all but being. Sensation knows that time does not exist. Being Sensation: Being Knowing no time exists.  Being has no time. Sensation has no time.

        Velázquez and Rembrandt project and push present the presence of Being in beings as aborted and altaric alien beings - but not as a painting of presence - not as a philosophy of presence - leaving logocentrism leaked - but as a dasein of différance - detoured derailed  ahead - as a distant derridian deferment defilement - disjoining decapiatated différance - ahead - as a head - headed floating forward - forging forever fort-da darling dasein - daringly delivered as an angoisse activated articulted absencing - arriving alive away and ahead - as a head -  attained as an angoisse abjected absent past pushed present - presenting pure presence - past projected afar and ahead - at a distance - at a deference - at a différance. Velázquez and Rembrandt present the différance of presence present pressing ahead a head having annihilated representation: Velázquez and Rembrandt do not represent - Velázquez and Rembrandt present.  Velázquez and Rembrandt present the absent present aborted as an abjected dasein dissemblance disseminated dissemenated drenching the sight and the site of the subject stained: severe Velázquez and Rembrandt sever the time of the subject so cannot be seen in time only over-a-time and not in any-old-time or for the-time-being.  For the time-being as the time of being Velázquez and Rembrandt serve self portraiture projected for the being-time the being of time.  




                                                                                                                                    Osiris-Osis Self-Portrait A.V.E. March 2009



        For Velázquez and Rembrandt being time is a constant presence constantly serving and severing itself out-of-time all the time not-in-time by being-time constantly ahead-of-itself as a-head-of-time for all time and no time for all and for no one at all.  Velázquez and Rembrandt present time for the time being as the sensation of the subject of being-in-time since the sensation of time is always already subjective as well as alienative always already absolute abjected absolutely.  Velázquez and Rembrandt paint present time for the time-being for the time of the subject to take time for the time-being and the being-time. Velázquez and Rembrandt abject the subject of time out-of-time all the time in-time with being-time becoming time-being for the being-time and for the time-being to come - in time out of time the time to come to being without time -  for true being is being without time for all time without time at all and being all.

        Velázquez and Rembrandt present the time for the subject as the time for the present: the present past ahead of itself: for Velázquez and Rembrandt time is not represented for time is not a representation: time cannot be represented only sensationed since time is a sensation for the subject attuned and attained as an art alien activation. Attaining absolute time throws thrusts ahead a head of an attuned absolute art alien attained. As for being painters for Velázquez and Rembrandt the painting of time paints the temporality of painting for the time being being the being of time. For Velázquez and Rembrandt the truth of painting is the painting of time as the time of painting out of time with the time of being for the being time. Velázquez and Rembrandt disperse time dispersing dasein ahead of itself dispensing the time of the subjected disseminated a head of itself dissemenated as a decapitated dasein. For Velázquez and Rembrandt Being & Paint present dasein time for a time adrift and ahead attunened and attained as a moving mooding moment where a mood makes a time a severed sensation of time as a mood of time for a time and for a time being. Time is Nothing but a Mooding and the Nothing gives times its moods. Time is a Real Thing as Time is a Mood Thing to be in and to be thrown out of: dread derails disperses decapitates the time from the time of the subject. Dread takes the Time out of the Subject: Dread - Anxiety - Boredom - the true sensations of being-thrown-out-of-time - steal and suspend the subject from being-in-time becoming out-of-time forth for the Time of the Nothing. Velázquez and Rembrandt suspend the presence of the subject by suspending the time being for the subject by presenting the sensation of suspended time painting presence present and aborted ahead and activated as a mooding moment telling the time. For Velázquez and Rembrandt time is a real thing as time is a material mood: time is made manifest by being in a mood and by being thrown from one mood to another mood from one time to another severing time making time a static sensation sometimes. For Velázquez and Rembrandt time-as-mood thing is always already non-linear as time changes moods cutting itself off of itself as it comes out of its mood: time expands or contracts itself depending on its multiple moods: moreover mood makes the speed of time shift speeds between sensations. Velázquez and Rembrandt attained and attuned an Eternal Throwing of Time as a Fort Da daseining decapitating the time-being ahead of itself for the being-time for the being-of-time as the time-of-being to come and to come all over you all. Velázquez and Rembrandt remaindered time remembered time as time lost as time at an end.

        What is the Sensationing of all Being? Now is the Sensation of Being. Now as Sensation is the Presentation of the Real Being - Being Now - Being Sensation - There Sensation - Dasein Sensation.



                                                                                                                  Ontology of Mind



                                                                                                                                          Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2006  




"The Perfect Man uses his mind like a mirror - going after nothing, welcoming nothing, responding but not storing."

 Zhuang Zhou, c. 369 BC - c. 286 BC




"Mind has defined itself as the truth of soul and consciousness − the former a simple immediate totality, the latter now an infinite form which is not, like consciousness, restricted by that content, and does not stand in mere correlation to it as to its object, but is an awareness of this substantial totality, neither subjective nor objective. Mind, therefore, starts only from its own being and is in correlation only with its own features. The autonomy of the practical mind at first is immediate and therefore formal, i.e. it finds itself as an individuality determined in its inward nature. It is thus 'practical feeling', or instinct of action."

G.W.F Hegel, Philosophy of Mind, 1817.




"For the correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting — no more — and then it motivates one towards originality and instills the desire for truth. Suppose someone were to go and ask his neighbours for fire and find a substantial blaze there, and just stay there continually warming himself: that is no different from someone who goes to someone else to get some of his rationality, and fails to realize that he ought to ignite his innate flame, his own intellect, but is happy to sit entranced by the lecture, and the words trigger only associative thinking and bring, as it were, only a flush to his cheeks and a glow to his limbs; but he has not dispelled or dispersed, in the warm light of philosophy, the internal dank gloom of his mind." 

 Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures 50  — 120 AD.




"The one-sidedness of immediacy on the part of the ideal involves the opposite one-sidedness: it is something made by the artist. The subject is the formality of activity and the work of art is an expression of the god only when there is no sign of subjective particularity in it, and the content of the indwelling spirit has conceived and brought itself forth into the world, without admixture and unsullied by its contingency. But as freedom only advances as far as thinking, the activity filled with this indwelling content, the inspiration of the artist, is, as an unfree passion, like an alien power within the artist; the producing has in it the form of natural immediacy, it belongs to the genius as this particular subject of the artist; - and is at the same time a labour occupied with technical intelligence and mechanical externalities. The work of art therefore is just as much a work of free wilfulness, and the artist is the master of the god."

G.W.F. Hegel, Art; Absolute Mind; Philosophy of Mind, 1817–30.




"According to Yoshizawa, in Zen literature both the Gourd and Catfish are metaphors for the mind, the nature of which is inherently elusive to oneself ultimately impossible to grasp; that the mind itself was a primary source of contemplation in Zen thought and practice. The mind was an illusory source of self and identity that prevented the practitioner form understanding the true nature of the non-self, one of the primary tenants of many forms of Buddhist thought including Zen. A close examination of its formal qualities, beyond the composition, demonstrates how the picture itself proposes a way of expressing, if not explaining or understanding, the concept of mind or no-mind in Zen Buddhism; both the Gourd and the Catfish serve as metaphors of the mind and thus the idea that attempting to capture or pin a Catfish with a Gourd is an allegorical expression of elusiveness of the mind itself. The result is a remarkable mindscape for it one accepts that this entity is too defuse and elusive to conceptualise then a scene of no mind or mindlessness. A neverland of the mind."

Professor Yukio Lippit, Japanese Zen Buddhism and the Impossible Painting, Museum Lecture Hall, The Getty Center, September 23, 2014.



In the beginning was the mind minding being and the beginning was minding beginning mind minding being being minding the human mind for the being human was the human mind other to all other minds of other beings as the human mind was the most pathological of all animal minds for the meaning of the human is to be pathological and what marks the human from the animal is the pathology of mind that marks man-kind as man-mind for to be a human mind is to be only human as they say as you are always referred to as being only human which means being a pathology of mind for the human mind is a pathological mind and I can only know myself as being my mind by acknowledging that I am a pathology of mind as an insanity-infinity of being-mind

In the beginning there was minding not thinking for minding began before thinking and thinking only ever began because minding was out of mind not being mindful of being mindless initiating instead thinking thus thinking was initiated instead when we could not come to mind as being mind being-mind-for-itself-as-itself-in-itself as minding-without-thinking for one only becomes mindful when thoughtless for being without thought is being with mind as being mind minding itself mindful of mindfulness which is the nothingness that the thoughtfulness thirsts to fill forth with that then necessarily negates mindfulness for mindfulness is thoughtlessness in having no thought-to-think only mind-to-be which is why being mindful is absolutely antithetical to being intellectual  

Mind is the where There is no Time for when I am Minding I know I am not Timeing and yet when I am Thinking then I know I am Timeing for Thinking is always Done in Time whilst Minding knows not Time and needs no Time to Mind in and I always know when I come to Mind that I come Out of Time for Coming to Minding is where I am always Out of Time and the Time will come one Day when I will be Out of Time becoming All of Mind for Mind knows Time does not exist for all the time when I come to Mind I have no Sensation of Time for Mind is totally free from the Sensation of Time which is why we see the Mind as a dead calm sea or as a still tranquil lake without a Wave without a Ripple for Metaphor of Mind comes to Mind as being on a clam sea as being on a still lake

Mind is matter as a matter made of water for mind is water as brain is blood and that is the critical difference between the matter of mind and the matter of brain made of different substances with mind being the substance of Water and the brain being the substance if brain and so our state of mind is utterly dependent on the state of our water within and our water without as being stagnant at a standstill or calm and tranquil or in movement and stormy for the mind is a pond and a lake and a river and a sea originating in oceans for as mind we come from the sea which is mind and mindful of being fluid and of originating as fluid from outer-space so the saying being out of your mind is our originary being mind being-out-of-orbit being-out-of-earth being-water

Water on the Brain is not Water in the Mind for mind is water as brain is blood and blood cannot think and blood cannot meditate cannot come to mind come to minding being brain-dead to being-mind for to-be mind is to-be water as thought as the flow of thinking as the calm of meditation without rippling minding being without rippling waving for being mind being clam is being without the needing of the flowing which is thoughting-thinking being and to come to mind free from thought is to be mind without thinking as a being calming where concentration of mind is exactly the evaporating of mind where what we take to as being mindless is mindfullness so being mindless is fullness of mind as concentration-meditation of evaporating thought becoming mind

Nothing is on you mind Nothing is in your mind I cannot have anything on my mind I cannot have anything in my mind as Minding is the Nothing as Thinking is the Something and thinking is absolutely antithetical to minding yet I think in order to know and I mind knowing for to Mind is to Know for to Think is not to Know so what we name as the Nothing is nothing more nothing less than the Minding that is attaining absolute-non-knowledge as the knowing-nothing-alling as the alling is all that the nothing is and what is nothing is nothing other after all but the alling-nothing for all is nothing as alling is minding as being-all-the-mind I am being-all-the-nothing thus this imperative importance of making and marking a drastic distinction between thinking and minding

There is a forgetting of Water in the Ontology of Heidegger as if Water did not Exist as being-in-itself-for-itself since it is Time that takes up the time in the Ontology of Heidegger that sees Time and not Sea as the Horizon of Being as structuring structure of being human forgetting that it is essentially the sea that structures being as being-human where the sea structures and sutures time all the time through the sea tides as the tides of time as the tides of the sea as our being-time-tied-to-the-tide tide to the tides of time all the time all the seas and where we are always wet within where our ontic-beings are nothing but mostly moistly water for biologically and ontologically we are mostly made up of being nothing but water which is what our mind is made up of

Mind is our euphoric-elation of our exogenous existence outside of the Body where we can Mind ourselves without thought for minding is mediating without thinking as Mind is Mooding not Thinking as Mind moods Being a mooding of Being as that which does no Think for to Mind is to know without Thought as a knowing-mooding of being-there for to be Mindful is to be orbiting outside of the body there that Thinks for our Bodies through our Brains that do our Thinking whilst the Mind minds itself orbiting-outside as mooding-being as being without thinking where minding-being is mediating-knowing without thinking-thought which is why our Mind is absolutely antithetical to Logic for the Mind is Ontological not Logical for what would the Mind need that Lack that is Logic

True knowing of something or of somebeing is knowing without thinking which philosophers of logic are unable to do for they have no sense of self-knowledge no sense of self-being that is no da-sein for they are the no-ones-not-there not being-there so it is absolutely impossible to have a dialogue with then for whatever you write they will not be able to read it to respond to you for they are so sinisterly sutured and insidiously interpellated into this logicofascism that they just cannot grasp anything or anybeing that operates-outside of this repugnant-repellent suturing-structure for they-are-the-no-ones-that-are-not-there having-no-mind-there-to call-their-own having-no-being-there-to-call-their-own such is the slimy psychotic thinking mindless logicofascism

Minding as all Knowing does not need to Think in order to Know for minding is all knowing before the advent of thought that became the negation of minding for Mind as all Knowing needs no Thinking to Know for those that are all Mind know that all thinking is the ruination of mind especially painters and sculptors who mind what they do without the ruination of thought for to think whilst painting and sculpting is to ruin the work in mind for your thinking cannot grasp the being of paint or the being of clay notes for painting and sculpting are primarily initiated through minding-sensationing and sensation has no logic just as mind has no logic for the painter and sculptor necessarily need to refuse to think logically for to think logically is necessarily to be totally mindless

The Mind has No Logic and that is probably the only thing and the only being that can be said for sure about the Mind for the Mind is that which necessarily by necessity defies Logic and this is what makes the Mind so enigmatically refreshing and exclusively elusively in not being tied down to the repugnant and repellent reactionary and regressive economy of Logic which has something disgustingly fascistic about its sadistic griping-grasping-clasping-clutching-of-beings as things where ontology is turned into obology through the odious operations of Logic that always lead Logically to Mass Annihilation for what could be more Logical after all than the Logic of Auschwitz which was the Logical Outcome of Nazi Logic that logically sort to mass-murder through Logic

Mind is antithetical to Logic knowing nothing of Logic needing nothing of Logic for like the Economy of the Nothing the Economy of Mind does not Think it such a Logical Way which is the Economy of the Brain that is Structured to the Economy of Logic which is necessarly Structured as an Economy of Lack for Logic is always desiring seeking the Logical Structure as a Strategy not To Become Mind in Itself for Itself for the Brain Ones fear becoming the Mind and so those with Brains tend To Be obsessively Logical but the Logical are not the Ontological for Ontology operates outside Logic just as Sensationsim knows nothing of Logic needs nothing of Logic that is Lack always lacking Mind for the Logical Ones are by necessity the Non-Ontological-Ones as the Mindless-Ones

The scream is the sickness of mind as the jouissance of mind being mind-for-itself minding-itself-being-in-itself screaming-in-itself-for-itself and for no one other for the scream is projected for no one but the screamer for the scream is not that which is heard just as the mind is that which is not heard but I still sensation something that is screamed that is minded thus that sensationing is not a hearing of a scream or a hearing of a mind but the very being of that being-screaming-minding outside sound since screaming minding is soundless for it is the silences that scream the most that mind the most for the mind is in silence screaming being there knowing no other being is being there for being mind that cannot be mind for the mind of others screams

The scream is the sickness of mind and the mind is what is pathological for to be mind is to be mad for to be mind is to be out-of-mind out-of-your-mind for only when you are out-of-your mind can you come-to-mind come-to-your-own-mind to know your mind for your coming to mind comes from leaving your mind for only once you have lost-your-mind can you come-to-your-mind as it is the fort-da economy of mind that requires you to lose-your-mind to leave-your-mind to go out-of-your-mind well for a  while anyway anywhere anywhen for you need to know what sensation of mind is in order to know what being-mind is yet our mindlessness and mindfulness are of exactly the same economy by both being the finity of mind working within the finity of body

But mind-for-itself is immortal and infinitely sick with the tragic jouissance of being eternally sick being eternally ill for mind sickness is immortal whilst body sickness is mortal for the body ends its being-in-pain one day yet the ill mind never ever ends its being-in-pain its being-sick its being a sick psycho even if the mind is necessarily non-psychological for how could something so sick as mind be psychological for mind is far sicker than psyche for mind is the pathology that no psychology could ever name or ever be for having is a sick mind is a fate far worse than having a mental illness as mind illness is not mental illness even if mind and mental almost appear to be the same as my mental state is not my mind state which is an alien state to my mental life

To write is the break with mind as to write is to draw the line between the mindful and the mindless knowing that to write is to enter into mindlessness and necessarily so since writing is the instead of the mindful for writing is mindless for drawing a line is mindless for when I draw for when I write I know I am in a sensation state of mindlessness where thinking is negated for being-mind alone and writing and drawing are being for mind alone being all alone thus it is imperative that I be-mindless in order to think the written line free from thought free from mindfulness which is the congested smothering of pure being and pure thought so I write without mind without thought in order to come to mind to come to think for I only write when I cannot think how to

One writes one sculpts one draws without lines without a line for being-insane is being out of line which is being out of mind for the mind cannot come to the line cannot come to stay perched upon the line cannot cone to draw straight lines for the mind is not a straight line for the mind only knows how to do bent lines as wondering wandering wounded lines that are open oozing over the line smudging the line between being-in-mind and being-out-mind for there cannot be a conscious-mind for what would mind be conscious of and how would mind come to conscience come to consciousness when where the mind is always already both the before and the after of consciousness and therefore I cannot be at all conscious of having a mind to begin or end with

Mind is not conscious mind is not consciousness mind is the other of consciousness aware of not being consciously aware that there is no consciousness of mind for mind needs no consciousness to come into being existing without a consciousness never being conscious of being mind and I am never conscious of mind rather I mind my mind minding mind outside of consciousness just as my mind often orbits the body being out of body as mind in itself for itself minding its mind mindfully aware that there I am down there as a conscious body there without a conscious mind there for what comes to consciousness is a brain that knows no mind even if brain often apes mind thinking it is mind even if mind does not think for why would mind need think a thought

My mind was always before and after my body that being that was there before the body and after the body as body is that which gives mind a coat of consciousness giving mind the delusional dasein that is coming to consciousness for the body to-be that there that is consciousness of presence and being and time yet mind is dasein without the time there without the body there and there are those that are mindless who do not have a dasein as dasein only comes to being after mind has come to being there yet you will all sensation so many of those they and these them that are not there despite having a body on for there is no mind there therefore there is no dasein there and this is everywhere today those these they them then then that are not being there

My illness is my mind and I know I have a mind because I know I am pathological diseased with mind as a mind of my own as an illness of my own as a dis-ease of my own and so to know your mind is to know your madness your illness your pathology and to mind it as being mindful of being pathological and to be in-sane is to be in-tune with being mindfully aware of being out of your mind which is your originary being-mind as being out of it altogether where our dasein is derailed and detached from the not there of the body that only pretends to be there anyway for we know when we sensation our bodies we know that they are not our own but other to ourselves as our minds are aware that they belong to no body even if mind often occupies body on and off

I feel I belong in my mind more properly than I belong in my body for when I try to embody my body I know it is not my body and does not belong to me whereas my mind is mine and only mine as I have a mind of my own and not a body of my own since I belong to mind and not to body and so I seek the solitude of suicide to free myself from being incorporated and incinerated and incarcerated in a body that does not belong to me and so only suicide can save my mind from the moronic mindlessness of my miserable miserly body that is really no body at all as it has always already come to its very end in the very beginning for it is doomed dasein that can never be mind and belongs to no body for no body even has a body anymore whilst nobodies rule today

Mind is immediacy of sensation as mediated-sensation as medicated-sensation that needs nothing to say that needs nothing to think for mind is always already necessarily non-intellectual and anti-intellectual because knowledge for mind is a profoundly petty bourgeois and represents that lack that is constitutive of knowledge as void for to be absolute mind is to achieve absolute non-knowledge knowing-nothing yet to know-nothing is an extremely difficult thing to achieve or rather an extremely difficult being to achieve for the sensation state of attuning and achieving no-knowledge takes a lot of time and takes a lot of being for mind-to-mine and mind to be mine mind minding as attuning-attaining to an absolute no-knowledge where I am absolute mind

I can have no image of mind no image of my mind for mind is no image for mind is not a representation for mind is not presentation for there is no image of mind and what would mind look like what would mind appear to be like if nothing but a projection of mind which is the project of mind which is art after all for art and music are manifestations of mind and music is by far the truest sensation of mind materialised for the materiality of mind is manifest in music and art and so it is music and art that announce there is no such thing as time for mind that there is no such being as time for mind thus the trite cliché that art and music are timeless is a timeless truth for mind is the very timelessness that is the very dasein of art and music that operate outside of time

As mind I have no concept of time for as mind not being time then I have no concept of mind for mind is non-conceptual just as art and music are necessarily non-conceptual as art and music have no conceptions just as minds have no conceptions just as we have no conception of mind and there is of course no subjective mind just as there is of course no objective mind and I have no idea of mind as mind is not an idea and mind has no idea as mind needs no idea to be mind and mind is not an idea in so far as mind is unintelligible and non-intellectual by passing the brain in being immediacy before the meddling mediation of brain that cannot come to be immediate instinct that is being mind-in-itself-for-itself operation outside of conscious conceptualization

Art and music mediate the origin of mind through mediation on mind as mind as mediating immediacy of mind presence as full-mindedness as a fulfilment of mind as an excessive overflow of mind leaking mind over itself out of itself leaking all wet all of itself as a mind coming off all over itself such is the sensation of mind coming in art and music as an affirmation excess of minds materialized through music and art that are the direct presentation of mind for mind cannot be represented only presented through the material mediation that is music and art outside of meaning for mind is that which has no meaning that needs no meaning to be as meaning means nothing to mind as the existence of mind comes into being only once meaning is annihilated

When two minds are in love they know that there is no such thing as time and space they know that there is no such being as time and space for minds radically realize that there is no distance or separation and that space and time are delusions of dasein that suture the body to the finite that is sutured to the delusion of time and the delusion of space that are necessary of delusional da-sein to operate and suture subjects into the insidious ideology of time and space which incorporates and incarcerates all into believing that they will die one day in time some time soon subjecting subjects to live and die by the the lie of time and space that inbreed beings into an ideological illusion of telling the time but minds of lovers know there is no time to tell each other

Mind is ontological and nonpsychological since mind operates outside of consciousness or subconsciousness or unconsciousness yet they is also no such thing as subconscious or unconscious as you either are conscious or you are not and so there can be no such categories as a subconscious or an unconscious and I know I do not have a conscious mind and I know I am not conscious of my mind as consciousness and mind are two entirely different economies of dasein totally unaware of each other just as brain and mind are utterly alien to each other since brain is mindless and mind is brainless and thinking is necessarily mindlessness since it requires the idiocy of ideas and crass concepts for why would mind need to think and what would mind think about

Mind is always already the event of the happening of being before thinking arrived on the scene to negate mind or rather to try and negate mind for mind cannot be negated and even when the body has been negated the mind is still doing the happening of the eventing for mind does not need body to be for mind marks and matters as an active action as an absolutely impossibility of passivity and as an absolute impossibility of nothingness whose economies are enemies of the dasein of mind that knows very well that there is not nothing that knows very well that there is not passivity yet nothing and passivity are insidious ideologies of the they and the them that seek out a passivity and a nothing in order to maintain the orders of the passives and the nothings

Mindanalysis begins by owning up and opening up to the fact that I have a sick mind and that I must reveal the Real of my sick mind that is the pathology of mind and for those of us as whites we are the sickest minds of all for to be white is to be sick since whiteism as racism is the sickest form and force of mind and so to be white is to be supra-pathological and ultra-pathological for the white mind is by far the sickest mind of all and I am white and I am aware that being white is being sick and as white I am pathological by race as a pathological supremacist whose madness and insanity is far superior and higher to those other races whose madness and insanity has no match for mine has no match for mind for my white mind is of a pathology more advanced

Man cannot make up his mind for man does not have a mind of his own for man is not made in his own mind but made by the minds of others who have no minds of their own and then suddenly someone comes along by accident showing that they actually do have a mind of his own all of his own and yet this is such a taboo especially today where we are not allowed to have a mind of our own and even amongst some intellectual circles and squares we hear those of them say that they cannot have a mind of their own just as they them say they cannot have a language of their own that they them cannot think of their own they them cannot think for themselves and this is very fashionable today to say that we have no minds of our own and we are other minds

For mind there can be no other minds as each mind is a one-off and utterly unique and so there is no mind as such no mind that can be referred to no mind that can be know for mind like art resists the incarceration of conceptualisation for mind cannot be conceptualised just like art cannot be conceptualised for we have no concept of mind just as we have no concept of art and those that think they do thus do not understand mind thus do not understand art for art and for mind are always necessarily to be misunderstood and to be left alone for mind like art must be left in solitary confinement to do its own thing or rather to do its own being by minding its own business by arting its own business as both mind and art just want to be left alone to get on with it

The coming of mind only comes into being when being stilling when standing still when sitting still since mind originates in the non-movement of the now that is the refusal of the movement of time for now that is a now-no-time of mind that mind comes to be for mind comes from the now-where of the no-time always now for mind is now and not time for mind is that which knows no time that needs no time to-be indeed mind is the evidence for the non-existence-of-time for when you come-to-time you then know that there is no time to be only mind to be and the dasein of mind is the dasein of no time for the meaning of mind is the meaning of being which is being without time for being there is where there is mind without time being there on mind being there

When mind watches these they being be-headed it does not care at all knowing that nothing at all is happening other than the mind being freed from the body indeed mind enjoys the act of beheading and the art of beheading as the initiation and inception of freedom knowing that the body is a burden to being-mind knowing that the body is always in the way of mind getting in the way of mind being-in-itself-for-itself for body hijacks and kidnaps mind away from being-for-itself-in-itself when tied to the time of body incarcerated within the body that mind so despises and so detests yet for the sake of dasein mind needs body for the time being of being embodied as an expression of sensation of being body being mind for mind gives body the sensation of being

Once you free the delusion of time from dasein then your mind may come giving you mind and when you have a mind you are free from the delusions of time which is the delusion of body that has taken up all your time as the negation of mind for you have nothing on your mind but a body and being-body is being without a mind yet most of we humans would rather have a body than have a mind even if most humans are necessarily nobodies and remain nobodies they still imagine that they have bodies all of their own even if they know very well that they have no minds of their own and would rather die than have minds of their own for they would not know what to do with a mind even if they think they know what to do with a body even if that body is a nobody

Mind is not always mine just as dasein is not always mine and we have to be mindful that most of us are mindless and daseinless simply because very few of you are there even if you imagine you are there because there is this body-there that you say is you or that has a mind within it yet you do not necessarily exist as dasein or exist as mind even if you appear before us as a body that body is not sufficient evidence for the existence of mind and da-sein because a body is nothing in itself for itself and so your body is no guarantee of you being-there or of a mind-being-there yet you take your body as some sort of arbitrary assumption that there must be a mind-there existing-there yet the human can exist without being-there without a mind-being-there

Mind cannot be measured as mind has no depth even if mind is thick and dense as a material substance and an empty mind is the most heaviest of minds whilst a full mind is always light as you can well imagine but mind has no measurement indeed there can be no full mind or empty mind for minds do not have seams for minds are not shut or closed even if you hear them say that we have a closed mind a mind cannot be closed and a mind cannot be opened for one cannot be open minded or closed minded just as one cannot be in an unconscious or a subconscious state there is only a conscious state or a mind state and a mind is neither open nor closed but just a mind but a mind mind you that is infinite and always beyond itself ahead of itself as out of itself

There can be nothing on your mind or in your mind as there is no on of mind as there is no in of mind and nothing comes to mind and nothing goes from mind for a mind is outside of time and space altogether rather you have to wait for mind to come about and around you as mind is the all about and the next to and the ahead and the above and the beside always circling about and waiting awhile never there all the time as there is no all the time to be there for our mind to be so you have to forget the dasein delusions of time and space and architecture in order to be-mind and not mindful as to be mindful is to practice petty-bourgeois inane idiocy of odious ego-engrossing elevation in order to make yourself feel all smug and all superior as a racist-orientalism

You cannot have a mind-set or be right of mind have a right mind as there is no type of mind as a right mind or a wrong mind only an always already diseased mind that is ill at ease with the body being-there for the body is what causes the mind to be ill in the first place and the white body is arguably the most diseased body of all being ill at ease with bodies of colour though we have to get one thing right and say straight away that there are no white bodies there are no black bodies but rather all bodies are multicoloured if you actually studied the pigmentation of skin you will see that there are no white people that there are no black people only multicoloured people but for now we will simply say that the white-body causes the white-mind to be pathological

Mind is Now and now is never as mind is never for the now becomes the never that was now to become the never of now that still comes right now as another now as another mind soon to-be-then back-then which was when that then was the now of mind that needs no memory to be for now as mind also freeze frames the now over nows refusing at once to take time into account as all is now as nows are now as minds are mind and the now is day as the mind is day yet the now at night like the mind at night is of an utterly different economy for minds are radically different at night just as nows are radically different at night as in fact the mind of the night is not as insane as the mind of the day and the now of the night is not as nauseating as the now of the day

The pain of mind is far more intense to either bodily pain or psychic pain because the mind always amplifies and concentrates physical pain a psychic pain for its mind to mind-on to in-order for it to have that understanding of that ontic-psychic-pain and intensifies it infinitely and so you can now imagine the sheer absolute intensity of the pain of mind that knows it has to take it in order to-be and suffer it in order to know and this mind of knowing is also an understanding operating outside of language as mind does not need the lack that is language indeed language gets in the way of the orders of mind that operates outside of the imaginary and the symbolic because the mind is the real outside of all signification and meaning outside of all our languages

The pain of mind initiates from heart to hands and hands to heart well away from the brain that is handless and heartless of the economy of mind is the combination of the economies of heart and hand whose operations give voice to mind outside of mouth and brain that give intellect and intelligence to being-human but not mindfulness which are heartfulness and handfulness that speak mind that spoke mind as only the heart and the hand can speak mind speak your mind as your hands are an expression of the mind as the heart is the sensation of mind when it is welded within the body for the time being of being embodied as mind making sense and sensation of body of the mind-body dualism which is an actual materiality of fact our being human being mind

Intelligence and intellect cannot make minds cannot make music cannot make art as they are the total refusal of instinct and the refusal of non-knowledge for intellect and intelligence seek to make sense but not sensation and there is a critical difference between sense and sensation and what is intuited instinctively is that which comes before the initiation of intellect and intelligence which are our logical rational modes of making meaning where there is no meaning for instinct like sensation is out-side of meaning and intellect that is the lack of instinct that initiates intellect that then needs a narrative and language to give signification to things yet mind knows there is no meaning yet mind knows there is no intellect yet mind knows there is no signification

To have knowledge is to lose mind yet one has to lose mind in order to arrive at the mind of no knowledge for mindfulness is the radical realization that there can be no knowledge for mind that is pure-sensation-in-itself-for-itself for instinct and sensation alone that operate-outside of our knowledge and intelligence which are necessarily mindlessness as what could be more mindless than having knowledge than having intelligence than having intellect than having language and having meaning and having signification which are all initiated and instigated and instituted via the embittered economy of lack as lack of ontology for the ontological exists as the mind-being-sensation-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself operating outside of our intellect and our knowledge

My mind has been made up always already made up as made up of one image only and that image is mind but it is not an image of a mind as minds are imageless rather what is mind is an image in mind not an image of mind and all artists only ever have one image or one sound and one voice with nothing to say only a mind to-do for what is done is mind for what comes to mind is doing and doing is not thinking or writing which are images that aim at mind aim at being-mindful but never can be for a mind cannot read or write and know no language to be other than an image to do as pure presentation before the advent of representation which was writing which was with the word which came after the mind left being without a representation and meaning

Most of the time nothing comes to mind thus mind does not come to being and so we are all left with words and language to try and bring mind into being but we know language was constructed through our being-mindless and language makes us remain mindless and we feel far safer in a state of mindlessness where language gives us the delusions of da-sein as the prison-house of being-incarcerated where meanings are manufactured for nothing but making meaning as a nothing-happening for nothing happens nothing ever happens forever nothing happens and this nothing happening is making meaning but mind knows nothing of the nothing nothing of the happening knowing nothing happening nothing but being mind that needs no nothing-happening

Mind is in solitary confinement doing time whilst well aware that there is no time to do as being-mind but whilst being-for-body mind is in solitary-confinement within the body where the mind is claustrophobic-jouissance incarcerated within the body of which it is always trying to find ways of escaping of breaking out of unnoticed unobserved undetected as the body is very conservative and reactionary in its limited and enclosed-insularity of mortality and finity which is jealous of the mind being infinite being immortal for body is conscious of it being mortal of it being finite whilst mind is conscious of it being immortal of it being infinite even if the mind is not consciousness as we know it since mind is not consciousness is not conscious of being anything

No one has a right to mind just as no one has a right to death just as no one has a right to life indeed the word right is wrong and we must never use the non-word right ever again as I have no rights and I have no wrongs and you certainly do not have a right to remain silent because you were given language to speak your mind even if language cannot speak your mind even if language can speak saying you have no mind for you having language largely means you having no mind whatsoever whilst all those psychoanalysts whom fetishize and over-determine language with their mindless reading into language all the delusions of signification and all the delusions of meaning that are the insidious ideology of language which is their nothing-happening

The Understanding of Mind of coming to mind comes from being mindless but conscious of being-mindless that is conscious of being-out-of-mind out-of-your-mind out of your consciousness whilst consciously-aware you have no mind and conscious that  mind has no consciousness no coming to consciousness and aware that you have no knowledge of mind no concept of mind no consciousness of mind yet still being conscious of this and this consciousness is Sensation as a sensation of being-mindless of being out of your mind or of having lost your mind and once you have lost your mind you can come to mind for before when you had lost your mind you had no Idea you had lost your mind for you Thought that was your mind your being mindful being mind

When are you my mind and when am I your mind and where and when do minds become one-mind as minded as minded-minds becoming mind for why would mind only be a mind one mind since mind knows no boundaries between one-mind and another mind as there may not even be a boundary of an in-between one mind and another mind as minds suture minds devour minds take over minds where other minds are my mind which is your mind which is their mind which is there-mind as mind-there as a mind being dasein as that which is there more than a body being there for what marks out being as there as being their as being there is mind-there not body there for your body-there is not your being-there your being-their for only mind is what is there

When you mind is not here part locked up far away I wonder and ponder and wander about where your mind is with my mind being here and your mind being-there and where this here and where that there are with mind that knows no space that knows no time that refuses space and time to be mind and so we are of one mind of one state without a space without a place without a time just being in mind with one another being on each of our minds being in of each of our minds aware of each one minding the each mind where minds mind minds melt being-one where difference become nothing but being of one mind which is an infinite-eternal mind where one is not a number for mind knows no numbers to be of one-mind in minding minds minding infinite minds

I do not have a mind rather I am mind always already mind before the coming of consciousness instead even of being conscious of being consciousness for I have no conscience no consciousness for I am conscious of nothing but being mind and not even conscious of mind for to-mind is always already not to be conscious not to be consciousness for to be conscious is not to mind for being consciousness is not being mindedness and also I am of two minds if my mind can mind your mind mining my mind as what is my mind is not your mind and you cannot read my mind because mind is what cannot be read what cannot be said since mind has no signification and signified nothing at all but not necessarily the nothing which is mind-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself

One is minding when one is not at all conscious of what one is doing when where one does not know how to do it but does it like writing like painting like sculpting when where the doing of it is the minding of it where when thinking does not come into it and must not come into it which is why intellectuals paradoxically can never mind can never come to minding which merely means being for to mind is to be which is why those intellectual cannot come into being which is why the intellectual is resentful of not being mind always having to think about things without being able to do things such as writing which is a non-intellectual and anti-intellectual work in being the work of mind albeit it an embodied mind where body as mind does the writing without thinking

Small Rooms may Concentrate the Mind but only on Condition that the Mind can Take Leave of that Concentrated Space whenever It can and that the Mind is not Being Incarcerated with Another Mind or in Solitary Confinement and even though the Mind works best in Solitary Confinement yet that Solitary Confinement is Conditioned upon being-able-to-be-free and Come and Go whenever the Mind needs to Take Leave of Solitary Confinement for Being Incarcerated does Strange Things to the Mind does Strange Beings to the Mind making the Mind go Mad or making the Mind leave by Its own Will leaving the Body with nothing but a Brain left that does not know a Mind no longer knows Itself for with no Mind being-there so there can be no Self being-there

Prison Folds one upon Mind that folds in upon Itself and infinitely so through Time spent doing-time-in-prison where One loses Oneself when Folded in-on Oneself infinite-times of being-inside-doing-time where One cannot Be Oneself where One cannot Be One Mind yet paradoxically and perniciously One still remains One-Self without a Self being-there without a Self being-their yet still Knowing that You are-there indeed Knowing that you are-the-there-in-itself-for-itself-being-there without a sense of Your Being being-there yet aware that the There is you-being-there as your Mind being your There displacing Dasein for your Mind cannot take your Dasein for Prison deconstructs Dasein which induces insanity as an endarkenment yet also as an enlightenment

It is imperative that Heideggerians and Derridieans and Lacanians and Sartreans do-time in-solitary-confinement for They will only Come to Knowledge of the Nothing and Knowledge of the Real by doing-time-inside where Freedom and Power are Totally taken away from Them where They have no Autonomy or Difference where They are of no Distinction are of Nothing but a Number and that number means nothing for being-a-number means being-a-nothing which is why having-a-name is so essential to having-an-identity for to be Named is to be Identified and being-inside doing-time is not your-time as you are not Free to come and go as you please and it is Here where you would rather not Be that attaining-attuning to the Nothing of the Real happens

Without that elusive thing that elusive being called experience you will never know the Real you will never experience the Real you will never experience the Nothing so not surprisingly Hegel and Marx and Sartre knew the essential importance of having an experience as having the Real at hand as having the Nothing at hand as being with the Real There as being with the Nothing There that Real There and that Nothing There so derided by Derrideans and Lacanians whom deny any essential experience as pure presence and deny any agency and authorship of Being so denying an attainment of the full-jouissance of the Real which can only ever Be attained through being Incarcerated where being without freedom gives one the freedom of being-one with the Real

Since Derrideans and Lacanians and Zizekians have such a pathological problem with Experiencing the Real it is imperative that they be Incarcerated for a Long Duration when that Real there will then Invade them there and become them there where they will be the Real for Incarceration infects them with the Real There and the Nothing There and where and when the Unfreedom of Being Incarcerated gives them the Freedom to know the Real gives them the freedom to know the Nothing thus gives them the freedom to experience the ful-jouissance of the Real and the ful-jouissance of the Nothing that they cannot be achieved or attained when one is Free for Freedom cannot give you jouissance-knowledge of the Real and jouissance-knowledge of the Nothing

The tragedy of Derrideans and Lacanians and Zizekians is that they are Incarcerated and Incinerated within Language which they fetishize and over-determine to such a pathological extent that they end up erasing all existence and experience altogether where agency and action are annihilated and placed under erasure since we are always already within the prison house of language where there can be no agency where there can be no authorship where one cannot have a mind all of your own and yet of course language leaks thus there is no prison house of language because language is always already the possibility of agency and action happening for the materiality of language is an ontological operation for my freedom as my words can be my actions

Derrideans and Lacanians and Zizekians are interpellated within the imaginary-symbolic reactionary-register that cannot cope with the Real so we can understand their deriding of Sartreans and Bakhtinians who argue an agency as an action of our-being the Real for-itself-in-itself-as-itself deconstructing the decadence of the imaginary-symbolic which does terrible violence to the Real by erasing the reality of the Real through the insistence of the imaginary-real and the symbolic-real that are opposed to the Order of the Real and actually do such harm to our confronting the real of the Real and our-being the real of the Real as the symbolic-real and the imaginary-real are solely there to excuse and execute and erase the reality of our being-there as a Real

Derrideans and Lacanians being sutured to the symbolic and the imaginary and the linguistic ideal cannot cope with the boredom of the nothing signified and the nothing said that is the Real without signification without meaning operating outside of the lack of language that is all that the Derrideans and the Lacanians have to hang on to for they cannot handle the Real and try to erase the Real through the petty-bourgeois navigating niceties of deconstruction and psychoanalysis which are actually only petty-bourgeois strategies and tactics to negate the Real to erase the Real replacing the Real with the lack that is language as the evil-banality of reactionary-representation where all there is for Derrideans and Lacanians is the realm of representation  

All cinema is necessarily reactionary as cinema is an imaginary reaction to the Real which is why there cannot be Cinematic Realism since all cinema is that insidious ideology of the Imaginary that does violence to the violence of the Real negating the violence of the Real which is the real of Violence which is why cinema is necessarily always already Illustration at the level of illustration thus narrative which is why Painting is always more radical than cinema because Paint is always already the Real presenting the Real as the violence of the Real as the violence of Paint but cinema as a smoothed-surface of framed-flatness is the levelling-off of the Real where the Imaginary is the Ideology of the Negation of the Real through imaginary incineration

Mind operates outside of all signification outside of all language where there is no language where there is the nothing said and the nothing read where all there is are mind and boredom and time as a unity of our dasein for our-dasein of mind is our-being bored as being-time and being-bored-time is being-real-mind as our ontology of Mind as our ontology of the Real for what is the Real is nothing other than being-bored-time where our-ontology is our-time of being-bored where nothing is done other than being-bored-doing-time and bored-being knows that being-time has nothing to say and nothing to do and nothing to write for our Real being-time is the Real of our-boredom-in-itself-for-itself and the Real is our-being-bored-time-itself-in-itself-for-itself

To come to Mind as the Real for Mind is what is Real for the Real is Mind but mind alone and nothing but mind as ontologically always already bored as bored-time and nothing but being bored-time where-when there-then there is no language there where your Mind has no language and no signification but only sensations the nothing-there of being-bored and this is Time for coming to Time is another way to come to Mind for being-time alone is being-mind alone that is being-bored and yet being bored is a dreadfully difficult thing-to-do or rather being-to-be which is why we all find absurd activities to try and relieve ourselves of Boredom when what we all should be doing is attuning ourselves to our being-bored doing-nothing being-time becoming all Mind

The Intellect cannot cope with Mind in-itself-for-itself doing-nothing but being bored being time having nothing to think about that is needing nothing to think about or rather knowing already always that to think is not to mind as thinking is the ultimate enemy of mind as Real where being mind being real needs not the lack that is thinking and the lack that is intellect for intellect needs thinking in order to avoid minding about nothing and minding about the Real but thinking cannot think our mind just as thinking cannot think the Real for there is no rapport between mind and thought between mind and intellect as intellect like language was invented in order to avoid being-mind being-real being-bored being-time where thought and intellect are all alien

The Real that is the Mind is what is the Boring and so what is boring you the most of all is the Real that is the Mind and so you avoid the Real that is the Mind because you dread being bored being mind being real for you all always attentively avoid through alienating activities being bored being mind being real operating outside of the Real operating outside of the Mind operating outside of the Bored filling-in-time with the forgetting of being bored with the forgetting of being mind with the forgetting of being real which in fact means you forgetting time for time in its existential-essence is the unification of realdom and mindom and boredom which is why you all always actively try to erase-time forget-time by filling-in-time filling-in-boredom filling-in-mindom 

Understanding of boredom is the understanding of timedom is the understanding of beingdom is the understanding of mindom is the understanding of realdom but understanding boredom is a dreadfully difficult thing-to-do and being-to-do for we all dread being bored and dread is in itself boredom as it is so full of dread full of boredom for boredom is not being empty with nothing-going-on with nothing-to-do but being-in-itself-full-itself as mind as real as the real being of being time which is mind for what is mind other than time being bored being mind being real and yet nothing causes boredom rather boredom arises when you are abjected-ahead as a derailed-dasein operating outside of your dutiful-distractions that attempt to ameliorate your being-bored

I do know I am mind of I have been out of mind to know when mind returns as mind in-itself-for-itself being-mind but I do not know freedom for I have never been unfree incarcerated inside out of control out of being in control of being-free and so I do not know freedom as the meaning of being free for only when I have been unfree experiencing the being of being unfree will I truly know freedom and you will only ever know mind as having a mind once you have been made unfree from your taken out of mind taken out of your mind you going out of your mind for only then when you have been out of your mind will you know then what mind is as the out of mind as freedom from mind is the real experience of our-being-of-mind being free to be a mind of your own

Only by being incarcerated can you be-free can you be-free to-be by being-taken away totally from being-free are you then paradoxically actually truly free to-be likewise only by becoming insane can you come to total sanity for to-be-mad is to have the clarity of truth as the clarity of mind to be out of your mind as to become all-mind for only once you are totally out of your mind can you come to-be mind-in-itself-for-itself as nothing but mind stripped bare of all linguistic conceptualisations which are the clouding and the forgetting of mind which is why you must dispense with language to come to mind and be an artwork to be the being of being-art outside narrative outside of illustration outside of language outside of conceptualisation to become all mind

The phenomenon of boredom is the phenomenon of mind as mind is before the invention of intellect and imagination which were initiated to instigate our other-side of boredom of not being bored and in our taken-time and spare-time and free-time and stolen-time we are all still trying to escape the phenomenon of boredom of being-bored meaning being-mind as mind-is-in-itself-for-itself-being-itself-being-mind before becoming intellect and imagination that were invented in order to try and negate mind altogether and thus the origins of art and music were initiated from our being bored doing nothing thus boredom is perniciously and paradoxically the origin of art and music and thus art and music are actually an ontology of our originary-boredom

The opening passages of the Shostakovich Tenth Symphony are the moment of the the memory of boredom of the brooding of being bored of the melancholia which is the mesmerising mood of being-bored and being-bored was after all our only moment of true-freedom without our ever knowing it for only when we were truly bored were we truly free in our freedom of boredom yet never knew that it was only when being-bored we we being-free as freed from all that is interesting which never really was at all interesting after all and only in hindsight can we have the foresight that my boredom was my freedom my being-free from my being-interested in that which never really was interesting but rather distracting as distractions from my da-sein of being-bored

Yet you want to be-free from being-bored set-free from being-bored failing to realise that in being set-free from being-bored you will no longer be-free to-be for to-be means being-bored and our originary ontological-condition was being-bored before being-intellect for to be mind is to be bored where mind needs nothing to do to be mind other than being-bored for boredom is mindum without those decorations on dasein that are the inanity of the intellect that needs things to think about fearing the doing of the nothing fearing the being-the-nothing which is why we write when we are bored for writing akin to painting and sculpting and composing is the activity attuned to by the precursor of boredom that prelude of boredom which activates all art

Boredom is the root of all being the origin of being for being only comes into being through boredom which bores into our nothing-there a being-there for boring is what being does to be by boring into the nothing become being-nothing being bored which is why we want to fuck and be fucked for we want to be bored or to bore-into-being for being-fucked is being-bored for fucking-being is boring-being for fucking is not all about procreation but all about boring-into-being as a dasein-desire to bore-a-hole into another being for that being to become whole and for your being to become whole with that other whole being through the hole of the other-being that is the coming of being as a whole where one added to one can only ever make one and never make two

To fuck is to bore a hole into being to become a whole-being for being as a hole is the opening of our-being-as-a-whole and we only become whole when we sensation being-a-hole as when I am fucked through my hole I become a whole and when I fuck a hole I become whole and when I fuck a hole I bring the whole into that fucked-hole thus the bored-hole-in-being is the opening to the whole of being through being-bored and I only fuck when I am bored and being-bored makes me want to bore-your-hole into not feeling-bored by relieving you of your boredom by being-bored-into which is that suturing sensation of us-becoming-one-with-another-as-being-one-da-sein where the one-bored-into now no longer feels that they are being-bored-into anymore

Incarceration incinerates language as signification for the oppression of being-incarcerated automatically annihilates the materiality of language where-when the material-word loses all its materiality of it being-word for being-inside incinerates the word from being-material for only on the outside in being-free does language itself come-to-be and acts as an action in the world on the world but the word no longer keeps its word when you are on-the-inside doing-time where words no longer have the ability to materialise as being-words that actually act upon you for when you have your time taken away your space taken away your autonomy taken away your control taken away then words no longer matter as beings mattering the materiality of being-word

The greatest ontological violence in being-incarcerated inside is the killing of language and the killing of time where-when time and language are killed in order to try and break with time and language is also killed as an attempt to breakdown and break out of the the words that wall us in as sutured-subjects of narrative for no story must be told for no story can be told or written-down on the inside for there is no free-time given to write-on-the-inside for writing-comes only from being-on-the-outside and yet being-incarcerated where writing wins its true freedom to bring its own time to our being-writing and the one-writing is writing in order to do their own time for to write is to write with your hand is to have time on your hands to free yourself from their time

Time is the writing of being bored for writing is the actual action of being bored for as I write so I bore and I bore you as I write into you boring you with writing that is boring to read for a good read should be a boring read as a boring read is reading time for time is the being of boredom in itself and I write in solitary confinement which is the kingdom of boredom and that kingdom of boredom is what we nominate as freedom thus we are all born free in that we are all born bored after being bored into life by our boring parents whose fucking was boring that boring fucking that brought us into being into being bored and then we spend the time boring into being which is being boring into time which itself bored us for time bores us to death so we are bored-to-death

I am bored because I am there for being-there merely means being-bored the there-being of being-bored for what is there is bored for the there is the bore the there-bore the bore-there for this is mind-there that there-mind that has no one there only the one there for the one-there is the mind without the one-their for the one-their is what we nominate as the intellect or the one that thinks but this one-intellect that thinks knows nothing of the there let alone the nothing-there for the one-their cannot come to know the mind-there the there-mind that needs no knowing to know that there is no knowledge to know for the mind-there is the there where there is no their-there no intellect-there no thinking-there for the there needs no thinking intellect to be-there

Time is the matter of boredom that seeks-us-out whilst we are waiting between doing for waiting is the time of boredom as the boredom of time waiting upon us to come to wait upon being-bored being-time for when we are bored we are time and when we are time we are mind but never mindful of being time being mind being bored for we mistakenly take boredom for the nothing happening when it is the time happening that is the mind happening yet we are usually unaware that what we take to be boredom is timedom is mindom but we do not have the time to recognise that it is the being of boredom or rather that boredom is the being of time being mind doing the nothing-there that is time-there that is mind-there that is being-there as dasein is being-bored

To be mind is to be thick as a dense dasein for mind is a closely compacted in substance just as time is a closely compacted in substance and they say that when you are in-prison-doing-time you feel the sensation of time as being-dense and this is the true being of time the true sensation of time as closely compacted in substance and yet they still do not know that the pure-ontological state of being-mind is being-thick or that the pure-ontological state of being-time is being-thick and ironically even paradoxically to be all-mind is to be all-thick knowing nothing not even knowing the nothing so only those that are thick are mind for to be intellect is to be thin to be so thin that they are not there in the there that is the thick being in the thicket of mind

To-be thick is not to-be mindless but rather to be mindful empty of knowledge empty of intellect which are the ruination and perversion and annihilation of being-mind for the pathology of mind is in its thick-thickness without consciousness for why would mind-for-itself need such trite things as a consciousness or a conscience to begin with and conscious of what for mind is not being-conscious of anything for consciousness is an awareness of being-alive but not an awareness of being-amind and I am not conscious of being-amind even if I am conscious of being-alive and being-alive is not the same being sensation as being-mind but our-being-dead is a similar sensation to our being-mind for when we are being-dead we are bathed in thickets of thickness

Our bored-state-of-mind not only discloses our originary dense-dasein in its thickness and its submerging in the dense-thicket which is already disclosed within its own dense-being of being-mind but it-is-itself the existential-thickness of bored-being in which our dense-dasein seductively surrenders itself to the thicket that thickens its and lets thickness matter as our matter of being-mind as our dense-matter of our being-thick and lets the thickness of the thicket matter-the-mind as our dense-matter   that is our thick-mind for mind is of a thickness and  heaviness which is so dense and so thick that it cannot be known and cannot be shown only thrown through the exogenous experienced of being-bored-out-of-your-mind as if you have-lost-your-mind

We cannot think mind just as we cannot think being just as we cannot think time rather mind-being-time are the doing of the boring or what is done in the doing of our being-bored which is an absence of thinking as a presence of mind and maybe what we mean by the metaphysics of presence is this absent-mindedness of being-bored out of your mind as an absence that has our being coming to full-presence even a pure-presence of being-bored where the actual real possibility of pure-presence only ever comes when one is absent in being-bored as pure-presence of an abjected-absencing so it is our very abjected absence that is our pure-presence our possibility of presence coming to mind when being-bored being-absent being-abjected out of our mind

We know that nothing cannot be though just like we know that time cannot be thought just like we know that being cannot be thought and this is simply because boredom cannot be thought because feeling cannot be thought which is why it is so terribly appallingly violent when someone says to you that they know how you feel for no one knows how you feel for even you do not know how you feel for feeling is totally other and utterly different from knowing just as sensation is totally other from intellect which is why there cannot be a logic of sensation just as there cannot be a logic of boredom just as there cannot be a logic of time just as there cannot be a logic of being and for a bored-mind there is no question of being and there is no question of time

The question of being and the question of time are strictly and solely the concerns of the intellect and of thought yet utterly-alien to the mind that does not require the lack that is the question as the question is always founded upon a necessary lack as a lack of mind that does not need the lack that is the question and the lack that is knowledge for mind as bored is always already bored with the question to begin with bored before the question and after the question for the question never arises or arrives for the mind that was always-there before the question and after the question and always-there before and after the knowledge and always-there before and after the intellect for the mind is always out of the question for our intellect and for our thought

Today the real boredom that explores the record of Being only lives in reservations of the mind as the reserve of Being for itself in itself as Boredom as being-bored being-freed from thought and being-freed from intellect for only the instincts inform one through our primordial-boredom where we truly are and who we truly are in our bare-bored-laid-bare as a naked light-bulb lighting us up unconcealed and no longer covered-up by the lamp-shade of thought covered-up by the lamp-shade of intellect as light-shades conceal the bring-light of being-bored that light that is so bright that it blinds our-being to see into its primordial essence of being-bored for it is the bright-light-in-itself-for-itself that binds us to our being by its boring lighting as light bores

Our ontological possibility of becoming all Mind only ever occurs once we have obliterated our obsession with having-to-have the Having for the Having is that which is without Mind is that which is without Being thus to have is not to be and so long as we Have we will not Be and Mind only comes to those who do not Have who do not have that dasein desire to Have for Mind comes to those only that do not have the Have that do not need the dasein desire to Have for one does not have a Mind rather one is Mind or one is not Mind just as one does not have a Being rather one is a Being or one is not a Being thus when you have realised that you no longer need to have an identity or need to have a career or need to have a profession you are free to be all Mind

You can also be-free to be all language as words of your own as being yourself as being your words for not all humans are beings for not all humans are words which are beings after all but not all humans know that words are real-beings so do not treat words as beings as being-words which is why not all humans can speak and write as a being-of-words so do not use words-as-beings as being-words and what is stranger still is that those that do deconstruction fail to fathom that words are a material substance that speak their minds outside of our meanings and do their own thing whilst also doing and undoing us for we do not always act upon our words as we do not obey the ontological command of words for a word to be you must keep your word

You are tragically taught that words are not your own that you do not have words-of-your-own that you have no agency to act as an author of your own words of words of your own so you do not keep your word you do not keep your words for you are taught that you have no words to keep you have no word to keep and so you cannot speak in your own words and cannot write in your own words and cannot think in your own words and cannot mind in your own words for words have minds of their so minds-mind-their-own-words or words-mind-their-own-minds despite our intellect insisting that words-in-their-own-words or that minds-in-their-own-minds cannot act as autonomous-agencies outside of an intellectual incubation and incarceration

Mind being a temporal-manifold means time is a manifold of mind for our being of time is our manifold of mind as a multiple-mooding multiple-minding as manifolding time that folds in upon mind as a folding of mooding-minding for the mood of time folds upon the mood of mind depending upon time-given or time-taken for instance being-incarcerated-inside-doing-time means time as condensed as a dense-dasein as being-dense in mood which means our being bored which is the totality of our temporal manifold of being-time as our being-mind and so it is with profound-boredom within profound-boredom that the manifold of time manifests the manifold of mind as our totality of being-mind being-time and so being-bored is your only authentic-presence

Yet you always want to keep-busy-doing-things which really actually means doing-nothing-at-all whilst not doing-the-nothing which is an incredibly difficult thing-to-do or rather being-to-be for doing-the-nothing is in fact the doing of boredom and your doing of your boredom in a radical way is probably by far the most difficult dasein to attain and attune to because doing radical-boredom is where-when the mind just shuts-down completely to-be-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself cut-off from the crassness of consciousness that you always want to cling to because you mistake consciousness for being-alive for you are interpellated and indoctrinated by the insane ideology of conscious-life forgetting that the mind needs no consciousness to be a life of its own

Our radical-boredom is our being-suspended free from consciousness that is freed from conscious-thought which is always our-thinking-about-something for to-think about something is a surreptitious strategy to free ourselves from being-suspended in mid-air amid-bordom which is where there is no where there and our being-bored is when there is no where and where there is no when for in my radical-boredom I am jettisoned abjected-ahead outside of the time of dasein so being severed suspended from the dasein of time forces me to confront the brute fact that my mind is not bound to the body of ontic-time and so in my radical-boredom I am freed from the ordering-ordeals of ontic-time and do not know what to do for I have no time on my hands

The not knowing what to-do in radical-boredom is simply letting-being-be in the radical-realm of the not-knowing for the knowing is the enemy of radical-boredom and the enemy of pure-mind because in radical-boredom and pure-mind I am at last freed from our nauseating-knowledge which made me ignorant of radical-boredom being pure-mind for I had this idea that knowledge constituted intelligence which constituted mind yet this idiotic idea was what stopped me from attuning-attaining pure-mind for I feared the being of boredom being ignorant of the radical-nature of being-bored misconceiving boredom as something that must be eradicated and annihilated not realizing that our radical-boredom was our true ontological-state of being pure-mind

Being-in-prison-doing-time-incarcerated-inside transforms your ontic-time into ontological-time where you become time-in-itself-for-itself-as-itself as nothing but the time nothing but the doing of the time as you doing-time-all-alone where your mind turns to slush inside soaked-saturated in incinerating insanity that is being-time without being-there where time displaces dasein with you inside-not-being-there for what is inside is not your being-there but your time-there without there-being without being-there for when you are inside-doing-time you are aware that time is all you are as you are not being not being there since dasein is derailed and drenched soaked-to-the-skin by time that drowns dasein leaving you doing-time without being-there

Yet the time you are doing is time taken away and given at the same time for you have time on your hands and yet your hands are tied by time whilst set free by time being tied and so you have all the time in the world and yet at the same time you have had all the time in the world taken away from you so thus you long for this time-inside to end and die so try and kill time whilst knowing that it is an ontological-sin to kill time indeed you know very well that it is far worse to kill time than to kill being since time is the very mind of being so transforms being so cannot be killed yet you still want to kill time all the time even if it means killing yourself for you are only time after all yet you want to kill time for you want to kill being to be freed from being the time

Your authenticity and intensity of being-bored is therefore your authenticity and intensity of being-time for your threshold of your boredom is your threshold of your timedom yet time can only be understood via instinct not by intellect for we can have no concept of time for the clockcept is not the concept of time indeed watching the clock is not watching the time which is why you cannot have time-on-your-hands for your-mind is your-time of your-boredom thus having-nothing-on-your-mind is in actual fact having mind-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself as being-boredom-being-time-being-mind and thus the draining away of your-mind is the draining away of your-time and thus the standing-still of time is the standing-still of mind where time-mind stand-still

The more profound your-boredom becomes then the more profound your-time becomes for boredom was the origin and organ of time just as time is the root of all boredom so original-sin is simply original-boredom as original-time where every-being was at a stand-still where-when nothing-happened for in the beginning there was boredom and nothing but boredom and that boredom was time-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself as time-being-bored boring-being-into-existence in order to-be-time as a being-time doing-nothing but being-boring boring-being and the boring of being was the beginning of time for time begun by being-bored being-bored-into being-bored-into-being-time by boring-being-into-time the time we bored into the time that we ourselves are

To-be-bored-out-of-your-mind is to-be-bored-out-of-your-time yet being-bored-out-of-your-mind merely means becoming mind for being-bored is being-mind so the saying should be being-bored-into-your-mind for boring into your mind is minding as mindfulness as boringfulness is mindfulness so I attune as an abjected-amnesia in order to-be-bored-into-my-mind being-thrown-into-boredom which is my freedom which is my mindum yet I cannot will-to-be-bored yet I cannot chose to-be-bored but become being-bored through a falling-forgetting abysmal-abjection freed-from the incinerating-intellect by being-thrown-toward-boredom jettisoning all my identities all my ambitions which were surreptitious strategies to severe myself from boredom

Our radicality of being-mind is our being-left-empty emptied out of Dasein not knowing the time not knowing the being not knowing the there where-there is no identify no signification no meaning because language no longer exists for remember it was language that was the very lack that stopped us from becoming pure-mind for language always was a decoration on Dasein as a sorry substitute for mind and in becoming pure-mind through profound-boredom I then know that there is no Now and that time is at a stand-still as a solid-substance for time being mind are of the same solid substance and far more solid than the soul which is far more soggy and slippery and soft in substance and texture and so the soul slips-out-in-between mind and time

The sensation of extreme-boredom is a sign that you are mind without anything-else without knowledge without intellect for extreme-boredom as absolute-mind means being-set-free from knowledge and intellect and thinking that is all those things that halted you from becoming-mind for the state of absolute non-knowledge is being pure-mind for the state of absolute non-thought is being pure-mind for the state of absolute non-intellect is being pure-mind and so we seek to become soaked saturated in extreme-boredom to become pure-mind and in this sublime-state of abysmal-abjection we-wake enter-entranced initiated-into an-arresting clandestine-clearing of-our crystal-clarity of-our mesmerised-mindedness where what matters most is nothing

Within the mattering of the nothing where-we are pure-mind we obviously have no empirical example of what this manifestation of mind is simply because it is without conception and intellectualisation operating outside of knowledge altogether and this after-all is what makes it pure-mind to begin-with and to end-with and so pure-mind as extreme-boredom is not a mood or an emotion but rather an entirety of the everything condensed into the nothing and there-it-is the everything condensed into the nothing thus extreme-boredom as radical-boredom takes over everything and condenses it into the nothing which is what it was in the beginning anyway and so what is really happening in becoming pure-mind is the eternal-return-to-being-the-nothing

Our being-pure-mind means being-mind-alone and mind is therefore only mind and nothing but mind and mind as a single-mind that is mind as one and so we say one is bored for one is mind but mind can never be more than the one of being-one-mind of being-one-mind which is why there is no such an entity as the mind of a crowd for members of a crowd are mimetic-morons and nothing-more than mimetic-morons thus by its very nature a crowd cannot possibly ever have a single-mind so just as there is no such being as a collective-consciousness so there is no such being as a collective-mindfulness even if we have a collective-contagion amongst a crown we do not have a crowd-mind as a crowd constitutes moronic mindlessness so oblivious to mind

Thus the imaginary-creation of a collective-consciousness is as ridiculous and reactionary as the imaginary-creation of a collective-mind and reeks of the reactionary-retarded fascism found in the insidious incarcerating and incinerating ideologies of both socialism and communism and whose reactionary tendencies tend to be against an aesthetics of the individual-artist that is the individual-author that is the individual-mind and so the incinerating-incarcerating ideologies of communism and socialism are enemies of mind being erasers of our being-a-mind-in-itself-for-itself where the fashionable fascistic frisson fermenting a collective desire for collectivity actually means the members of a collective not being allowed to autonomously mind for themselves

Indeed the stupid slogan a collective desire for collectivity is oxymoronic not just moronic because desire by its very singular-nature is desire of the one and so there simply cannot be collective-desire for both psychologically and ontologically there is no such a sate as a collective-desire just as we said there is not such a state as a collective-consciousness or a collective-mindfulness rather these again are the reactionary fantasies of those pathological persons which seek to control the masses via their pathological ideologies and all ideologies are always already pathologies thus there is absolutely no psychological or ontological distinction between opposing political ideologies as all political ideologies pertain to same pathology of will-to-mindlessness

Desire is the origin of our dasein and out dasein is utterly unique to each and everyone of us as it is what we are and what makes us unique-individuals with unique-minds and so it is important to reiterate yet again in order for you to understand that my desire is utterly unique and other to your desire even if we desire the same thing even if we desire the same being our desire for it is utterly unique and radically different one wonders what this insidious ideology of a collective desire aims at achieving if not the erasure of mind for mind came into being mind via the desire of dasein via the dasein of desire which was the desire to be there as one dasien desiring another dasein that desires dasein that dasein desires and that desire of dasein is a one mind

One is only ever of one-mind in radical-boredom which is our-absolute-freedom of being-freed-up from being sutured to subjectivity free-from the chain that locked us to language that sutured us to signification that sealed us within the symbolic for the profound-boredom of our-radical-boredom is our-being-mind being-time as time-mind of the one-there for all-time and all-eternity which is why we all secretly and all furtively dread being-thrown-ahead-into-the-radical-boredom of infinite-time as our being-time being-mind being no-where doing-nothing but doing-time which is why those-they or those-them doing-time-in-side are the only real-ones that really know what it-is to-be all-mind all-time all-the-time-not-in-time all-the-time-not-in-mind

Why does being-in-side in fact mean being-left-empty and why is it that only when I am incarcerated-in-side am I actually left-open for why is it only ever in my unfreedom-in-side that I really only ever begin-to-know-freedom and why is it so imperative and so important that I actually experience unfreedom in order to truly know what freedom really is for our knowing can only ever really come about via experiencing for I can never ever know freedom without experiencing unfreedom since knowing is the negativity of being that negative moment that is a positive movement for mind began by being that very negativity of the not-knowing that gave rise to mind being experience beginning by being experience becoming knowledge only to negate it all again

Something strange and perverse even paradoxical happens with the economy of time where when we become boring-for-one for we are totally indifferent to time all the time not in time for we are jettisoned from time where time has become evaporated and negated yet at the same time this then is in fact the essence of time the perverse paradox of time being no-time-at-all which is the economy of eternal-time after all or before all all-the-time-no-time-at-all for all or for the no-one at all where we are one and all our originary one in one originally unifying horizon of time where-when without where or when one is the horizon of time and what is one is time and time means mind being-one-mind being-one-time meaning being of a one time of a one mind

The academic and or intellectual can never be-mind can never be-of-one-mind always undecided about being-mind not being mindful of mind being out-of-mind to begin and end with and so the tragedy of the academic-intellectual is that they can never be-mind be-of-one-mind or be-out-of-mind for the academic-intellectual is never of-mind or in-mind or out-mind for the academic-intellectual is one-of-the-them that dare not be-insane which is essential to being-mind for being-mad is being-mind and being-insane is being-all-mind yet the intellectual-academic dare not become insane or go mad for this insanity and madness does not attune to the petty-bourgeois conservative cosy confines of academia which attains and attunes to annihilate a mind

Madness is authentic awakening of being mind and nothing but being mind that is a horrible thing to be because you become mind-in-itself where language no longer has any meaning where the symbolic no longer resisters where the imaginary becomes the real where what was intellect becomes instinct as our brute-instinct of being-mind as a pre-linguistic brute-being pre-civilized brute-being as a fascistic-frisson but as pure-fascism originary fascism and not to be confused-fused with the inauthentic  ideology of fascism or of history for ideological-fascism is nothing like our ontological-fascism which is the antithesis of political-fascism for the political-fascist is mindless as all ideologies are mindlessness but our originary-ontology is the fascist-mind

The fascist-mind is our being before the human being before our being-human began and once we become the human-being our fascist-ontology became civilised into a political-fascism such as the culture of capitalism as well as political-fascism and of course political-nazism which are all distortions and mutations of our originary ontological-fascism which has nothing to do with its all-too-human political-ideological distortions and mutations which of course also include communism and socialism that are perversions and mutations of nazism and fascism for communism and socialism are merely masks that mask their inherent-incessant insipid-insidious nazism and fascism for all ideologies are the same psychopathology of a mindless mass hypnosis

Political fascism is mindlessness whilst primordial-fascism is mindfulness yet it may be very difficult of us to begin using the term fascism afresh and free from its frisson frozen within its historical-political mutation and meaning for primordial-fascism is nothing at all like political-fascism indeed nothing could be more different than the two forms of being and existing but the word fascism still helps us to set in motion the meaning we want for minding so you need to have an open mind when you use the word fascism in the future for our ontological understanding of fascism which is not at all the same as a psychology of fascism that is all about the mass-trance group-hypnosis of capitalism-communism which is after all the mass-psychology of fascism

Primordial fascism is pathology of mind and mind is pathological because time is pathological and mind is the origin of time as time is the origin of mind for being-time is being-mind yet the human has not necessarily arrived at being as the human has not necessarily arrived at time that is arrived at mind for to know your own mind is to know your own time and to begin to know mind you need to know time first and knowing time means knowing your time and your time alone and only when you have known what time you are can you grasp what mind you are but you might not even have a time after all for not all of you have a mind which is why not all of you have a time and thus you can exist without ever having your-time or without ever having your-mind

Our primordial-fascism as our originary-ontology is time-before-time being-before-being mind-before-mind where we are attuned and activated-ahead as an anarchic-lapse where all lapses all slips all slides and it is this anarchic slipping and anarchic sliding that is the dance of dasein before we became sutured into being-human being ontic-time where we had lost-our-mind to rationality where all of our reasoning reasoned us into being incarcerated into clock-time sutured to a time that is not mine because the dasein of clock-time is not my dasein for I do not have a dasein that is mine when I am sutured to clock-time where I have no dasein of my own that therefore means where I have no mind of my own that is where I have no time of my own

Mind is not always mine just as Dasein is not always mine for I have to come to mind for I have to come to Being before I can be a mind-there before I can be-a-being-there yet the There that is after all the Nothing does not always invite me to the There  that is invite me to be granted the gift of mind or the gift of being as not all humans are minds just as not all humans are beings and so we must now stop using the term human being as if it applies to all humans or even all beings because not all humans are beings and not all beings are humans yet we all take it as given that we are all given-a-gift of being human or being mind for Being and Mind are not common amongst humans but rather rare yet we tend to take Being and Mind as given to all humans

Being and Mind are worn out by Time for time is the wearing out and the worning out as well as the warning out of Being and Mind where-when the worning is warning about the becoming always becoming where-there was no beginning and no ending of Being and Mind which are the Divinity of Infinity without God and without Human for Being and Mind were tragically misinterpreted as being-god as being-human but time tells us that Being and Mind are of Another Kind alien to god alien to human but an awful atrocious accident attached an attunement-attainment of being and mind to humans when time had lapsed for a split second allowing being and mind to slip into time for the first time which created the human being thus time made humans minds

If time made human minds why is it that some humans do not mind do not come to mind and the answer is that not all humans come to time come to be their-time come to be invited to take their time for they are timed without being time without being mind for one can be timed to time and to time out and to do time even if it is not their-time even if it is not their mind for they are just the timed ones the timed out ones who do not know how to do time to do their time as they have no mind to mind time that is mind the time to mind their time for they have no time of their own for they have no mind of their own and thus it is the intellectual who does not know how to do time does not know how to do mind for their thinking is their fearing of their to-doing

So minding and thinking are not the same not the same being as the being of mind is not the being of think and what thinks does not mind and what minds does not think for to think is to lack mind and to mind is to lack think for thinking and minding do not belong together yet we tend to think that minding and thinking are akin yet as we know now not all humans think and not all humans mind just as we all should know by now that dasein is not always mine for not all humans are there and not all beings are there for the there is the clearing where there is rarely the human present for what is-there shows-itself as a shining of being as a shining of time as a shining of mind but not all humans have the shining have the shine that shows the gift of having a mind

Having a mind as mindedness as being-mind means coming to being-in-time as a time-of-your-own that throws you to the where-when of the there-then as only through coming-to-time can you come-to-mind that you can call your own in your own time as your own mind that means coming to your own mind in your own time as your own mind yet most humans tend to be-minded by time not to be a mind of their own not to be a time of their own not having a there of their own since not all humans have a there where they can come to be there as beings-there as being-theres for dasein is not everythere or everywhere just like humans are not everythere-everywhere for not all humans are at-home-in-time or are at-home-in-mind unable to be a timemind

Why do we say then that being-at-home-in-mind means being-out-of-mind at the same time because only by being out of mind as out of your mind can you come to know mind and be mind just like you can only ever know freedom by first being unfree by first having your freedom taken away from you for a concept of freedom does not experience unfreedom thus hence the danger of concepts for concepts can never conceive experience thus we cannot have a concept of time only an experience of time and an experience of time only ever comes about by first being out-of-time which means being out-of-body for one can only ever experience a body by first being out-of-body for only by experiencing being out-of-your-body can you know what being a body is

Both mind and time are unsutured-structures of the unthought of the unthinking-unthinkable-nonconceptual where we cannot say what mind is since the mind minds mercilessly against the is of the what is of what is mind as a refusal for mind mindlessly mindfully rigorously refuses the is of thinking and the is of intellectualizing and the is of theorising and the is of nominating for minding being radically anti-intellectual operates outside thinking just as time being radically anti-intellectual operates outside of thinking just as art being radically anti-intellectual operates outside of thinking which is why we cannot have an art theory or have an art writing for art outrageously opposes any theorising or any writing no matter what art-theorists might have to say

Writing is an art as there is an art to writing but there is not an art of writing for writing is that other of art yet writing like arting is not thinking for words cannot think but rather like arting writing is sensationing that originated before thinking which only came about after sensationing could not say what the sensation meant what the meaning of sensationing was for sensation has no logic only leakic for there is no logic of sensation only a leakic of sensation for sensation is leaking before thinking came about to try and dry up the wetness of the leaking that was sensationing but writing like arting is very wet unlike thinking which is necessarily dry just as intellect is necessarily dry but minding unlike thinking is wet yet thinking does not like getting wet

Art is mysterious and Art is miraculous as art is amazing as art is alluring arresting-awaiting not being at all Understood but awaiting being Marvelled at as the Substance of Mind as a minding-matter of mind-matter as a-matter-of-fact of being-mind manifested as a mind-work art-work as a work of mind not as a work of thought not as a work of intellect for art-alien as alluring-arresting rightly refuses articulate analysis or universal understanding in its utter uniqueness of our infinite individuality castigating collective-consciousness of the they that is that thing that is mindlessness for the theyness of the collective-consciousness are those mindless ones who are those artless ones as those they that cannot come to make up their own minds

Arting as Minding is our opening-out of the Real for us to-be reminded of Mind being-real the Real Being of the Mind There which is the Instead of the Intellect that insidiously and insensitively Negates the Real the being-real-of-being-mind that is the Real and so it is by no accident that academia attunes and attends to this Negation of the Real as the Negation of Mind for academics cannot cope with the real-there which is the mind-there as mind-in-itself-for-itself orbiting-outside of Thought as academics being reality retentive intellectually incinerate the Real that is the Mind knowing that Minding is a real threat to Thinking knowing that Minding knows that the Real is always already available and accessible out there as a leakage oozing out over language

From thinking to minding from being-there to being-mind for when we move from thinking-there to minding-there we necessarily behead being altogether from our being-there to minding-there for when we are minding we are thereing rather being for being is essentially for thinking not for minding as we come to minding only after having done with thinking that cannot come to think mind cannot come to be mind for thinking was the instead of minding that knew there was nothing to think about only something to there about for there is nothing to think about only mind to there about for being-there actually means mind-there for what is there is mind and nothing more than mind-there and you come to exist-there only once you have a mind-there

The There is the Appropriation of Mind as assigning and appropriating mind so it is by primarily originally becoming inserted-instigated into the There that gives Mind but first you have to appropriate the There as your own-most outside of the I of Intellect as a primordial-pulsation that is your dasein-demeanour for your demeanour is your mind as appropriated and assigned by the time of your primordial-thereing as appropriating of your-there that you recognise as your own which is having a mind of your own and appropriating mind is minding appropriation as an assigned site-sight of my mind-there that is mine-there so appropriation is the unconcealment of mind as my mind-there showing-shining minding-thereing as an ecstatic-existential experience

Such ecstatic-existential experiences as minding-thereing are almost absolutely-annihilated in the prison and at the university for even if the structuring-functioning of the prison is radically different from the structuring-functioning of the university the aim is absolutely the same in making us absolutely mindless that is absolutely contained and controlled but with the prison it is of course overt and obvious but with the university it is covert and concealed with the odious oratory of an open-mindedness which is the liberal-ideology of having an open-mind which always automatically means being closed-minded just as the chief-detective at a crime-scene says that they are keeping an open-mind we know this really means that they have a closed-mind

It goes without saying that education received in prison is authentic education whilst education received at university is inauthentic education since academia is an un-learning process where nothing is actually taught where nothing is actually learnt but rather all is circulated and regurgitated as interpellated initiations into serving society where you are obedient and docile just as the prison projects inmates into interpellated idiots of obedient and docile delinquency and yet often resistance rises within inmates inside refusing the will to power of the prison by a will of the counter-power of the prisoner for where there is power there is resistance to power yet the reactionary will to power of the university does not ferment a radical-resistance in students

The intellectual has an insidious desire to be all intellect and nothing but intellect as absolute intellects as absolutely academically insidiously intellectual as a professional intellectual to be all mind mindless of the fact that the mind is necessarily always already non-intellectual and anti-intellctual but the intellectual necessarily-by-necessity does not know this thus confusing and fusing thinking with minding but minding is a pure-pathology whilst thinking is a perverted-pathology and thus both logically ontologically it goes without saying that the intellectual is a sociopath indeed the intellectual is arguably by far our most sinister and slimy and spooky species of the sociopath in that they are adroitly amply able to intellectually negate their pathologies

Since intellectualisation is the incineration of reality for when you say to the intellectual that they cannot grasp reality they immediately negate this by stating what does reality mean and so reality and the Real are always already placed under erasure just as Dasein is deconstructed into oblivion and where agency and action are always already annihilated and so these insipid intellectual negations serve the academic status-quo which actually means serving the establishment that such intellectuals disingenuously pretend to be opposing and critiquing and so deconstruction is abused academically by deranged and delusional intellectuals who always already remain at the level of theory by theorising that theory is always already an action anyway

Minding is the doing of the nothing before the thinking came into being to negate the nothing that was the doing of minding without the need for thinking for thinking was the need to negate the nothing that was minding without thinking but thinking could not cope with minding nothing and so had to invent a doing for being-other-than-the-nothing but this other-than-the-nothing was no other that the human nothing being nothing being-thinking-for-nothing having nothing to think for thinking-in-itself has nothing to think about whilst also not being able to think nothing for thinking cannot come to think nothing yet minding minds nothing minding-manifests-the-nothing as minding-the-nothing but minding-the-nothing is a dreadfully difficult dasein to mind

Minding-the-nothing is getting-along-with-it without thinking about it because there is Nothing to think about because we cannot think mind we cannot intellectualise mind because mind lacks an intelligence to be intellectualised about yet intellectuals especially academics use language as a subterfuge to negate the mind playing language games as mind games forgetting that the mind does not need games for being mind is not playing mind as a game but language games purport to be mind games   whilst remaining as petty-bourgeois free-play of floating-signifiers as a snide and surreptitious subterfuge strategically evading mind that is evading experiencing mind for the mind can only be experienced as sensations outside of the lack of language

Mind is sensation in that mind is bodily sensations as body gives mind embodied mindedness expressing mind as body experiencing mind as body which is why we are not meat since we are mind that happens to meat as mind as the bleeding of mind for body bleeds mind as sensationing-moodings as moods are bodily sensations of mind that is a body so the soul is of another matter so utterly other to the matter of the mind that expresses itself as meat which is all wet which is all slippery and all soggy and watery being nothing but water as mind is always wet and dies when dried out and so we are not meat as such as stuff but rather mind that materialises itself in meat bleeding-wounding sensationing-embodying experiencing-expressing mind body

Mind is not Body per se rather mind bodies mind embodies body as mind made flesh mind made bone mind made organs mind made blood yet I imagine that my mind is in my brain in order to protect my body for minding my body because I do not want them to know that I mind with my body but we mind with the body and think with the brain and so there is not a mind body dualism but a brain body dualism where the brain is another organ of us other than body for the brain is a body as a body in itself inside the mind of the body or rather the body of the mind but my pathological imagination imagines that my pathological mind is my pathological brain and yet the pathology of thinking is utterly-other and radically different to the pathology of minding

We know that the intellectual is one of them and not one of they for the intellectual is one of them that does not have a body does not have a body on and so uses the body of language as a substitute for the language of the body it does not have and then the intellectual overdetermins language and meaning to make up for the lack of substance that is the body of the mind as the mind of the body that is its own language thus then a body does not need words or concepts or ideas in order to express its own existence whilst when we see photographs of intellectuals we always see just a head and this head is always surrounded by shelves upon shelves of books that are all stored lodged in these heads that have no bodies there that thus have no beings there

The intellectual is too tight to have a body too mean to have a body and does not mind not having a body for the body smells for the body sweats for the body shits for the body spunks and it is all the stuff of the body that the insecure intellectual finds so abhorrent and disgusting whilst finding the bodies of books less wet for books are necessarily dry in order for the pages not to stick together but often the spunk shoots and lands on the page seeping in seaming up the pages socking into the pages as the mind-member remembered-there spunked suturing the skin of the pages together so that the intellectual cannot read what has been sealed by semen and the intellectual wants to bury their head in a good book rather than bury their head in a good arse

The intellectual cannot come into being which is why we always sensation the demeanour of the intellectual as the one who is not there but should be there and this is an uncanny sensation to have since in theory these intellectuals certainly appear to be there but their surreptitious mindlessness reveals a snide and slippery bodilessness beinglesness that is such a dreadful demeanour to come across and be present with because it is paradoxically and more sinisterly a presence-without-being-present so we must reiterate this is a dreadful demeanour to come across as it is a demonic-demeanour of exogenous-evil embodying a disembodied-mindlessness of a reactionary-resentment desperate to be mind even if it is taught not to have a mind-of-its-own

The Mind is not that which is seen unlike the Soul which is seen through the Screen of the eye and it is in the eye that you can see if a Soul is present for not all eyes contain Souls since not all beings have Souls so we can see who has a Soul also who does not have a Soul but we cannot see who has a mind and who does not have a mind but we can mind who has a mind and if we have no mind we cannot mind the minds of other minds so minds mind minds whilst the mindless intellectualise mindlessness as knowledge not knowing that knowledge is absolutely antithetical to mind which is the will to absolute no knowledge so pure-mind is having absolutely no-knowledge to be absolutely free from absolute knowledge to be knowledgeless as an absolute Mind

Thinking never did nobody no good for thinking did not do nothing for nobody for thinking did not do something for anybody for thinking is always already for the instead of minding as the afterthought of mindfulness not being mindful enough for thought as thinking only ever came about when we were not minding when we were not mindful of minding our minds for thinking is an accident of the mind wandering off out of itself as a splinter of mind as a shard off mind that was the thought abjected-ahead as an aberration-accident as a fractured-fragment shard-shaft of splintered-mind split-off out-of-itself no longer for-itself thus it was this thrown-thinking that then replaced minding and thinking still thinks it is minding always assuming that thinking is minding

Minding is our practice of being-in-the-world and being-out-of-the-world whereas thinking always necessarily remains theorising-in-the-world never being-out-of-the-world for theorising remains welded within the body of rational thought unlike minding that being-open-minded transcends our body-of-being-in-the-world very often being-out-of-the-world-out-of-body where out-of-body experience is just that and not a subjective experience but thinking being theorising is always already closed minded and closed bodied to this exogenous experience of being-out-of-body that the mind enjoys as an exogenous experience of mind and not as a subjective experience of brain for the brain cannot be out-of-body but the mind can be out-of-body and often is

But body minds the body taking-care of the body that in turn bodies the mind embodying mind as materiality of mind despite the bodying being non-material being mainly fluid but fluid is the materiality of mind for mind is fluid composed of fluids so thus body and mind are one as water and not as meat for it was our awful mistake to take ourselves as being meat as being nothing but meat and what we mistook for meat was a covering of mind as concealing of mind as imaginary meat concealed our mind that we had forgotten or mistook for brain but minding is not braining for minding is not thinking and the mistake of the intellectual was to take thinking to be a form of minding but minding never needed thinking to-mind-our-minding of mind-being-there

When I have a thought the sensation tends to come from the head but when I have a mind the sensation is bodily coming from the torso and the groin and the hands and the toes for this is where minding manifests itself most of all in the groin area in the heart area in the hands and in the toes which is why when we sculpt or paint or write or compose we feel the sensation of minding coming from handing for it is the hand that minds thus makes artworks since all artworks are works of mind made manifest through the hands that manipulate minding-arting which is why arting is only minding and nothing but minding where thoughts and concepts have no part to play having no idea of what is going on which is why thought and intellect are utterly alien to art

After you have murdered somebody the first thing you think of is how are you going to dispose of that somebody who has just become some body now to be dissolved in a bath of sulphuric acid or cut up into pieces but how do you go about in disposing of the concept of the body which is so difficult to murder and dispose of yet you can dissolve the concept of the body via the acid of deconstruction dissolving the mind-body dualism for deconstruction-dissolves either-or simple-minded binary-logic such as that crass and crude binary-opposition of the mind-body dualism furthermore what could be more crude than the crass concept of mind that carries no water and furthermore what could be more crude than the crass concept of body that carries no water

What we nauseatingly nominate as the body is merely that which carries what we nauseatingly nominate as the mind and the body gives expression to the mind as an embodied-mind just as body gives sensation to mind as an embodied-mind and mind sensations body and body sensations mind and sensation is what constitutes body as mind and mind as body and thus in a sense in a sensation there can be no difference between mind and body as both mind and body are actually organs which we still cannot come to grasp and understand because biology gets in the way of our understanding of our ontology that knows no mind that knows no body for our ontology is not a knowing that is a lacking but the minding that is the thereing of our being-there

Ontology is mind that necessarily knows no-mind to be-mind and it is this absolute-ignorance that keeps-mind free from the contaminations of knowledge and the infections of intellect that try to insidiously-infiltrate the mind and poisoning the mind with idiotic ideas and thick thoughts for thinking is the retardation of mind and as a counter strategy mind must be stupid and thick in order to reflect and deflect the thickness of thought for mind is thoughtlessness knowing that thinking is the total-tragedy of being-human and which will ultimately destroy humanity for thinking is killing and minding is being that cannot be killed and thought cannot think of mind being immortal because thought cannot think of mind as existing autonomously outside of the body

To say that I know that I am going to die one day does not mean that the I of the mind will die one day for the I that dies one day is the body I the I of the body that knows that the body will die one day but the I of the mind does not know the mind will die one day because the mind does not die one day even if the body dies one day as what dies-there-one-day is a body and not a mind and yet you will ask well what happens to the mind when the body dies and our answer is the same as the soul in that the mind departs and often before death mind and soul will depart but that is if they are there to begin with for not all of you have minds just as not all of you have souls just as not all of you have bodies rather we are had by bodies had by minds had by souls

Mind has to be interpreted and investigated via a will to ignorance and stupidity in order to construct a thickness where thought cannot penetrate for I do know intuitively and instinctively that I can never know-mind which is antithetical to a knowing and intellect and so I have to use my stupidity and thickness and anti-intellectualism in order to grasp the meaning of mind for the meaning of mind is after all the pathology of mind that is so sick without meaning meandering wandering-wondering aimlessly ahead thinking-nothing doing-nothing being-nothing but mind whose economy is mindlessness in its purist-empties formless-form and so we have to sound stupid and idiotic and senseless if we are to make any sense from the stupid-sensations of mind

Sensation of mind is an embodiment of a body and even if not everyone is everybody everyone can be embodied by body and mind by body as mind for even if not everyone has a body everyone maybe embodied by a mind that bodies and what comes to mind for the existence of an actual body is the charismatic conductor that embodies a body such as Toscanini and Klemperer or Furtwängler and Kleiber or Monteux and Munch or Celibidache and Mitropoulos all of whom actually had bodies because not all conductors have bodies such as Saraste and Thielemann or Rattle and Harding or Haitink and Alsop whilst most conductors are actually no-bodies and so one is made radically-empirically aware of who has a body in the charismatic figure of the conductor

Whilst Boulez is said not to have such a crude entity as a body Boulez embodies the body of the score being the music where mind manifests music without the body being-there so thus Boulez conducts without wearing a body on whereas a charlatan like Bernstein conducts only as a body even if that body does not belong to Bernstein for it is the projected-imaginary body of the audience and orchestra with which Bernstein conducts conducting the audience and orchestra without having to have a body of his own and so Bernstein is not present both mind and body whilst Boulez is present as pure-mind whilst Toscanini and Klemperer or Furtwängler and Celibidache all conduct with their own-minds and with their own-bodies which gives them pure presence

As we are organs-without-bodies our biological-knowledge of the body does not give us an understanding of our ontological organs operating outside of science since science cannot grasp the body outside of biology taking the body to be biological rather than ontological but our ontological knowledge of the body teaches us that we do not have bodies per se as such but rather organs ordain us being a body or no body for not all of us have bodies despite biology assuming that all human beings have bodies as ontology teaches us that dasein is not always mine so this body that I happen to be occupying purely by chance may not be my body there and you only have to fuck-some-one or have some-one-one-fuck-you to sensation if some-body is there or not  

I know form the gift of long experience that when I-fuck-pussy-in-doggy I can tell right away if a body is there or if there is a being is there or if both a body and a being are there at once or disturbingly if neither a body nor a being are there for fucking is knowing so when we fuck we automatically know if some-body is there or not or if some-one is there or not and that some-one is not some-body for to be a body is not to be one for to be body is to-be-there for-your-body-and-their-body as two-bodies being-one without being a no-one-of-the-some-one for when I fuck-one-of-the-no-ones that is some-one-without-wearing-a-body-on I know that there is no-being-there no dasein which is why it is difficult to fuck-pussy-in-doggy-with-no-body-there

Even if I now begin to doubt that bodies exist I definitely do know from extra-empirical experiences that ghosts exist for ghosts have such a powerful-presence whilst the vast majority of bodies do not have presence that is the vast majority of bodies do not have a dasein whilst the ghost is radical-dasein in that the ghost is the there-of-being-without-the-being-there where the there becomes the being subsumes the being without the body of the being being-there as it were as it was yet you all assume that the body exists because you see it there via the commonsense-empirical taking seeing as evidence for a body-there whilst the vast majority of you cannot sensation a ghost-there because you do not have the shine-sein of an extra-empirical sense

What is often ordained as the Other is in fact our Ghost or our shadow-self or our shine-self depending if you have the shadow or the shine yet both shadow and shine are economies of our ghosthood or our ontology of ghosts or ghostology not ever to-be confused with huantology which is strangely-superstitious about the ontological existence of ghosts for hauntology and ghostology operate in opposing-orbits and are actually alien to each other for the ontology of the ghost is a concrete-materiality of a radical-dasein that is indeed much more there much more present than our ordinary dasein as the ghost is the extraordinary of the extra-empirical of the radical-dasein of which the closed-minded intellectual is profoundly suspicious and superstitious of

What we nauseatingly nominated as the body was the ghost that gave us the materiality of mind for the body is the materiality of mind as serial-sensations that give mind meanings for sensationing is meaning of minding without thinking since sensations speak mind what intellect and language can never speak mind never speak their mind for they have no mind to speak and so it was what we constructed as the body was simply the materiality of mind as mindflesh which gives sensation of mind as mind is flesh but not the fleshthought of braining which is not minding which is bodying-sesnationing for what was body was music of mind for our muscles are musical scores so what was the body was the sounds of an orchestra which are organs-without-a-body

The aim of the artist is to give body to mind by giving mind to body knowing a body manifests sensations-emotions of mind manifested via the body as mind-materialised emotions-sensations for the artist initiates intensities via intestines where we feel fermented-frissons of what an artist is sensationing to us and not saying to us via the minds of our bodies that is the organs of our minds and these organminds are emotion-sensations operating-outside of our intellect outside of our language outside of our knowledge outside of our logic thus totally without reason for sensationing-minding is without reason without logic without intellect which is why those fictitious figures of the art theorist or the art writer or the conceptual artist are so stupidly absurd

To mind being requires in each instance an initiation into intense sensationing-emotioning of our organs without bodies into the open-groundlessness of non-knowledge where we can begin to be mind in itself for itself as our sensationing-emotioning of being mind because being cannot be thought for we cannot think being only mind being for thinking has actually blurred and clouded our ability to grasp mind for thinking is the clouding and blurring of being for thinking has never-ever been able to think being or to grasp being for what is stupidly said to be the thinking of being is in fact the negating of being as an annihilation of being since being is so simple to grasp as soon as we have given up thinking for minding is the absolute-antithesis of thinking

Mind has nothing to say only something to show for minding is showing not thinking for mind is seeing and not thinking for minding is looking instead of thinking for we have not only forgotten being and minding but also seeing and looking for we no longer look with our eyes for we no longer see with our eyes since we read before we see since we word before we look and we write in order not to gaze since our words have now replaced our eyes which is why we are told that we cannot see the world through our own eyes saying what is seen is second-hand being a representation or interpretation of the world yet we must begin to see things and to see beings with our own eyes as a seeing-shining without interpreting and as a seeing-shining without thinking

Mindfulness originated as an Ocularontology but it later became Ocularcentrism as an ocular privileged metaphysics of presence with our crude commonsense-empiricism of seeing-is-believing as seeing-is-surveillance but even in our paranoid-society that obsesses over technologies of surveillance nothing is actually seen only recorded and then interpreted through representations of recorded images where nothing is really there and nothing is really seen ontologically-speaking ontologically-seeing rather for our ontology of vision has nothing to do with our will-to-see which is really a will-to-control where seeing is an act of controlling and monitoring and ultimately forgetting and erasing for the only empirical-evidence for your existence is on tape

For our ocularontology seeing is not believing since seeing precedes believing which is necessarily blind faith anyway and the seeing of our ocularontology is the antithesis of our biological seeing which is our commonsense view of things or being which empirically sees bodies there so automatically assumes that all beings are bodies or that all being have bodies or that bodies are just there being there as our dasein where the body there is seen as evidential proof of our being there yet ocularontology sees through the seeing of believing that is the seeing of biology of a biological vision which is always a common-sense common-seeing which cannot penetrate the real or the body and which cannot see the aura of beings or see the ghosts of our being

Ghosts are material-beings that are sensed by the extra-empirical radical-vision of our ocularontology that is necessarily non-visual so thus does not need our commonsense-eye to see so thus what we wrongly nominate as the visual-arts are in actual fact non-visual ocularontologically speaking because authentic art cannot be seen by the commonsense empirical-eye which ironically is the commonsense crude-eye of empirical-science which is superstitious of our ocularontology as science is unable  and unwilling to operate ocularontologically because science is so empirical for some strange reason as the empirical is the actual closure of vision as the negation of the metaphysical and the mystical which are actually the radical-empirical of artworks

Mind is simple and sees things in very crude binary-logic just as reality really is with day and night and birth and death and freedom and unfreedom knowing that life and death are black and white since life and death are either one or the other and mind decides which one we are with no nebulous notions of undecideability yet the brain being intellectual is highly superstitious of things being so simple suspicious of the simple-minded world-view for academic-intellectuals who trade off of undecideability cannot make up their mind if it is day or night if it is alive or dead if you are free or unfree so politically deconstructive-undecideability is a deeply reactionary tactic and simply serves the status-quo as a slippery strategy for petty-bourgeois-non-action

Mind is necessarily simple and not complex for thinking is what is complex whilst minding is simple as a simple-mindedness that only Heidegger understood in the West knowing that thinking is not minding for minding is meditating-on-dasein as mind for itself and for-other like-minds where ontological-love binds-minds-of-a-kind that do not need to think their love for each other knowing that minding is the thereing of the caring of love-being-there as mindful-daseins being-together-being-in-love-there  being-toward-being-mindful of each-other being-there where there is no body there for what is there instead of the body is the there that is the open-region for beings-to-be-mindful-together where two-beings come-together there where there is being

Heidegger was correct in neglecting even negating the body from our ontological-understanding of being in the world where our body is not the structure of our being or even as a so-called tool-being even if we do shape our world through our body and through the very architecture of our body that structure of our body our body architecture acts as a scaffolding to the holding of mind within the body but the mind does need the scaffolding of the body for mind to unfold and to survive in using the body  armour for protection even if the mind would far rather not be within the body for the body is not the there where the mind would rather be for mind needs to-be-there and not be-body not to be-embodied within the body which is the forgetting of being

Our initial-inquiry into mind necessarily begins with the de-structure of the body for body is always already there as a problem for dasein that cannot come to terms with the body-there as being-there as ontologically-existing yet the body belongs to our crude and crass commonsense empiricism as an object of bio-power of the surveillance-sciences as well as to enlightening aesthetics as an ontic-object of abject-desire and as bodies which perform mind through music which is the highest art form of all of the arts because so-called classical-music directly expresses our originary-primordial pure-mind as our mind-in-itself-for-itself without the need for narrative without the need for meaning for classical-music moves us without our needing to know why

The body is the forgetting of mind just as thinking is the forgetting of being for our body gets in the way of our mind just as our thinking gets in the way of our being yet we take being for mind for being is minding but minding has not yet come into being for most bodies who do not know that mind originated being human so we can now safely say that most humans do not have mind for most humans do not have being which is why there are very few humans there anymore or very few humans that are being that are being there that are dasein which is why we must keep on reiterating and repeating the fact that dasein is not always mine for even if a body holds me there that does not mean that I am there as a mind-there being-there as a human-being there

Thinking is an obtuse obstacle to Minding for thinking is always consciously calculative and furtive favoured and fermented by those disingenuous deconstructive-intellectuals who trade in the tedious tame-tactics of textual-analysis which uncannily is always about actually avoiding the real at all costs where everything is bracketed off or cancelled out and erased so nothing can be known and nothing can be shown leaving us tied-up to the structuring-structures of suturing-straitjackets rendering us remaindered and redundant without agency in the world where the decadent-tendencies of deconstructive-thinking as textual-analysis and interpretative-hermeneutics is always already necessarily closed-minded being so against the simple-minded

Both the painter Francis Bacon and the philosopher Martin Heidegger were much more at ease in the company of simple-minded people having a healthy mistrust of intellectuals both being deeply superstitious about intellectuals by being aware of how calculative and conscientious intellectuals are with their words always calculating and planning every word and pause and inflection that they are going to use before meeting you thus always making sure that they use archaic and obscure and rarefied words with complex concepts and by using extra-long words rather than simple-words and while Bacon and Heidegger mixed in intellectual-circles they far preferred the straight-forward honesty of simple-minded people for company and conversation

Philosophical Mindedness is in fact Simple Mindedness as being essentially and necessarily non-intellectual and anti-intellectual as a non-thinking operating-outside of the conceptual-thought of the thought-out which is also uncannily the same as what they call the ordinary understanding of the everyday commonsense which is spouted by the they as opposed to the complex conceptual-thought spoken by the them but both the they and the them still think along the same lines of commonsense world  views which are thrown through thinking rather than minding for philosophical minding being simple-mindedness does not think anything to begin with having no need to think only a mind to be by being open-minded having an open-mind to open beings

Minding is the doing of being without thinking about it akin to when we paint or sculpt where the doing is the instead of the thinking and where the thinking would be the ruination of the doing for thinking is a total-disaster to the doing of the painting or the doing of the sculpting even the doing of the writing yet truly great writing and painting and sculpting are done necessarily without thinking and planning getting in the way which is why intellectuals are never able to begin to write in doing-writing because they allow thinking to block their writing allowing thinking to do the writing which is not great writing because it is far too thought-out far too well planned and executed thus never begins to write to be writing-in-itself-for-itself as thinking negates writing

Minding is radical Silencing of the Thinking that only Heidegger understood and whose mindful Silence about Auschwitz was tragically misunderstood by intellectuals whom lacked the simple-mindedness of keeping quite as being-akin to the silenced-ones to mind-the-silence that needs silence to mind-the-dead that have been Silenced so thus Heidegger gave us the most serenely sensitive and radical response to Auschwitz through a Radical Silence that can only be grasped by the Simple Mind and not by intellectuals whom fail to grasp the fact that Auschwitz cannot be Thought as Auschwitz cannot be Answered for or Spoken up for since such Words would silence the Silenced Ones annihilated at Auschwitz and Survivors know Words are wounded Silences

Mind speaks by being silent and so we have to be attentive to the silence and listen to the silence which is never silent never silence in the commonsense misunderstanding of what silence sensations for music is the silence of being speaking and saying the sound of being without words which is why we cannot have words after Auschwitz even if we have to have music after Auschwitz because music can testify to the silence that came to those at Auschwitz as well as those that survived Auschwitz with memories of music played at Auschwitz but there are no words left after Auschwitz because there were no words that could be Spoken freely at Auschwitz that signified the end of language as a silencing of language silenced through the gassing of Geist

The mind is our only medium for having a world for our world comes to us as the medium through which the mind minds the world as the world minding the mind where world and mind are one of a kind and the body acts as a medium between being mind and being world where my body situates my mind in the world as an embodied mind embodying the world which is my mind materialised for the material world is the work of the material mind made and manufactured through the immaterial body as it is paradoxically and ironically the body which is immaterial and not the mind and not the soul and not the ghost all of whom are solid material substances of different weights and intensities which give body the illusion and delusion of being a matter of fact

Minding is what is most present whilst thinking is not present for presently thinking is always futuring since to think is to future for thinking actually means futuring as negating-the-thought once thought to think-ahead as the futured of thought that was thought and so to think is to project away from the thought of the think since thought is the negation of thinking and necessarily so since in order to think something you must at the same time negate that something for that thought to ferment-thinking thought instead of the think of the now that always already is thinking through the thought in order to be futured where that futured-thought will be the negation of the present-thought yet science cannot think being hypothetical afraid to negate theory

Thinking is temporal whilst minding is necessarily non-temporal not having the time to come to mind since there cannot be time on your mind or time in your mind since mind has no concepts and so a concept of time would be meaningless to mind and minding and mindfulness since mind needs no time to be in and needs no time to be of whilst the body is sutured to time all-the-time and mind being embodied is always aware that time is at hand on the body as bodies have time on their hands telling them what time it is even if the mind cannot read the time for the body keeps check on the time form time-to-time on behalf of the mind knowing that the mind in time will take leave of the body often before time for often mind leaves body before time

The representation of violence is the violence of representation for representation does violence to the violence of the Real of Presentation being unable to experience the Real of violence as the violence of the Real that was at Auschwitz that is tragically reduced to violence of representation and the tragedy of the Survivor Memorial is that it is reduced to the Unreal of Representation through the violence of Language that negates the violence of Auschwitz that cannot be Represented for Auschwitz is the  Real of Presentation always Present presented via the radical silence of meditative mindfulness and there can be no representing-the-holocaust so no holocaust-writing so no art-writing as Auschwitz and Art operate outside the Realm of Representation

We are all born-guilty and our-guilt is being-guilty of being-finite which means being-guilty of being-body knowing that our-body-will-die-one-day and that this-knowing is our-guilting of being-body whist mind is born-innocent meaning born-infinite as a surviving-substance yet my bodily-finitude is my-guilt of being-body and what was nominated as the guilt-complex was our human-guilt of our-being body-finite and so human-being means being-guilty of being-body for only the human-animal is in fact born-guilty for no other animal is born-guilty of being-finite and yet the human-mind being-infinite knows that it survives the death of the body for the mind knows nothing of the kind of death that the body does knowing nothing of death needing no body

We cannot affirm the commonsense assumption that the human being must die or has to die rather we can affirm and confirm that the human body must die and has to die for we must make the critical distinction between being human and being body as the being of the human is the mind ontologically speaking for the body is necessarily non-ontological but has the appearance of being because of mind which illuminates body giving the body an appearance of being through our mind-sensations that light up body-sensations that are endogenous-expressions of being-mind so thus there is no body-there without mind which is why there is no body-dasein unless a mind is present-there which is why not all bodies are-there even if bodies appear to be-there

The moment of coming-off is the magic-moment when the body-finite becomes the body-infinite where we know that the body is infinite at that instant-moment after all despite the brute fact that the body will die one day and yet at that instant-moment of our coming-off we do not know that the body will die one day because the body in that last instant-moment moves-ahead of itself from being-finite to being-infinite coming-outside of itself coming-ahead of itself emptying-itself of being-embodied and this then is the big-bang moment of seeing-god of hearing-god and this goes for atheists as well for it has nothing to do with believing in god but rather it has to do with coming in god as god-coming for that big-bang moment of coming-off-becoming-god

For the brain the body is understood as an architectural-apparatus where we have constructed knowledge of the body where the body gives knowledge to science and science gives knowledge to the body and yet for mind the body remains a complete mystery since the mind can make no sense of the body only make sensations through the body through incorporating bodily-sensations into mind-sensations and giving mind-sensations to the body for mind to express-itself through bodily-sensations    sensationing expressions of the body meaning that the mind is welded within the body being-embodied-being-mind yet still the body remains an enigma to the embodied-mind that has absolutely no knowledge of the body needing no knowledge to-be

We are now taught not to use the term the body and the mind for when we say the mind and the body we are then assuming that there is some sort of unified entity knowingly nominated as the body or as the mind where the monstrous-monism acts as a unifying device announcement of a homogenised thing and so we have to speak of bodies and speak of minds as infinite-multiplicities for minds and bodies are infinite-initiations of diverse-differences which we always find to be an unfathomable mystery and every mind and every body has its own utterly-unique ontology which so renders any nomination of collective-body or of collective-mind utterly absurd and completely futile because bodies and minds are infinitely-initiated as individual-installations

I come to my body when I expel my body when I cum just as I come to my mind when I expel my mind when I cum and it is the coming-of the cuming-off when I realise what mind is and what body is which is the is not of what I took mind to be and what I took body to be for one only ever comes to body and comes to mind when one has become expelled from body and expelled from mind just as one can only ever come to know what freedom is when one has been made unfree and imprisoned which is why we can never just theorise about freedom or theorise about mind or theorise about body but rather we have to experience their absence first which is always the before and the after of theory that can never come to know them since it is always in-theory

My body is the exteriorization of my mind as my mind manifested as body embodying my mind expressing my mind sensationing my mind as my mind-made-flesh but this flesh is not the same substance as my meat even if my meat minds my mind for flesh is not meat for flesh is mind which is a substance other than my meat which is not my body either for my body does not constitute being-meat but being-mind but science knows nothing about this taking mind for brain and body for meat forgetting that flesh is ontological and not biological but it is not a forgetting for science is closed-minded about the ontology of the flesh being the ontology of mind for ontology is not a thing for science or rather a being for science that knows nothing about being

The meaning of being is love and we arrive at this truth through our experience of being in love where minds are mindful that the meaning of being is love but the meaning of being as being-love does not come from an intellectual knowledge but rather it comes from the non-intellectual unconscious which is a primordial-instinct that can only come to being through love as a love for being and beings and a love of being and beings for all that matters is being-in-love and love-in-being and everything-else becomes secondary and meaningless as what matters most is having been loved and having loved and knowing the having and having the knowing knowing that the meaning of being is love being in love being in being loving in loving being in being love

Mind making itself intelligible to the intellect is impossible for thinking as it is for philosophy for the actual aim of all philosophy is to make mind impenetrable and impossible to understand for mind is not to be understood but to be sensationed for us to make sensation for mind is not about making sense but about being sensation and intellect was later invented to fill-the-gap left by our meandering-mindlessness that mutated into intellect-in-itself-for-itself for the intellectual is necessarily mindless unable to mind-the-gap unable to be a mind-in-itself-for-itself needing the lack that is intellect the lack that is language to fill-the-gap that constitutes the intelligent-mindlessness of the intellectual who cannot mind-the-gap needing language to fill it

Mind shows itself as the sensationing of the shining and this shining is also the shadowing of the darkening that-gives light to lightening as in film-noir where the lighting-shadowing is the mooding of the minding in that it illuminates all sensation-states of mind but not as psychological-states but as minding-states which are mooding-states of lighting-darking-moodings of lighting-shadowing which is why film-noir being in black and white is much more infinite and inviting and illuminating of a mooding than film in colour which does not have the incredibly intense primordial-mooding of film-noir insofar as film-noir illuminates in that film-noir endures and encapsulates the dread of dasein as a meandering-mooding of menacing-minding shot in black and white

After all the mind is in black and white and sees things in black and white so when we dream in black and white we are minding not dreaming for dreams are always in colour but minds are always in black and white and mind minds in black and white which deconstruction nominates as crude binary-logic as a simple-mindedness of seeing things in crude black-and-white terms with no grey-shades of undecidability for the mind has always already decided having made-up-its-mind which is why it is a mind to begin with always minding beings and minding things in binary-logic dualisms of the simplistic either or where nothing is undecided where there is no undecidability for the real which is after all the mind is that which has always already been decided upon

But the life of mind is not one that shuns the body and keeps clear of its demise but rather mind endures body and in the body it maintains its being but mind only wins to its truth when it finds itself out of body and it is this positive-power of mind being for itself in itself as itself free from the body that mind can confront the body for what it is which is this negative-force holding back the mind in being for-itself-as-itself but mind is not that which turns away from facing the body but dwells within it when being within it turning the body into being since without mind the body has no being and so it is the positive-force of mind that turns the negativity of body into the positivity of being thus only when the mind is welded within the body can the body become being


Undecidability is reactionary supporting the ruling-class status-quo being the negation of the radical dualist-dialectic of master-slave where things or rather beings are decided and divided where there are no nebulous grey areas where power and control are concerned but the petty-bourgeois politics of deconstructive undecidability blurs-the-lines presenting the dangerous-fantasy that all is grey and nebulous and undecided disingenuously pretending that there is no single eye of power and that power is dispersed and decentred so Derrida was politically reactionary and status-quo since Derrida was one of them being one of the them not being one of the they yet Derrida being a petty-bourgeois was undecided about occupying an actual real class position


My mind is under occupation in that my mind is occupied by my body that occupies my mind where mind and body are under occupation decidedly occupying both decidedly occupying their own positions as one being mind and one being body yet the body bodies that it gives mind being to be mind whilst mind minds that it gives body being to be body but body only comes to being through the being of mind for when mind is not occupied within the body there is no being-there in the body-there for a body can exist there without being there for being is not existing because most bodies exist-there without being-there which is why most bodies come across as not being-there because they have no dasein of their own meaning that they have no mind of their own


Those that have no minds of their own to call their own intellectualise the world as full of objects objectifying things taking things for beings seeing things as beings and beings as things and this is the nazi-intellect of objected-orientated-ontology which is an odious oxymoron for there can be no such thing as an object-orientated-ontology because beings are not objects and for the mind there can be no objects as an object cannot come to be cannot come into the world to be for objects are in fact insidious inventions of intellects that intellectualise on objects which are imaginary instruments for only an intellectual as ill without being able to be would have to invent-objects-in-the-world for the world and yet the world knows of no objects-being-in-the-world


Of course in reality in the realm of the real there are no objects in fact for imaginary objects are the insidious inventions of the insane intellect that pathologically-desires to transform beings into things and transform things into beings ontologising things whilst also at the same time deontologising beings and this is the nazififcation of beings into things and things into being operated and orchestrated through object-oriented-ontology which is the disastrous and dismaying distortion and destruction of our ontology as operated and orchestrated as unravelled and understood by Heidegger who would have been appalled by this odious-outcome of objectified-ontology which is in opposition to the ontology of Heidegger that warned against ontologising things


Bodying is waiting as waiting upon dying but minding is not waiting as minding is not waiting dying waiting on dying for minding is not dying even if bodying is dying for to be a body is to be a corpse that is to become a corpse from being a body thus your body waits to die waiting upon dying but your mind waits for nothing knowing that the mind cannot die even if the body can die for the mind takes leave of the body once the body dies so the mind is the miracle of being for what is mind is miraculous and magical and mysterious operating outside of knowledge operating outside of body for body constitutes knowledge as our body of knowledge but there is no need for a mind of knowledge for mind is our ontological state of having absolute non-knowledge


The only way to grasp mind grasping-the-being-of-minding-mind is by negating the nomination of an object albeit a natural object or a cultural object or an object of research or an object of desire or even a lost object of desire for there are no objects of anything to begin with since there is no object of a thing nor is there an object of a being but we are so interpellated into the ideology of the object of objects that it will be dreadfully difficult to let go of our imaginary objects that stop us from grasping the real that knows nothing of objects for the real is where there are no objects such as the real world where there are no objects and for the world of the child there are no objects in the world whilst adults are ordained into the imaginary world of objecthood


You obviously object to being ostracised free from your ordained-order of obscene-objecthood of which you are obtusely obedient to but until you negate the imaginary-ideology of object-ordination you will never come to understanding being thus never come to understanding mind which in turn means you will never have access to being-mind for mind is being and being is mind for mind is the meaning of being and being is the meaning of mind and thus as long as you are insidiously-interpellated into the imaginary-ideology of ordered-objects you will never come to be so never come to be mind for mind means outlier and an outlier operates outside the imaginary-ideology of object-ordination which is an oblivion and forgetting of the outlier of being-mind


Concepts are constructions of consciousness to order our world into obscene-objectology which is the intellectual-ideology of imaginary-objects as an ordaining-order-of-ordering-our-world as a wired-world-world-order of ordered-ordained-objects initiated-intellectually in conceptual-constructs of our calculating-consciousness and yet the mind as an orbiting-outlier operates-outside of calculating-consciousness operates-outside of conceptual-constructs for the mind can only be encountered through non-conceptual music and non-conceptual-art where we experience a primordial prelinguistic listening and a primordial prelinguistic seeing of being-mind-for-itself-in-itself free-from the conceptual constructs and constraints of objectlology


There is no object for there never was an object and there never will be an object but the insanity of the intellect is the insistence on there being objects and their being objects in the world and even out the world yet mind never needed that imaginary world of objects instead being satisfied and content with the abject which was what later became objectified into imaginary-objects by intellects who could not take the abject which was the nothing yet mind as absolute-nothing is the absolute-abject abjected ahead away freed from intellectually incarcerated obejecthood for mind as absolute abjection actually abolishes the anchor to the body of the binary-logic of the mind-body dualism for the mind incinerates the body via an abject-assimilation


Mind is residue substance and waste product of the nothing forever coming contaminating the intellect as a nothing impossible to imagine yet totally familiar yet without a representational reference point only a reminder of a remainder of the body albeit spunk or shit or piss or puke for only these bodily products can come to embody something of the substance of the mind that is the nothing thus even if you are totally mindless you are reminded of the mind you do not have by your bodily waste products and it is these remainders that are constant conscious reminders of the mind you fear to have and the mind you wish you had for you adore your own waste products and they remain the reminder of who you were whilst reminding you of who you are not


The mind mines the body for mind is a miner mining the body for minerals which it mines and filters and transforms a being-finite to being-infinite as mind mines the finite in order to make it infinite refining the materiality of the body into the materiality of mind making the finite infinite which is what mind does after all transforming the finite into the infinite mining finite infinite making finite infinite knowing mind is always already infinite anyway yet wanting to mine the body into the infinite knowing that the body will die one day knowing that the mind will not die one day for mind filters and transforms body into mind reminding the body remaining infinite knowing the body is always already on-the-way-out and so remembering the body a remainder reminder


Mind is the abject-sublime for the abject and the sublime are free from the delusional-dasein of ordained-objects knowing very well that there are no such things as objects knowing that the insidious invention of imaginary ordained objects was originally intellectually initiated through our fear of being-for-itself-in-itself-as-itself and so the intellect had to invent imaginary-ordinary objects as an odious-operation of obfuscating and obliviating being for objectology is the outrageous-oblivion of ontology as the negation of ontology for objectology objects to ontology objectifies ontology objectifying being which was the nazification of being that Heidegger vehemently opposed for the ontology of Heidegger was antithetical to nazi object-orientated-ontology


The one thing that comes to mind the one being that comes to mind is that mind is of one mind all of one mind that there is no one that there is no number one no number nominated as one as being-one as being-number one for mind-knows-know-one no number one for mind is more than what would be one what would be one mind for mind is not of one mind for mind is not one mind as there is no one mind for mind is the much more than the one that cannot come to be as there is no one for no one can be one and one cannot be no one alone for one is always already the more than the one being mind which begins as the always already being more than one thus numbering always begins with number naught followed by number two with no one being there  


Mind is rapture as a rupture of being body for being mind-in-itself-out-of-body is being-rupture-being-mind ruptured from the body in ruins for the body is the ruin of mind the ruination of mind coming to ruin for the body is the ruin that ruins the mind for  rapture is the radical break from my-me-being-body to becoming being-mind-me-mine and so it is radical-rapture that severs-suturing to the burdening-body for your body is your burden which your mind carries for you as your body does not carry you  rather your mind carries your body for your mind moves your body manifesting body as being-body for bodies are no-bodies when there are no-minds being-there managing and manoeuvring the body-there yet there are millions of mind-less no-bodies 

Being on my Mind is not a possibility because my mind is not mindful of being-on-my-mind as my mind is not mindful of having being on mind or even being in mind for mind is always already being for what is mind after all is being and nothing but being but being is not always there within the body because mind is not always there in the body and so one can be bodiful without being mindful and our lack of dasein reveals that beings are not always theres for a body maybe there but that does not mean a being is there for a body can exist without a being just as a body can exist without a mind for a mind is being and being is mind yet the they and the them exist today as a whole as a hole as a body without being as a body without mind for our-dasein is departing

My mind is off my Mind not on my mind for I have no mind that comes to Mind that comes to Being so being is not on my Mind even if Being comes to being on my mind when God comes to Mind as I am out of my mind out of my being with Being coming to God being on my Mind but Being cannot come to my Mind as being on my mind for Being comes to mind by not being on my mind since Being comes to Mind when I am out of my Mind so God comes to being when one is out of mind as Being is being out of mind and God is being out of Being and Being cannot come to mind and God cannot come to mind and How can you have a mind or even How can you have a mind of your own for How can you have something in your mind or have something on your mind

Minding is thicking and to mind is to thick is to thin out thought to a finite form fought against thought and thinking is finking as being finite whereas thicking is infinite ahead of body and to thick is not to think and we know what it means to thick when we are thicking-foughting against thought trying not to think by letting our thicking minding be and if we attempt to thick we are already learning not to think yet learning to be thick is dreadfully difficult to do for thicking requires we simply stop thinking for thinking never did nobody any good anyway for what has thinking ever done but destroy dasein through trying to think being for being cannot be thought only fought-through the dense-dasein thicket of thicking which is our being-minding-without-thinking-anything


Minding without thinking is Instincting and instinct painting is necessarily painting without thinking for thinking is the ruination of painting just as thinking is the ruination of being and of mind for mind begins where think ends for thinking cannot mind cannot come to mind which is why we cannot have a concept of mind or a concept of being or a concept of love for mind and being and love operate-outside of knowledge as knowledge arrives only when or where there is no being there or there is no mind there or there is no love there for those with love for those with being for those with mind know there is no knowledge of being know there is no knowledge of mind know there is no knowledge of love yet science does not know that we cannot know love-being-mind


Pure-minding like pure-painting is pure-presenting being-mind being-matter being-there as pure-dasein as pure-presence as pure-presentation whilst representation is intellectualism and conceptualism where being becomes divided as severed from the there-mind of there-being of being-there being-mind being-paint so representation then is this severing-splitting as a dividing differentiating since the act of dividing is the act of intellectualism and the act of conceptualism where consciousness comes to remove the real from mind the real from being the real from there for the intellectualist and the conceptualist cannot-cope with the pure-presence of pure-mind or the pure-presence of pure-being or the pure-presence of pure-paint that live-on-their-own


Mind is in and of and for itself as Art as Art is that which is solitary and stands all on its own taking care of its own Dasein in solitary silence and satisfied and content desiring nothing for minding as nothing is the mind-nothing nothing-mind as an attained and attuned absolute-non-knowledge which is the highest-state of being-mind completely empty of absolute-knowledge which is in fact absolute mindlessness as to be knowledgeable is to be mindless as having knowledge is not having mind for to have  mind is to have nothing and be-nothing which is mind-nothing which is the demeanour of Dasein that is the artwork as pure-presence-pure-mind whilst the human-being is a representation that can only come to a presentation of a presence via artworks


The body-finite becomes the infinite-flesh through our fucking for to fuck is to mind which is why we use the term mind-fuck for we fuck not to procreate but to transcend turning turn meat into flesh that is the finite into the infinite and so fucking is in fact transforming the meat into the flesh as a mind-flesh full-jouissance of mind-made-flesh flesh-made-mind which is the dialectic of dasein for mind makes meat into flesh through fucking forth as a fort-da mind-fuck into infinity-forever yet intellectuals do not know how to fuck as a rule as a whole for intellectuals tend to be despisers of the body as a hole for they know that the mind fucks the hole that they would rather not have for the intellectual cannot take to fucking-the-hole as a whole as a mind-fuck


I had a dasein-dread of being-dead to such an extreme extent that I completely lost my mind the other night as the Other of all nights for I had become machine-consciousness counting numbers and not a mind-consciousness for I was out of my mind completely out of my mid and this somehow save me from the dread of death since it was beyond the normal sensation of our being-dead which is nothing to worry about after-all for being-dead is being-nothing which is in fact such a relief and release from being-something as that something is a body whose only way to be is in pain and in pleasure which are never enough for mind that needs nothing of pain and pleasure which are the sensations of being-body not being-dead which is being-relieved


Death is not on my mind rather death is my mind for now I know that the definition of mind is the definition of death for mind is always initiating death nothing but death where the awful accident of the body of our endogenous-embodiment always gets in the way of that death of that mind that wishes to be rid of the body wishing that the body would die an eternal death so that mind as death being death being mind could do its thing do its being without being bothered by the body that refuses to initiate its death until it really has to go for the body is stubborn and yet knows that the mind will survive it for all time for every time for now time for mind being death being now knows nothing of our ontic-time so takes its time knowing that the body will take-leave one day


Mind in its essential originary state is death but not the death that the body knows without being knows only whilst wet when seeing the other dead dry body drying out dying out minding out for that death is not this death that is mind that is not only always on my mind but in my mind as my mind as being death always already ahead and before the death of the body surviving the body that has to die so that our mind can live an eternal death free from a body which is always destined to die from birth in order to free the mind from being embodied within it for the test of mind is always how the mind serves its time of being embodied and how the mind minds the body and how the body bodies the mind to serve the mind that minds the body for the time it is embodied

The brain thinks not minds. The mind is a no-brainer. The brain is a no-minder. When I am minding I am not thinking. When I am minding I am nothing. When I am thinking I am something. Minding is not something. Minding is nothing. Nothing comes to mind. When I am thinking nothing comes to mind but when I am minding nothing is. Nothing is what Is and Minding is the Minding of the Nothing Is and this Is of the Nothing is nothing but the Mind. Nothing is on you mind. Nothing is in your mind. I cannot have anything on my mind. I cannot have anything in my mind. Our Minding is the Nothing. Thinking is something. Thinking is absolutely antithetical to minding. I think in order to know. I mind knowing. To mind is to know. To think is not to know. What we nominate as the Nothing is nothing more and nothing less than the Minding. Minding is attaining absolute non-knowledge as the knowing-alling and the alling is all that the nothing is. For what is nothing is nothing after all but the all-nothing for all is nothing for alling is minding for when I am being all mind I am being all nothing. Thus the imperative importance of making the most drastic distinction between thinking and minding and braining and minding. The brain thinks not minds. When I am thinking nothing comes to mind but when I am minding nothing is. Nothing is what Is and Minding is the Minding of the Nothing Is and this Is of the Nothing is nothing but the Mind For my mind knows that it will not die one day but my body knows that it will die one day. I think about something. I think about death but I mind about nothing. Death is not nothing. Nothing is not death. I body about death but I mind about the Nothing. I cannot think the nothing only mind the nothing. The economy of thinking is lacking whist the economy of nothing is fulfilling. In thinking I know I am lacking being. In minding I know I am fulfilling-the-nothing. Being all-mind I attain complete-jouissance of non-knowledge in fulfilling-nothing. We have to attain absolute-non-knowledge and this can only be done through minding not thinking and only orchestral music and sculpture and painting can give us a glimpse at the eternal materiality of being mind. We have no idea of mind. We have no concepts of mind. Mind is Noth for minding is nothing: minding nothing is dreadfully difficult to do. When I am no longer thinking and conceptualising then I am being-all-mind being-all-the-nothing: I have to stop thinking altogether is I am come to mind as being-all-mind and nothing but being the mind-nothing the nothing-mind doing-nothing-being nothing so becoming the totality of the nothing minding and totality of mind is the finity of the nothing that the mind infinites through the finite nothing that then finites the infinite into mind as fine yet total-finite as the finite-mind is that there-where the infinite-nothing is collected and contained there where within for the finite-totality of infinite-nothingness is the mind as the finite infinite in the infinite-finite and when I cum off inside the finite-one that one-finite one becomes the infinite-one that the ricochets back into finity as mind so our finity of mind then-there is this-that infinite-nothingness welded well within the finite-mind that then infinities-nothingness into itself as the finite-totality of infinite-mind as the infinite-totality of mind-nothingness and the nothing is the grounding of mind as a minding-nothingness minding nothing but the nothing there-then where-when being-mind manifests itself as there-then nothing-there when-where being-mind materialises formed-from nothing-there for-our being-mind is nothing-there and so when-we are being-mind nothing-there we are at last the infinite-totality of mindful-nothingness attained as an absolute-nonknowledge attuned as a jettisoned-jouissance all anointed wet with words that cum to mind as mind cuming wet with words for what are words but semantic semen stains spurted out of our drying daseining being there soon not to be there where that thrust spurt stuff signs our outing out of dread dasein as that skin sign of written word that cums always too late too wet as well where wet insidious inks evilly evaporate intuitively into congested clouded clots where wet with sticky stains smother warped written words ripped ripe ruinations torn there those shredded sheets carefully concealed refusing readership refusing to be read by the evil empirical eye yet mind reads these those ruined reeds for only mind reads unempirical words reads unreadable wet worn words never written words never spoken words only words squirted out spurted out fresh for the squirted spurted wet word welds well with bruised bodies bled bodies beheaded bodies such stretched stench sutured skins welded wet where sticky slimy stuff of our oozed out semen semantic soiling skin screen scenes stills still freeze frames fingers figures inserting image installations incubations incinerations insinuations institutions initiating instant insanity making moist minds made more mad mad more maddening minding more mediating more meandering more mesmerising more manoeuvring more masturbating for in my coming off out of my body so to I am coming off out of my mind for as I cum off so I cum off out of my mind cuming off out of my mind as I am coming out off of my mind as my mind coming out off of I



                                                Heidegger & Bacon: Throwing Thoth






"I love him who throws."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Zarathustra, 1883.



"To dare is to risk the game."

Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, 1971.



"Chance commingles with a feeling of déjà vu."

 Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, New York, 1992.



"The true man wants two things: danger and play."

Friedrich Nietzsche, (1844-1900).



"The man of action is always without a conscience."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa, 1749-1832.



"Every Thought sends forth one Throw of the Dice."

Stéphane Mallarmé,  The Dice Thrown Will Never Abolish Chance, 1897.



"The will to truth that still seduces us to take so many risks."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1885.



"He limits chance to chance... dread throws him back out of himself..."

Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language,  Station Hill, 1999.



"This Thing gets thrown out...This Thing does not want to show itself."

John Carpenter, The Thing, Universal 1982.



"Whether I'll see Heidegger, I don't know yet... I'm leaving it to chance."!

Hannah Arendt, Letter to Heinrich Blücher, January 3rd, 1950.



"I do think that Egyptian art is the greatest thing that has happened so far."

Francis Bacon, Art International, No. 8, Autumn, 1989.



"Lifetime is a child playing drafts, moving pieces on a board. The kingdom is a child's."

Heraclitus of Ephesus, 540 BC - 480 BC.



"World-time - it is a child, playing, moving the pebbles to and fro on a board, of such a child is the mastery over being."

Martin Heidegger, The Principle of Reason; 1955-1956;  Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.



"Just what is this Thing?  Chaos, chaos in the flesh... It's here ... It's all around us... It lives out of sight... It's playing with us..."

Dean Koontz, Phantoms, 1998.



"In every real man a child is hidden that wants to play... Man's maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play. "

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.



"The human being arrives at the threshold: there he must throw himself headlong into that which has no foundation and has no head."

Georges Bataille, The Obelisk; Visions of Excess,  University of Minnesota Press, 1985.



"Paul Cezanne's painting suspends the habits of thought and reveals the base of inhuman nature upon which man has installed himself."  

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Cézanne's Doubt, Sense and Non-Sense, Northwestern University Press, 1964.



"Seeing is primordially determined, not by the eye, but by the lighting of Being. Presence within the lighting articulates all the human senses."

Martin Heidegger, The Anaximander Fragment, Early Greek Thought, New York, Harper & Row, 1975.



"Thought is itself a kind of action and therefore does not have any ontological distinction from action. To think something is always already to do something."

Mark Cousins, Thought & Execution, Architectural Association, 1994. 



"And what difference does it make to you - you dice throwers! You still have not learned to gamble and show defiance! Are we not forever seated here at this table, a gathering of mockers and gamblers?"

Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Superman; Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.



"Theory of chance. The soul a selective and self-nourishing entity, perpetually extremely shrewd and creative. To recognise the active force, the creative force in the chance event: - chance itself is only the clash of creative impulses."

Friedrich Nietzsche,  The Will to Power; 1883-1888.



"But then I don't where the bull's-eye is. These things happen and then, of course, I manipulate them afterwards. I live my life between fact and chance... I've lived entirely on chance, hoping what is called 'the chance' will always work for me."

Francis Bacon; Hugh M. Davies; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.



"What Mallarme sought as aesthetically persuasive was the impossible: to throw a seven over the shattered hull on its ocean reef that would dissolve into a seven-pointed star as the unreachable...A book with blank pages might thus become the most completely clear text."

Otto Poggeler,  The Paths of Heidegger's Life and Thought, Humanity Books, 1998.



"I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asks: 'Am I a cheat?' - for he wants to perish... A cast which ye made had failed. But what doth it matter, ye dice-players! Ye had not learned to play and mock, as one must play and mock! Do we not ever sit at a great table of mocking and playing?"

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.



"Being as venture is the relation of flinging loose, and thus retains in the flinging even what has been ventured...Venture includes flinging into danger. To dare is to risk the game... If that which has been flung were to remain out of danger, it would not have been ventured. It would not be in danger if it were shielded."

Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought,  Harper & Row, 1971.



"I was completely swept along with my own compulsion. I don't know how else to put it. It didn't satisfy me completely so maybe I was thinking another one will. Maybe this one will, and the numbers started growing and growing and just got out of control, as you can see... It's just like a big chunk of me has been ripped out and I'm not quite whole."

Jeffrey Dahmer, Confession, (1960-1994).



"Hence we have avoided the wiles of pure chance, which might indeed have produced logical sequences; for we must not, one mathematician [René Thom] tells us, 'underestimate the power of chance to engender monsters'; the monster, in this case, would have been, emerging from a certain order of the figures, a 'philosophy of love' where we must look for no more than its affirmation."

Roland Barthes, Lover's Discourse: Fragments, Editions de Seuil, Paris 1977.



"The creative process is a cocktail of instinct, skill, culture and a highly creative feverishness. It is not like a drug; it is a particular state when everything happens very quickly, a mixture of consciousness and unconsciousness, of fear and pleasure; it's a little like making love, the physical act of love. It can be as violent as fucking, like an orgasm or an ejaculation. The result is often disappointing, but the process is highly exciting."

Francis Bacon, The Last Interview - with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.



"The work of art is linked to a risk; it is the affirmation of an extreme experience. But what is this risk? What is the nature of the bond that unites the work to risk?... Art - as images, as words, and as rhythms - indicates the menacing proximity of a vague and vacant outside, a neutral existence, nil and limitless; art points to a sordid absence, a suffocating condensation where being ceaselessly perpetuates itself as nothingness."

Maurice Blanchot, The  Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press, 1982.



"In trying to do a portrait, my ideal would really be just to pick up a handful of paint and throw it at the canvas and hope that the portrait was there... I know the part of the canvas I want to throw at...since I've thrown an awful lot... I can only hope that the throwing of the paint onto the already-made or half-made image will either re-form the image or that I will be able to manipulate this paint further into - anyway, for me - a greater intensity."  

Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.



"If ever breath has come toward me, the breath of creative breathing and necessity, forcing even chance to dance the dance of the stars; if ever I laughed at the creative lightning, followed growling but obedient by the lengthy thunder of action; if ever I played dice with the gods at the divine table of earth so the earth shook and split throwing out rivers of flame - for the earth is a divine table, trembling with new words and the sign of the divine dice..."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Seven Seals; Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, 1883.



"There is no member of my body which is not the member of a god.  Thoth protecteth my body altogether, and I am Ra day by day. I shall not be dragged back by my arms, and none shall lay violent hold upon my hands. And shall do me hurt neither men, nor gods, nor the Spirit-souls, nor the dead, nor any man, nor any pat-spirit, nor any rekhit-spirit, nor any hememet-spirit.  I am he who cometh forth advancing, whose name is unknown. I am Yesterday."

Amun-Ra, Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Ani 240 BC.



"Man is at play each time and each time in different 'ways' which in truth are incomparable because here subject is not replaced with Da-sein and object with be-ing; because here this very juxtapositioning of the word formulas misleads and particularly fills up or covers over the abyss that exists between two 'ways'. Subject-Object: here man is put on the stage and secured in the pursuit of his security. Da-sein-be-ing: here man is risked as the guardian of the most question-worthy."

Martin Heidegger, Mindfulness, Continuum, 2006.



"The act was not pure; I left traces. Wiping away these traces, I left others...Thus we are responsible beyond our intentions...That is to say that our consciousness, and our mastery of reality through consciousness,  do not exhaust our relationship with reality, in which we are present with all the destiny of our being... But a trace in the strict sense disturbs the order of the world. It occurs by overprinting... He who left traces in wiping away his traces did not mean to say or do anything by the traces he left." 

Emmanuel Levinas, Entre Nous: Essais sur le penser-à-l'autre; & The Trace of the Other; Éditions Bernard Grasset, Collection Figures,1993.



"The Geschick of being: a child that plays, shifting the pawns...The Geschick of being, a child that plays... Why does it play, the great child of the world-play Heraclitus brought into view in the aiôn? It plays, because it plays. The 'because' withers away in the play. The play is without 'why.' It plays since it plays. It simply remains a play: the most elevated and the most profound. But this 'simply' is everything, the one, the only... The question remains whether and how we, hearing the movements of this play, play along and accommodate ourselves to the play."

Martin Heidegger, The Principle of Reason,1955-1956;  Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1991.



"What I call accident... suddenly appears out of the blue. In the end, painting is the result of the interaction of those accidents and the will of the artist, if you prefer, the interaction of the unconscious and the conscious...But that's not at all what it's like when you're at the canvas. There you don't know where you are or where you're  going or, above all, what's going to happen. You're in a fog...I have a curious type of self-discipline which is probably an asset, because painting doesn't just consist of throwing paint at the canvas. I don't have a master plan when I begin a canvas... I always think that I won't know how to do it."

Francis Bacon, In conversation with Michel Archimbaud,  Phaidon, 1993.



"Instead of God, chance. For those who grasp what chance is, the idea of God seems insipid and suspicious, like being crippled ... To want to be everything - or God is to want to cancel time, is to want to cancel chance. Not to want this is to want time and chance. To want chance is amor fati (love of fate). Amor fati signifies wanting chance, signifies differing from what was. To attain the unknown and risk it, to gamble it... In a definitive way, to risk is to bring what didn't exist into being...Time is chance insofar as requiring the individual, the separate being...Time without risk would be more or less nonexistent... Even now I can only risk and gamble, without knowing."

Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, 1992.



"Risk is necessary to understand what matters in depth, another risk - chance - to give oneself over to what one has understood. This situation has no way out. Any exit is a lie; any stop is the confession of a failure with which anguish and the mind of struggle arm themselves in order to substitute a new movement for it. We enter with a leap into a situation that is no longer defined by useful operations or by knowing but that opens up onto a loss of knowledge, to the possibility of losing oneself without possible contact with knowledge. This state, a state of violence, of tearing apart, of abduction, of ravishing, would in every respect be similar to mystical ecstasy. The ecstatic 'loss of knowledge' is properly inner experience."

Maurice Blanchot, Inner ExperienceFaux Pas, Stanford University Press,  California, 2001.



"The projecting-opening is thrown, is placed into inabiding in openness of projecting be-ing. This placedness into abiding arises from out of a displacement that originates as attunement from the tune of stillness (from be-ing itself): this  placedness is what is endowed in endownment... However, that projecting-opening of be-ing takes the thrower itself along unto the en-opened clearing wherein the thrower recognizes itself as an en-owned thrower. This projecting-open that carries the thrower along and  transposes it, enacts in itself a fundamental transformation of the thrower insofar as the thrower is called 'man'. Thereupon the guardianship for the truth of being begins. But why is Da-sein grasped as 'temporality'?"

Martin Heidegger, Da-seinMindfulness, Continuum, 2006.



"Chance is death, and the dice according to which one dies are cast by chance; they signify only the utterly hazardous movement which reintroduces us within chance. Is it at Midnight that the 'dice must be cast'?  But Midnight is precisely the hour that does not strike until after the dice are thrown, the hour which has never yet come, which never comes, the pure, ungraspable future, the hour eternally past. Nietzsche  has already come up against the same contradiction when he said, 'Die at the right time.'... But death's rightful quality is  impropriety, inaccuracy - the fact that it comes either too soon or too late, prematurely and as if after the fact, never coming  until after its arrival. It is the abyss of present time, the reign of a time without a present, without that exactly positioned point which is the unstable balance of the instant whereby everything finds its level upon a single plane."

Maurice Blanchot, The  Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press, 1982.



"I'm trying to suggest the devout terror that I'm thrown into by such a state even now. (In this regard I think the basic aspect of the will to power is overlooked if it is not seen as the love of evil: not as usefulness, but as a value signifying the summit.)... Even now I can only risk and gamble, without knowing... However, by advancing and risking myself - shrewdly, to be sure,  if shrewdness was each time a 'throw of the dice' - I've changed the way in which I see the difficulties I met with at the outset...To act is to speculate on subsequent results... In this sense action is 'risk,' and the 'risk' is both the working and the things worked on... If need be, 'risk' can be wild and frantic, independent of concerns for the future... In his ideas on children, Nietzsche expressed the principal of open-ended play where occurrence exceeds the given... A child is innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning and game, a wheel turning on itself, a first impulse, the sacred 'yes'. The will to power is the lion: but isn't the child the will to chance?"

Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, New York, 1992.



"A characteristic element in Bacon's use of chance in his painting is a white blotch, as found, for example, in Study for Head of Isabel Rawsthorne, 1967, Study of George Dyer in a Mirror, 1968 and Study for bullfight No.2, 1969. In these pictures Bacon throws thick white paint at the canvas: at the face of the figure, at the bull, at the centre of the painting. The resulting white blotch looks as though the undiluted paint  had been accidentally added to the painting by hand... Sometimes it remains where it landed; sometimes it is drawn with the brush to adjacent points in the picture. But first Bacon simply adds the white blotch, whether or not it fits into the painting... In Bacon's explanation of the meaning of the white spots and slashes that he added to the canvas so abruptly and almost thoughtlessly, he speaks of 'pure accident,' of 'instinct,' and that the picture almost paints itself. He says that the subconscious is finding expression in his his work."

Barbara Steffen, Chance and the Tradition of Art in Francis Bacon's Work, Francis Bacon & the Tradition of Art, Skira, 2003.



"Accident, as Bacon understands it, is not manifested in the sort of beauty that Lautréamont described as the 'fortuitous encounter of an umbrella and a sewing machine on a dissecting table', Such anticipation of the the Surrealsists' collages shows Bacon's lack of interest in uniting two apparently irreconcilable realities on a plane where they seem not to belong, in the manner of Max Ernst... Accident's territory is essentially in the palpable signs of the artist's work process; it manifests itself in the traces and marks of the paint-saturated brush on the canvas. According to Gilles Deleuze, these 'marks are, these traits, are irrational, involuntary, accidental, free, random. They are nonrepresentative, nonillustrative, nonnarrative. They are no longer either significant or signifiers: They are a-signifying traits. [...] These almost blind manual marks attest to the intrusion of another world into the visual world of figuration. [...] They mark out possibilities of fact, but do not yet constitute a fact (the pictorial fact).' ... Accident, as something taken out of the artist's hands, may be incompatible with the idea of the 'act of free creation' - if so, this contradiction raises the question of how art is possible at all and what is evident in this enigmatic quality. Following Paul Valéry and Theodor W. Adorno, the 'meaninglessness' that accident brings into any work can be said to replicate in a certain way the meaninglessness of the era. It is in protest against this that accident is given such a function... In any event, Bacon endeavours to take accident as a departure point, to accept what has arisen spontaneously as the initiation, yet then to modify, to transform, to control it and finally to ascribe some function and hence some of the apparently meaningless, be it a sense of the resistant, the unassimilable, the disconcerting or the grotesque...The element of chance that Bacon invokes obviously has nothing to do with automatism or spontaneity; in his terminology the accidental is bound to the force of instinct, which plays a central role in his thinking."

Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the UnconsciousThe Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.



"Sheer omnipresence of paint is what impresses most as one enters this highly fraught space. Coloured marks - accidental splats, brush wipes, trial runs of one hue against another - rainbow or cascade over the walls, turning them into giant palettes. Another pattern of chance blobs and trickles extends in an intricately coloured net over the book-and photo-strewn floor. Sticky masses of half-spent tubes, thickest of coagulated brushes rear up on all sides, amid old plates and pans used to mix colour, rollers, rags, tins, and jars of every description. An old passport or a single, shinning shoe occasionally heaves into sight like a drowning man, and is lost...But the intense confusion also has something hilarious, even cheering, about it because it conveys utter disrespect for the ordinary rules of living and breathes a rare sense of freedom. Then what catches the eye is the chaos carpeting the studio floor, which can be read as a kind of sourcebook for Baconian imagery."

Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: The Studio as a Symbol, Connoisseur,  September, 1984.



"Both the artist and the suicide plan something that eludes all plans, and if they do have a path, they have no goal; they do not know what they are doing. They devote themselves to this misunderstanding as if blind...The work wants, so to speak, to install itself,  to dwell in this negligence. A call from there  reaches it. This is where, in spite of itself, it is drawn, by something that puts  it absolutely to the test. It is attracted by an ordeal in which everything is risked, by an essential risk where being is at stake, where nothingness slips away, where, that is,  the right, the power to die is gambled."

Maurice Blanchot, Art, Suicide; The Work and Death's Space; University of Nebraska Press, 1982.



"I embrace the abject, abjecting myself, but I do not control or conquer it. I rewrite the rules – precisely by abhorring them, ignoring them, paying them no heed, being unable to abide by them, seeing their impossibility. I demolish the rules in order to reform reality, to re-structure the world. I erase all the supporting structures in order to have to start again from the beginning, building up again from the start, piece by weary piece. And in the process, I punish myself – and any others who happen to get in the way might be casualties of my own self-denigration. Falling by the wayside, they are included, sometimes and in some respects by my own harsh castigation that observes no boundaries, cannot observe the usual distinctions of self/other, peace/violence, for abjection is in the business precisely of obliterating the meaning and function and safety of these categories."

Tina Chanter, Abjection, Death and Difficult Reasoning: The Impossibility of Naming Chora in Kristeva and Derrida; 2000.



"Making plans. - To make plans and project designs brings with it many good sensations; and whoever had the strength to be nothing but a forger of plans his whole life long would be a very happy man: but he would occasionally have to take a rest  from this activity by carrying out a plan - and then comes the vexation and the sobering up. Defiance and loyalty. - He clings firmly out of defiance to a cause which he has seen through - but he calls it 'loyalty'."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Maxims and ReflectionsA Nietzsche Reader, Penguin Classics,  1977.



"A sense of fear of the unknown moved in the heart of his weariness, a fear of symbols and portents, of the hawk-like man whose name he bore soaring out of his captivity on osier woven wing, of Thoth, the god of writers, writing with a reed upon a tablet and bearing on his narrow ibis head the cusped moon."

 James Joyce, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, 1916.



"The obelisk is without doubt the purest image of the head and of the heavens...The pyramid let the god-king enter the eternity of the sky next to the solar Ra, and in this way existence regained its unshakable plenitude in the person of the one it had recognized.  The existing pyramids still bear witness to this calm triumph of an unwavering and hallucinating resolve: they are not only the most ancient and the vastest monuments man has ever constructed, but they are still, even today, the most enduring."

Georges Bataille, The Obelisk; Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.



"Bacon first of all seems to be an Egyptian. This is his first stopping point. A painting by Bacon has an Egyptian look to it: the form and the ground, connected to each other by the contour, lie on a single plane of a close, haptic vision.  Glory to the Egyptians.  "I could never dissociate myself from the great European images of the past - and by 'European' I mean to include Egyptian, even if the geographers wouldn't agree with me."... Through the centuries, there are many things that make Bacon an Egyptian: the fields, the contours, the form and the ground as two equally close sectors lying on the same plane, the extreme proximity of the Figure (presence), the system of clarity. Bacon renders to Egypt the homage of the sphinx, and declares his love for Egyptian sculpture: like Rodin, he thinks that durability, essence, or eternity are the primary characteristics of the work of art."

Gilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: the Logic of Sensation,  Continuum, 2005.



"The sphinx as subject undoubtedly stems from  the time Bacon spent in Egypt during a journey of 1950-51 to visit his mother in South Africa. He was greatly impressed by the antiquities he saw in Cairo and, some twenty years later, in expressing his admiration for Velázquez by comparing him to Cézanne, Bacon alluded to the power of Egyptian art: 'I don't think Cézanne's people are very intense, his apples are more intense than his people, his apples are some of the greatest apples ever painted. His power of invention in forming an apple has never gone into his forming of human beings, he tends to make them inanimate objects, he doesn't extend his invention into the psyche....Velázquez came to the human situation and made it grand and heroic and wasn't bombastic. He turned to a literal situation and made an image of it, both fact and image at the same time. The Pope is like Egyptian art; factual, powerfully formal and unlocks valves of sensation at all different levels'...."

Hugh M. Davies, Francis Bacon: The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.



"The Osiris Ani, the Osiris the scribe Ani saith:- Homage to thee, O Bull of Amentet, Thoth the king of eternity is with me. I am the great god by the side of the divine boat, I have fought for thee, I am one of those gods, those divine chiefs, who proved the truth-speaking of Osiris before his enemies on the day of the weighing of words. I am thy kinsman Osiris. I am [one of] those gods who were the children of the goddess Nut, who hacked in pieces the enemies of Osiris, and who bound in fetters the legion of Sebau devils on his behalf. I am thy kinsman Horus, I have fought on thy behalf, I have come to thee for thy name's sake. I am Thoth who proved the truth of the words of Osiris before his enemies on the day of the weighing of words in the great House of the Prince, who dwelleth in Anu."

The Papyrus of Ani, The Chapter Of Coming Forth By Day; The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 1240 BC.



"On shelves and on the floor the source material quickly proliferated. Books on Egyptian art lay beside crumpled, paint-splattered photos of birds in flight, beak and talons outstretched. Never short of a paradox, Bacon insisted that he and his paintings were above all 'simple'. 'When I hear certain people talk, I always think I belong to a very ancient simplicity. I'm probably the simplest person you know,' he suggested to me."

Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma, Westview Press, 1996.



"The painting now known as Portrait of a dwarf (1975) is, uniquely, in a narrow upright format, the result of Bacon having eliminated two-thirds of the original canvas. Formerly, the dwarf occupied the role of what Bacon called an 'attendant'; these attendants were either voyeuristic, or paradoxically disengaged, witnesses of a horrifying spectacle, or of sexual intercourse. In Portrait of a dwarf, the homunculus stares back implacably at the viewer, returning our gaze while apparently indifferent to the upturned, writhing nude male in a glass cage to his left..The dwarf's seated, cross-legged pose recalls both Velázquez's A dwarf sitting on the floor (c. 1645) and the ancient Egyptian statue of Seneb, the chief of the palace dwarves, in the National Museum, Cairo; Bacon, who considered Egyptian art to have been mankind's highest cultural achievement, had visited Cairo in 1951 and is likely to have seen the figure."

Martin Harrison, Francis Bacon: lost and found; Apollo, March 2005.



"You once explained that the Egyptians had some idea of myth and even for Velázquez and Rembrandt there were still some religious possibilities, and today all that's been stamped out. Would you say that your art is a product of a demythological age?'  [Francis Bacon]: 'Totally demythified. And you see, after all, I don't say it's a good thing, because when you think of some of the great Egyptian art - there were things that they put in the graves with the people, with the dead, and it was marvelous because it was something to, as it were, comfort them in their journey to the next world, or to comfort them in the next world. Like they even gave them food. And if they didn't, it's a very complicated thing with the Egyptians how much they knew or thought, because, after all, they didn't give them food sometimes. They just painted the food on the wall, you see. And that's a very odd thing about them. What they thought or what they really believed is another interesting thing. But then, we who believe in nothing, we make only our myths out of our existence and it's, of course, a nuisance.'..."

Hugh M. Davies in conversation with Francis Bacon; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.



"Thoth is an engendered god. He often calls himself the son of the god-king, the sun-god, Ammon-Ra. 'I am Thoth, the eldest son of Ra.'  Ra (the sun) is god the creator, and he engenders through the mediation of the word....The world came out of an egg. More precisely, the living creator of the life of the world came out of an egg: the sun, then,  was at first carried in an eggshell. Which explains a number of Ammon-Ra's characteristics: he is also a bird, a falcon ('I am the great falcon, hatched from the egg'). But in his capacity as origin of everything, Ammon-Ra is also the origin of the egg. He is designated sometimes as the bird-sun born from the primal egg, sometimes as the originary bird, carrier of the first egg... If we add that this egg is also a 'hidden egg,' we shall have constituted but also opened up the system of these significations..."

Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, The Athlone Press, 1981.



"In practice the scrutinized sun can be identified with mental ejaculation, foam on the lips, and an epileptic crisis. In mythology, the scrutinized sun is  identified with a man who slays a bull (Mithra), with a vulture that eats the liver (Prometheus): in other words, with a man who looks along with the slain bull or the eaten liver... Of course the bull himself is also an image of the sun, but only with his throat slit... One might add that the sun has also been mythologically expressed by a man slashing his own throat, as well as by an anthropomorphic being deprived of a head... In contemporary painting the search for that which most ruptures the highest elevation, and for a blinding brilliance, has a share in the elaboration or decomposition of forms, though strictly speaking this is only noticeable in the paintings of Picasso."

Georges Bataille, Rotten Sun; Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, University of Minnesota Press, 1985.



"I hate the personality that chemmy players put on between one another, and so I like the completely impersonal thing of roulette. Also it just happens that I have been luckier at roulette than I have at chemmy... I remember  when I lived once for a long time in Monte Carlo and I became very obsessed by the casino and spent whole days there... and I did sometimes have very lucky wins. I used to think that I heard the croupier calling out the winning number at roulette before the ball had fallen into the socket, and I used to go from table to table. And I remember one afternoon I went in there, and I was playing on three different tables, and I heard these echoes... I feel I want to win, but then I feel exactly the same thing in painting. I feel I want to win even if I always lose."

Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.



"And so we enjoy seeing other people take risks as we sit comfortably back in our chairs and give ourselves up to the maddening exhilaration of danger, while never actually exposing ourselves to the slightest hazard likely to destroy our flesh, so enamored of lazy tranquillity.This is the very reason, I think, that murderers are so popular: a good crime is no doubt horrible, but at the same time it unconsciously satisfies everyone, and the murderer becomes a kind of sorcerer who has ritually performed the most terrifying of sacrifices."

Michel Leiris, Civilisation; Documents 4, 1929.



"I can play my destiny in a game of dice, as long as I play it as chance exterior to me and accept it as a destiny absolutely tied to me; but if the dice are there in order to change into a whim the too burdensome fatality that I am no longer able to want, it is now in my interest to play and because of the interest in the game. I become a gambler who makes the game impossible (it is no longer a game)."

Maurice Blanchot,  From Dread to Language, The Station Hill Blanchot Reader, Station Hill, 1999.



"In Nietzsche and Philosophy, Deleuze puts forth that every 'game has two moments which are those of a dicethrow— the dice that is thrown and the dice that falls back'. These two moments, however, are inextricably linked — in the way that 'two hours of a single world, the two moments of a single world, midnight and midday, the hour when the dice are thrown, the hour when the dice fall back' are linked. Deleuze insists that games are not a matter of constellations  of multiple outcomes that manifest over time to produce either a winning or losing result; 'On the contrary, it is a matter of a single dicethrow which, due to the number of the combination produced, comes to reproduce itself as such'. To throw the dice is to affirm the necessity of chance and thus to unhinge one's actions from the temporal restraints of causality and in doing so to instantiate an independent act— independent of anticipated results, independent of time and the concept of consequence, disengaged from the always churning machine of becoming. It is to release at random, to in fact, celebrate randomness  by consciously creating it, and in thereby doing, opening up the possibility for perceiving other non-contingent singular actions to take place within the confines of the respective rules at hand."

H. Marcelle Crickenberger, The Arcades Project Project or The Rhetoric of Hypertext; University of South Carolina, 2005.



"Chance and instinct are two key components of Francis Bacon's terminology to which he constantly returned... It was Kant who first emphasised as Bacon maintains here, that instinct was without self-insight, stating that instinct is 'the inner compulsion of the faculty of desire to take this object into possession, before one is acquainted with it'. Yet the fact remains that the distinction between inspiration and instinct cannot always be clearly drawn, especially as Bacon occasionally felt himself to be a medium for more more powerful forces. Hence, Nietzsche's definition of inspiration can certainly be brought to bear with reference to Bacon, if '...suddenly, with indescribable certainty and subtlety, something becomes visible, audible, something that shakes one to the last depths and throws one down [...] One hears, one does not seek; one accepts, one does not ask who gives; like lightening, a thought flashes up, with necessity, without hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice [...] Everything happens involuntarily in the highest degree [...] the involuntariness of image and metaphor is strangest of all; one on longer has any notion of what is an image or a metaphor; everything offers itself as the nearest, most obvious, simplest expression.' [Ecce Homo]  The compulsion (in Kant's terms) to grasp something, the form of which is as yet unknown (instinct) is very much akin to what Nietzsche describes so energetically; all that is missing from Bacon's instinctive action is the impulse of revelation which is ultimately so central to Nietzsche's view. "

Armin Zweite, Accident, Instinct and Inspiration, Affect and the Unconscious; The Violence of the Real, Thames & Hudson, 2006.



"Nietzsche exalts the dice throw of Chance.  It is the Overman, the Child, who can affirm this Chance, this intricate enigma of Life, beyond God and gods – towards that which we all share.  This Child is born through the birth traumas of a Revaluation of All Values.  Amidst the metamorphoses of the Camel into the Lion, and the Lion into the Child, there is myriad unclarity and indistinctness.  The camel is cast aside as the ring-bearer of tradition, of the old law tablets.  The Lion, amidst the revaluation, destroys, but is not yet aware of his own inadvertent creations, he will never be aware.  It is the Child who is born into the topos which is the last gift of the Lion.  The Child picks up the blind creations of the Lion and meets these as found objects, beings of wonder, of innocence.  The Child affirms new values in innocence, finally free of the “against” of the Lion.  Zarathustra is inseminated by Eternity, by the Overwoman he abides, struggles, endures with this goddess of childbirth, Aleqea, his midwife, in his final act of self-overcoming, giving birth to his Children.  In an alchemical sense, Zarathustra, through his affirmation, gives birth to himself.  Eternity rends this dread curtain, inaugurates this marriage of light and darkness.  Zarathustra mates with Eternity.  She shoots lightning out from a dark cloud - flying off this edge of that precipice, off that cliff of the mountain.  Zarathustra receives this lightning, he is inseminated by it as a tree on the mountainside.  She disseminates her truth into him, and, with chaos in his heart, he gives birth to dancing stars.  Zarathustra gives birth to himself.  Eternity – Overwoman is the Semen for this new creation.  She flashes herself – her lightning casts this existence into relief – beckons this pregnancy and childbirth of Zarathustra.  Children grow and dance amidst this All - laughter, sorrow, anguish, joy, and more laughter…  Zarathustra plays with his Children."

Dr. James Luchte, Zarathustra’s Nietzsche: From Guilt to Innocence; Department of Philosophy, University of Wales, 2008.



"Hegel was a Head and only a Head as his Body of Knowledge was Severed by his System as an auto-beheading of bodily being Beginning as an Action without Thinking as a Thought activated above Hegel's Head. Hegel hit the Nail on the Head of Philosophy as an angoisse Action above and ahead of Thinking. For Hegel Thought is always already an Action ahead of our Thinking about a Thought. The alien of action is always already without a conscience - without a conception. To Think Something is always already to Throw Something ahead albeit The Nothing at all. For the alien Abjecting is always already afar and ahead of Thinking. Action abjected is ahead of the Head of Thought decapitated by the Terrorism of Thinking where an abjected Action has no Ideological Aim or Political Argument or Philosophical Proposition but Seeks to Sever Sein's Security. Hegel heads a Header to Thinking through Throwing Thought away as an angoisse Action without Thinking the Thought through...Throwing throttles Thought from Thinking about Throwing Thought forth from Thinking about the Thought thrown...Throwing beheads Thinking ahead. To Think is to Abject for Thinking is an Abjecting be-head of Be-ing."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, Bacon & Junger: Storm & Steel Sensationism; Being & Alien, 2006.



"To understand detachment one must be detached. In Heidegger, to understand the turn, one must oneself turn about. To understand authentic temporality, one must exist authentically. To understand the directionality, Sinn, of being, one must become besinnlich, meditative. To understand the fourfold's play without why, one must live without why. To understand releasement, one must be released. To understand the primordial leap (Ur-sprung) which is the originary, one must take a leap...Here is how Heidegger explains these lines: we must 'leap away from grounds' (vom Grund abspringen),  'let go' (loslassen) of them. This is the practical imperative for understanding the other releasement which is non-human  and through which presencing tenders its economies. Through our releasement and on its condition alone, we are 'let into' (eingelassen) that other releasement - both identical to and different from ours -  which is the event of presencing."

Reiner Schürmann, Heidegger on Being and Acting: From Principals to Anarchy, Indiana University Press, 1987.



"Bacon's strategy is abandonment: he enters the eye of the hurricane, abandons himself (his eyes) to the cliché, conjures them, accumulates them, multiplies them; he gives himself to the prepictorial, and, most importantly, gives himself to the will of losing the will... Bacon's struggle is with the eye itself, that the combat concerns the blinding of eyes - as so many positions of seeing/looking within the picture space...Is it then that the eye will be affected (attacked) on the spectator's side - outside the picture as well? The body, and (in the portraits) the head, is subject to extraordinary forces from the outside; forces of isolation and deformation take possession of it and become visible each time the head jolts the face or the body the organism. With dissipation, with coupling waves of spasm travel and register on the body's surface: the Figure (thus isolated/caged) stands in the field of forces, in the middle of an invisible hurricane which deforms it and which makes it visible...The paradox: the painting [Francis Bacon's Innocent X] renders the visible, renders the invisible visible, but there is no one (no eye/I) to see (it)...At the end of Bacon's struggle, with the hand victorious, free to leave its mark, the act of painting becomes manual ('travail manuel') - blind... The 'free mark' made in the interior of the image by the (blind) hand does not express anything concerning the visual image; it concerns only the hand of the painter. It is accidental, irrational, involuntary, nonrepresentative, nonillustrative, nonnarrative. The marks of the hand are the non-signifying - asignifying - traits of sensation, the product of chance or action without probability. Rather than a probability 'conceived' or 'seen,' the mark is chance manipulated (literally, by the hand); improbable, unseen/unforseen - it is thus free precisely from supervision by the eye, from the eye's governance of vision...Would it not be just the 'point of view of the hand' to 'see' and 'conceive' vision as an instrument of the mind?"

Zsuzsa Baross, Francis Bacon, the Philosopher's Painter, and the Logic of SensationPanorama;  Continuum, London 2002.



"Bacon's contrived accidents - squeezing paint into his hand and throwing it at the canvas, the use of sponges, the rubbing in of studio dust and so on - allow him to pursue an alternative practice of painting  to that of representation. They permit the possibility not so much of the transformation of his figures, but of their deformation... It is the image in all its materiality that throws out this darkness, that marks itself by darkness...What oozes out is the lamella, the organ of the drive...I am saying that it is the lamella that is the outcome of Bacon's efforts to avoid narrative and representation and to act directly on the nervous system. Bacon's 'matter of fact' turns out to be the lamella. And I mean you to take this quite literally....What is at stake is not violence but paint."

Parveen Adams, The violence of paint; The Emptiness of the Image, Routledge, 1996.



"For Thoth Throwing wins its Truth only when - in diced dismemberment - it finds itself - as time-trapped - beheading-being being-there. Da-sein means: being thrown out into the Nothing - Throwing itself out into the Nothing. Da-sein throws Art ahead. Art throws open an open space - as an abjected-ather. Throwing is Showing the unseen unconcealment. Throwing-the-Nothing is Throwing-for-Nothing - for the Nothing is Thrown - the Nothing is Shown - the Nothing comes from the Nothing - Thrown by the Nothing - from the Nothing - to the Nothing - giving the gift - of the Nothing."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2006



"To be sure, the theme of play is there. However,  if one understands the fort/da beyond what it seems Freud intends to say, then one may exceed the limits of the game toward the play of the world where the fort/da is no longer simply the relation of subject to object. It is, instead, that which has absolute command over all experience in general...Freud, on the other hand, always ends up finding his interpretations insufficient. One by one, he throws them away and moves on to another. He always has to take one more step: he moves onto another which he also throws away until finally he retains no single interpretation. He himself is doing fort/da with his interpretations and it never stops."

Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other,  University of Nebraska Press, 1985.



"Thoth is the god of games of chance...Thoth is a gambler and the god of rogues making their living off the tricks of the trade in pool halls and floating crap games... As supplement for Ra-Ammon, Thoth bears the message of the creator: in this way, Thoth comes to be the god of the moon who replaces the sun when it is hidden and which bears the message of its shinning. The supplemental nature of Thoth puts him in the company of much scheming and trickery going on in the world...He is the patron god of sons who kill their fathers, brothers who gang up to kill their fathers, and brothers who kill their brothers..."

Michael Roth, The Poetics of Resistance,  Northwestern University Press, 1996.



"Bacon's real passion, however, was gambling... He had already enjoyed the mystique of roulette in a variety of casinos, moving expertly from table to table in a kind of trance, placing his jetons very deliberately on an intuitive sequence of numbers and rarely hedging his bets...He was excited by the terrible highs and lows that gambling, like painting, procured. 'You can't understand the tremendous draw gambling has unless you've been in that kind of position where you terribly needed money and you manage to get it by gambling,' he told me once, going on to give a memorable vignette of his experiences in Monte Carlo: 'I had a really marvellous win at one point. I was playing on three different tables and I kept thinking I could hear the numbers called out before they come up - as if the croupiers were actually calling them out...' Bacon loved extremes: to paint by day and gamble by night kept him in the state of nervous tension that enabled him constantly to push back the boundaries. Only by living and working on the edge, he believed, could he go far enough to innovate; or as he himself put it, 'you have to go too far to go far enough - only then can you hope to break the mould and make something new.' ... Deliberately and persistently breaking the rules in life as in art, Bacon also held regular gambling sessions in the studio."

Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon in the 1950s, Yale University Press, 2006.



"The Egyptian word for obelisk, tehén, is philosophically connected with the word for sunbeam...The close connection between obelisk and the sun,  implied by the Egyptian word, tehén, is reflected in the common practice of erecting  obelisks to honour the sun god, Ra. The obelisk can, in fact, be understood as the sign of solar religion... Ra's nocturnal representative is Thoth, who, during the reign of the sun king Osiris, 'initiated men into arts and letters and created  hieroglyphic writing' [Derrida, Dissemination]... It is important to note that Thoth appears as 'the bull among the stars.' sun (Ra) and bull (Thoth) reemerge in the religious mythology of the West... Sun, scaffold,  sacrifice, cut, cleavage, coup; erection, resurrection, insurrection; cock and bull; capitol, capital, capitalism, capitalization; decapitation, blindness, castration; Icarus. The obelisk, it seems, marks the site of the scaffold that is the altar of sacrifice where reason loses its head in a revolution from which we are still spinning - and weaving."

Mark C. Taylor, Ecstasy: Georges Bataille: Pineal Eye of the ObeliskAltarity, University of Chicago Press, 1987.



"Thoth, the 'nocturnal representative of Ra, the bull among the stars,' turns toward the west. He is the god of the moon, either as identified with  it or its protector. Thoth is never present. Nowhere does he appear in person. Not being-there can properly be his own... Sly, slippery, and masked, and intriguer and a card, like Hermes, he is neither king nor jack, but rather a sort of joker, a floating signifier, a wild card, one who puts play into play...It is to him that we owe the games of dice and draughts...Thoth also frequently participates in plots, perfidious intrigues, conspiracies to usurp the throne."

Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, The Athlone Press, 1981.



"The myth of Thoth as told by Socrates in Phaedrus is another important deconstructive tool for Derrida's work. Thoth is the god of writing in Egyptian mythology and like the term pharmakon, Thoth and all of the implications that come with him as a representative of writing make him a complicated figure, more so than Plato is content to disclose. Basically, Plato tries to make Thoth, and thus writing out to be some kind alien foe, a kind of arch-enemy to Logos and dialectics. As with the pharmakon, in the Phaedrus, Plato tries to limit and solidify the meaning and definition of Thoth in support of his argument, while in Plato's Pharmacy Derrida's argument principally consists of breaking open these imposed limitations to the force of play...  Like Thoth, the term pharmakon is slippery when wet, and Derrida is happily spilling water all over it, and all of Plato's Phaedrus (Pharmacy). Spilling water on Plato's text reveals the contradictions he is to blame for as well as those which, if we don't blame language itself, if we don't blame play, then no one is truly to blame for. Largely by using the myth of Thoth, Plato attempts to explain how writing is bad. By following ambiguity of the pharmakon, Derrida shows how Plato's explanation is itself bad, that is, full of self-defeating complications, a victim of play. Plato is angry at Thoth, Derrida is angry at Plato. This is because Thoth, being the pernicious (parricidal) joker that he is, tried to sell the pharmakon (writing) to the king in the myth only as a remedy. But noticing the latent ambiguity that Thoth tries to conceal, Plato then becomes suspicious of writing as both a poison and a remedy, and consequently goes even beyond his concern with the good/bad opposition to create the even more rash inside/outside distinction, at which Derrida cringes. "

Seth Warren, Play and Plato's Allergies or Perforating the Slash; Contemporary Critical Theory, February 24, 1997.



"As Thoth is the subversive repetition of Ra, the left eye is that of the right eye.  However, this repetition is not to be understood in the sense of the recollection of Hegel’s re-membering but in the sense of Nietzsche's eternal re-turning.  Hegelian re-membering is grounded in a solid archetypal model or paradigm (i.e., the Absolute Spirit) which is untouched by the effects of repetition and which realizes and objectifies itself in its repetition.  On the other hand, Nietzschean mode of repetition posits a world based on difference and dissemination. Each thing is unique, intrinsically different from every other thing. Similarity arises against the background of disparity.  It is not, as Hegelian repetition is, a world of copies, but that of simulacra or phantasms.  In the Great Seal, the Nietzschean repetition of the right eye by the left eye produces something that is neither the left eye nor the right eye: what it produces is something in between both eyes.  Or, we may say this something in between is the pineal eye that fascinates Bataille so much.  The pineal eye is not an organ but a fantasy or a myth. The fantasy is, in a certain manner, the discrete and essential component of all scatology to the extent that it escapes the economy of the totalizing and tantalizing idea."

Chun-san Wang, The Eye and the Pyramid; Chung  Hsing  Journal  of  Humanities; 33, 2003, 6.



"The Universe started with nothing but the Water Chaos. It was called Nun. When the water subsided, the first land to appear was the Ben Ben stone. On it stood the Sun God Atum, who created himself. In some legends, Atum was replaced with Ra, who later merged with Amun to Amun Ra.  Atum performed auto fellatio and spat out Shu  (the air) and Tephnut (the moisture). When Atum masturbated, the first word he exclaimed was deified into the God Hu, the Divine Utterance. Atum then drew blood from his penis and created the Goddess Sia. Sia was the personification of the Divine Knowledge/Omniscience of the Gods. Hu was the personification of the Divine Utterance, the Voice of the Gods. Heka, the personification of the Divine Power, joined them in a divine Triad.  After Geb and Nut were born, mankind was created from the tears of Atum." 

Günther Eichhorn, Creation of the University; Ancient Egyptian Mythology.



"Nietzsche’s dice-throw is the affirmation of the multiplicity of chance all at once. It is the unity affirmed of multiplicity. It is being which is affirmed of becoming. The eternal return is real difference and the becoming of that difference. It eliminates that which is return of the same. For Nietzsche’s genealogy, (N&P85-6) “The will to power is plastic, inseparable from each case in which it is determined; just as the eternal return is being, but being which is affirmed of becoming, the will to power is unitary, but unity which is affirmed of multiplicity. The monism of the will to power is inseparable from the pluralist typology."

Beth Metcalf, Nietzsche’s Univocity, July 2, 2005.



"Belcher was the subject of such portraits as Three Studies of Muriel Belcher (1966) and Sphinx - Portrait of Muriel Belcher (1979), a strangely plausible reincarnation. Ancient Egyptian art was driven by the impulse to immortalize the dead, and Bacon acknowledges this quality by choosing its defining monument to mark the passing of a friend....The studio contained an impressive number of books and book leaves on Egyptian art and civilization. Bacon believed that the achievement of Egyptian sculpture has scarcely been surpassed and even went so far as to say, 'I think perhaps the greatest images man has made so far have been in sculpture. I'm thinking of some of the great Egyptian sculpture, of course, and Greek sculptures too.'...It is not known when Bacon's passion for Egyptian are began. He made a trip to Cairo in the spring of 1951, when he viewed the Great Sphinx, on which he based a number of paintings in 1953 and 1954. The impact of Egyptian and Greek sculpture on Bacon's work can be detected in both the emphatic poses of his figures and the truncated limbs, which frequently resemble the fragments of ancient sculpture."

Margarita Cappock, Francis Bacon's Studio, Merrell London New York, 2005.



"Why were the Egyptians able not only apparently to make appearance but leave great images as well?... Like in my own life, I hope to be grandly instinctive. I don't think you capture the grandeur. The grandeur of form is a really instinctive thing, after all. What have I looked at all my life? I've looked at Egyptian things... and I exist in that way as a thing. Thing. Of course, I want to be the most brilliant thing that I can be."

Francis Bacon in conversation with Hugh M. Davies; The Papal Portraits of 1953, Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2002.



"Art then is a becoming and happening of truth...Truth is never gathered from things at hand, never from the ordinary. Rather, the opening up of the open region, and the clearing of beings, happens only when the openness that makes its advent in throwness is projected."

Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.



"A painter, if he is going to attempt to record life, has to do it in a much more intense and curtailed way. It has to have the intensity of....you can call it sophisticated simplicity...the kind Egyptian sculpture has, which simplifies into reality. You have to abbreviate into intensity...I think that perhaps the greatest images that man has so far made have been in sculpture. I'm thinking of some of the great Egyptian sculpture..."

 Francis Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987.



"Praise to thee, O Ra, when thou risest. Shine thou upon my face. Let me arise with thee into the heavens, and travel with thee in the boat wherein thou sailest on the clouds."

Osiris, The Egyptian Book of the Dead,  circa 1200 BC.



"Projecting is the release of a throw by which unconcealedness submits and infuses itself  into what is as such."

Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935.



"... a fixed staring at something that is purely present-at-hand..."

Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 1927.



"... Does Time itself manifest itself as the Shining of Being?..."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Alien, 2006.



"The hidden attunement is better than the open."

Heraclitus of Ephesus, 540 BC - 480 BC.





                                                                                                                                         The Eye of  Amenhotep III  1400-1350 B.C.



        Thrown Thoth is Initiated as Ammon-Ra's - Son and Amun as Alien always already hides Hidden away and afar and  ahead of Thoth as Alien. Amun - as an abimage arises and appears through thrown Thoth. After Tossing Himself Off and Slurping up His Own Semen and Spitting it Out Amun spat Thoth Out into the World - onto the World -  throwing Thoth forth - as an Ereignis Ejaculation. Tossing-Off His Tower in His own Hand Amun after then Taught Thoth how to Toss-Off and Throw-Forth-Thoth: for to Toss is also to Throw for Thoth - for Amun also taught Thoth - through Tossing-Off His Towering-Inferno Over His Own Head - then How to Activate Autofellatio - through Throwing His Legs over His Head - Heels-over-Head - Head-over-Helmet -  Drooling Down on His Helmet - Coming to a Head - Coming over Head - Coming Off - Of - An Art Alien. Amun also often Comes off in His own Eyes blinding Himself to Being among beings. For Throwing is - Throwing Blind - as Throwing about Nothing - as thought is Thinking about Something. Thoth is the Throwist - as a Stylist - cutting through concepts and castrates categories and all other cages. Throws for Thoth are Throes as Throwing is Styling is a Flying is a Reeling and Retrieving of the Real. What is Thrown is Thoth -  is Truth as the Non-Identity of the Thing Thrown - as the Truth Thrown for Throwing is never Identical.  Hidden Amun hands Thoth the Handen. Thoth is Handed because Thoth is Blinded by the Semen Strike of Ra's rays. The Hand is the Eye that sees Blind handed over to the blinded  Eye of the Ather - as the Eye of the Hand - as - Amun Hides in Thoth's Hand - that Hides the Eye of the Ather - that Throws up the Head of the Alien for it was Thoth that Handed to the Alien the Throw of Thoth to throw Alien ahead of Thoth.

        If Amun is Alien then Thoth is Bacon and both have No Identity and No Face - and Hide in Heads: - Hid in Hawk - Inside in Ibis: - and also Hide in Hands and Fit in Feet. If Amun as Alien is - the Hidden One - then Thoth as Bacon is - the Handed One.  Amun - the Hidden - is hidden in the handen of Thoth:  Amun always hides in the hand of Thoth - the Hidden Amun hands-the-hide to Thoth to throw the unhidden thrown out of hiddeness - for throwing is the unhiding and the untruthing of Truth - as a Truthing of Arting - Art then is the throwing and unhiding and becoming of Truth as Art.  This throwing - as the joining of the out of joint of truth and art as truth-as-art - is the shining in itself - throwing out and showing off its shining - as a sensationing of being becoming being-art. Amun is the hiding away of Art which waits whiling awhile away Art awaiting waiting when will Thoth throw thought out of orbit death dealing dasein dice.

        Bacon being Thoth and Alien being Amun are both essentially Egyptian Artists and are Egyptianist Sensationists and Thus have Nothing to Say only Something to Show and being akin to ancient Egyptian Art do not invite interpretation but call for contemplation as a castration of consciousness and a sensationing of our subconsciousness: Bacons images as Peppiatt correctly points out: "resist interpretation" contrary to Harrison's claim that they: "insist on it."  Thoth-Bacon's images do not 'insist' on 'interpretation' but rather refuse interpretation rather resist interpretation meandering without meaning for Thoth-Bacon has 'nothing to say' only something-to-show something-to-sensation and ancient Egyptian Art does not 'invite interpretation' but instead calls forth for calm-concealing-contemplation while-with-waiting on our-opening-out of our subconscious-sea-sensationing. Essentialist Egyptianist Artists are: Alien, Archipenko, Bacon, Brancusi, Giacometti, Modigliani and Jawlensky.

        Egyptian Art being Pure Being has nothing-to-say so remains silent only wanting-to-shine ahead to protect the dead. The golden gleam of Egyptian Art’s invisible silent shining blinds our sight like the sun so we stand dazzled and dazed blinded and bewildered before Being which is Art. Egyptian Art shimmers and shudders hovers and hoovers weaving with vacillating vibrations between life and death becoming being-dead as the after-life. Egyptian Art is the Throw of Being - Egyptian Art is the Flux of Being – Egyptian Art is the Vibration of Being - Egyptian Art is the Sensation of Being - blown between the air of being-alive and the dust of being-dead becoming the living-deading of the afterlife.  




                                                                                                                                                                                                 Aligned-Amun Self-Portrait  A.V.E   2002



        Alien-Amun and Bacon-Thoth do not Activate Art from the Head but from the Helmut and the Hand. Alien-Amun like Bacon-Thoth is Hidden by His Huge Hand and His Hard Helmet which Shines ahead of His Head through Its Wetness and abjects its Semeness through its Artness. As for Alien - as for Bacon - the Hand and the Penis shooting Semen are the Essential Tools for foam froth forming an auto-activated Art Alien: and not the Head: for Thoth-Bacon the Canvas is the Shrine of Divine Masturbation where the Hand throws the Semen of Being thrown out-of-the-world. Bacon as Thoth is the God of Throwing the Games of Chance.  Bacon's Thoth throwing forth is a fort-da recovering and retrieving and revealing of dasein as deathsein as the Supplement of Semening. Bacon-Thoth throws the 'dice of death' as a death-dealing delivering desemening deathsein-da. Dasein-Dice means: being thrown out-into-nothing becoming being-death:  Bacon-Thoth throw dice dasein death-throes as death-throws throwing the dice of death for the being time for the time being becoming-death: being-dead as the living-dead as the un-dead as being-the-no-thing as the dice does not lie so the dead do not die - the dice lay the dead lie - being-there - being thrown over-there being thrown over-ather aborted ahead afterdeath and alleviated as an afterlife being over-thrown out-of-orbit out-into-the-nothing of the night of the naught where nothing is thrown infinitely thrown through the naught into the night of the nothing.  




                                                                                                                                      Portrait of M.V.E as Ra January 2008  A.V.E



        Thrown Thoth-Bacon Paints in the Noname of Ammon-Ra-Alien.  Bacon-Thoth play the Plurality of Painting by Chance thrown Through wet wind with which Ammon-Ra Enters the Alien Orbit out of the World.  Amun activates Paint thrown by Thoth in Order to Appear and Disappear back into being Alien. Thoth's Thrown Paint Passage is a Substitute and a Supplement to Aumn-Ra's radiating Semening Desemenation. Thoth Presents and Presence Amun's Absence through thrown Thothness. Thus Thoth-Bacon  is a substitute for Ammon-Ra-Alien supplementing Alien and supplanting Alien-in-Absence. Thus the Thrown Paint of Thoth Displaces Amun's Desemenationing.  Then Thoth Becomes Ather as Amun's Ather - Amun's Alien - as imitating images initiating abimages abjecting Alien ahead as a Desemenation Dissemination.  Thus thrown Thoth traces Amun's abjected Semening Sensations and Symbols and Signs slipping and slurping ahead presencing-absencing tracing-the-trace of the nothing of the nothing.  For Thoth - as for Amun - the thrown thrust Trace tears away at Representation rotting Representation retarding Representation revealing Representation redundant reeling in the real revealing the Real Thing: the Reel Thing - the Thrown Thing: throwing fort-da-dasein-dice nailing-the-nothing:  Das Ding Das Death Das Dice Doing Death Doing Dice - throwing dice throwing death - as a throwing time - as a doing death.  Dice Sein means: Being thrown out into the Nothing where death-throes leave Nothing to Chance. Throwing Leaves Nothing to Chance: Throwing Leaves The Nothing to Chance: Throwing is The Nothing of Chance. For Bacon-Thoth: to Throw is to Throw Time: the Time of Throwing: the Throwing of Time. When is the Time of Throwing? The Throwing of Time? The Time of Throwing as the Throwing of Times an Ereignis Eventing gives the gift of time to being so to throw is to throw being as time as giving time to being playing for time for the time being as an appropriative play projecting accidental appearances as an Answering and an Athering Throwing the Dice of Difference: throwing is the being of time being thrown. What is Thrown by Hand is presence-at-hand. What is Thrown at Hand by Hand out-of-hand is the Divine Nothingness of the Abject Sublime - for throwing forth out-of-hand lets-being-be by not being man-i-pulated by not being man-u-factured but by being thrown-out-of-hand where the air actually articulates attunes and attains ahead an abimage arrival. What Thoth Throws through the abundant and ambivalent air is the Divine Nothingness of the Abject Sublime.




                                                                                                                                                                      Throwing Thoth



           Where was Throwing thrown forth from? What is the Origin of Throwing? Thoth. Where was the Origin of Throwing? Egypt. For Thoth 'thrownness' - as a 'thereness' thrown 'over thereness' of the 'life' and the 'death' of the dice - breaks the bank of being by becoming bankrupt as a  thrown 'theftness' of a 'no-longer-thereness' of 'life' lost leaked away as a death-dasein-dice delivered into the thrust-thirst of the naught at the nothing of the night yet during the day Thoth-Bacon throws wonderful wounding-one-liner 'throw-a-way' phrases throwing-the-dice about 'life' and 'death':  "there it is"  or  "here's to you" or "that's how it is" or "that's all there is" or "the brutality of fact" or "the beautiful wound" or "what's called art" or "what's called friendship" are as at the thrown eggo essential sensation state of Dasein’s Being and Bacon-Thoth's manic mood of "exhilarated despair" of "how one is".  Bacon-Thoth becomes thrown through into stark states of oily anxiety and angst (about "nothing" because anxiety has no object only abject) which would serve sensations of oozed-out voluptuous violence, wonderful-wounds, spurting-sperm.  For Heidegger-Anaximander and Bacon-Thoth atta-anxiety so sets us free opening-out under-up a freedom as "throwness":  Bacon-Thoth's other 'throwness' is His Hand that throws the being of paint as paint as the being of becoming: for Bacon-Thoth the being of paint  - by being-thrown  - becomes the becoming of prised paint becoming shape-shifted into initiated raw radical abjected atherness.  The Thoth throw sole strategy of the Throwing forth-from the body - arm - hand - penis - paint by Bacon-Thoth thrown-fort de-forming-da-sein becomes for Heidegger the 'passageway' serving-severing thrown-through silently-serving a atta raw radical 'displacement' and 'defamiliarization' and 'unconcealment' of oozed-out sealed-stuffs thrown-there as a sein-semening encapsulating 'estrangement effect'.  There can be no object-oriented ontology only an abject-oriented ontology because being is abject and abjected and not object and objected. Both Bacon and Heidegger objected to being as being object knowing that being is abject and always abjected ahead in-to dasein and out-of da-sein as a fort-da.

        Thoth-Bacon's brooding boiling body becomes the thrown opening ooze filter flow froth fuelling being bringing born becoming. Bacon-Thoth throws fort-da-dasein dice as a revealing rehearsal and register and repetition of death and the dead as the Living Dead throwing and transforming written-paint into spoken-paint as a painting-wristing-without-writing pushing the paint to speak without words through throwing the dice of difference: thrown-paint is not written-paint. Bacon-Thoth  throws difference delivered into prised paint as the God of Painting-by-Chance - (and not: Painting-by-Numbers but Painting-through-thrown-Numbers) as the God of Deathing by Dice as a Death Dealer delivering the dice of dasein the dice of death. For Thoth-Bacon death happ-ends when throwing becomes hitting as the paint of pain is captured by the canvas: hitting becomes a kind of flattening-out-of-time looking like the lamella - time trapped - time flattened out - as beheaded-being - thrown time is literally caught by the canvas - as a materialised moment - as a mooding movement:  For Thoth Throwing wins its Truth only when - in diced dismemberment - it finds itself - as time-trapped - beheading-being being-there - being-thrown-over - thrown over there.  What is thrown over there? Paint is thrown over-there some-where. Paint - if that is what we want to call this thrown-thing, is of all things the most thrownful, and to hold fast what is thrown requires the greatest skill - for throwing is a carrying of death within it - paint carries death and maintains itself within it - as a life force - a thrown force - a thrown life - as a as a death throe - as a death thrown - as a da-sein throw-ness.  Da-sein means: being Thrown out into the nothing - Throwing itself out into the Nothing.  Da-sein throws Art ahead. Art throws out open an open out space - sensationed ahead as an abjected-abimage - as an atta-ather.  To be in the throw-of-it is to be in the thick-of-it not to be in the think-of-it for to the throw negates the think that cannot be thrown.

        Throwing is Showing the unseen Unconcealment. For Bacon-Thoth Throwing-the-Nothing is Throwing-for-Nothing - for the Nothing is Thrown - the Nothing is Shown - the Nothing comes from the Nothing - Thrown by the Nothing - from the Nothing -  to the Nothing - giving the gift - giving the geist - of the Nothing.  Throw-ing  becomes this Thoth-ing forth only by Looking the Nothing in the Face and Sensatioing with It: this Sensationing with the Nothing is the Sensation that shape-shifts it into Being the Nothing. Where the Sensation of the Nothing becomes the awesome aura of the Being of Nothing at all as the Being of Sensation as all where Sensationing shines the Nothing of Being at all and for all Time and Being for all Time the Time of the Shine as the Shine of Being.  Does Being itself manifest itself as the Shining of Time?  Does Time itself manifest itself as the Shining of Being?  Being and Time come together through the Shining of the Nothing. The Shining of the Nothing is Being with Time Doing the Nothing. Being and Time Doing the Nothing. Doing the Nothing There. There the Nothing is Doing.  When doing nothing we are Doing the Nothing but doing-nothing is the most dreadfully difficult thing to do. We would much rather be dead than do-nothing but when we are dead we are at last doing-the-nothing thrown-ahead into-the-nothing and doing-time-doing-the-nothing.  To throw is to know not needing to think about it only needing to throw about it for throwing came before thinking and throwing comes after thinking.    

        In Throwing Thoth Bacon is Doing-the-Nothing: and doing-the-nothing through-throwing is a skilful-thing to-do as a skilful- being to-do as a being-to-be as a being-to-throw aiming all ahead at the nothing at all: for throwing-the-nothing is being being-thrown forth for the nothing as being-the noting thrown-there. Thoth-Bacon belongs-between Life and Death neither Alive nor Dead but in the interstice-initiated Living-Dead - as the Undead - as the Undiced - belonging both to all-time and no-time at all without a face with a face at all.  For frothing Thoth-Bacon is the Nocturnal Servant of Ra - the bull among the boys - the moon among the men - beaming blueness - being blue - being boy - boy blue.  Thoth-Bacon is the God of Chance: - A Dice - A Card:  Crafty Calculating: - Sly - Slippery - Secretive - Seductive - Sedate - Serene - Silent: - as a da-sein-dice death-dealer throwing-throes. The Thrower has His Eye in His Hand. The Hand is the Blind Eye that Sees the Nothing. The Eye of the Hand Hears the Sight of Being. The Eye of the Hands Smells the Site of Being. The Eye of the Hand Touches the Sensation of Time. The Eye of the Hand Throws the Being of Time.




                                                                                                                                   Amon-Min Self-Portrait  A.V.E  February 2009



        Bacon-Thoth do not Throw through the Brain - but throw Through the Beheaded Body by Throwing through the Eye of the Hand - by by-passing the Brain. Bacon-Thoth throws through His Hand - Losing His Head: throws through boredom - throws through anxiety - throws through dread - thrown through dice - chasing chance - activating accident: - as arbitrary assaults - as anti-illustration illusion - as anti-narrative nothing - aiming and arriving ahead as an ab-vision as an ab-visible as an invisible-visible-visible-invisible -  initiated through throwing severing semening sensationing.  The thrown wet white warm whiplash  - as a sweet-streak-semen-strike - as a binding-blinding-liquid-lightning-flash-frisson - stings the eye and severs the sight of the subject - severs the site of the subject - but binds the sightless subject to the site of the blind - by being blind to being-there by binding to the not being-there to begin-with whilst throwing ahead of a headless head - harnessing brooding beheaded beings - wandering whilst waiting wet where there the thrown white whiplash wonders without words aimed all ahead at a navigating nauseating needling nailed nothingness there through to the nothing alling attuned and attained as an atta ather abtarity abaesthetic abvisible abvision abeye abgaze.              




                                                                                                                                    Wepwawet-Anubis  Self-Portrait  A.V.E  Dec. 2008



        The Gaze is Glazed over by the thin Skin of the Semen that Strikes at the Site of the Sight of the Egg of the Eye - that Cannot see it Coming - and Cannot catch it in Time - to close its Shutters - so the Eye of the Spectator becomes Coated and Congealed and Concealed and by a Skin of Semen - like leaked lamella - severing the sight of the subject - so the gaze thus becomes the glaze: - a blind-spot - a bind-spot - blinding-binding-being. The empirical (empty) eye is blind to the being of the thing being thrown - the extra X-Ray eye of Ra sees through seeing - sensing being blinded by being - but by becoming the thrown slime stuff - in-itself - thrown out-itself - by being binded by it - by being in it - by being severed sight - by becoming severed sensation - the site of sensation without sight: seeing-the-nothing - seeing-the-site of the nothing scene.  For Bacon-Thoth nothing is seen - nothing is scene - nothing is screen: - nothing is materially seen in the mirror: - nothing is materially made out of nothing - out of throwing the nothingscene the nothingscape at the nothingscreen: - throwing at the screen of the nothing: - the black-whole of the black-hole of the mirror without meaning the mirror without mirroring: - the black-hole mirror is the materiality of the whole of the nothing: the nothing  scene as the nothing seen in the nothing screen. Bacon-Thoth throws-blind - 'I throw therefore I am  -  blind' - binding blind being beyond the site of the sight - beyond the sight of the site: - violating vision - emptying out the egg of the eye of the I - activating an angoisse abeye and an abvision and an abimage as an arche Apeiron Apparition thrown through Thoth by being blind binding being to Seeing the Nothing ahead that sees through the Nothing there as the Something there that the seer never sees so that only the blind sees Being as the Nothing there being Something There that is Being There.

        Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the Game - Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the House - Throwing is Breaking the Rules of the System - abjecting the abimage out-of-order - as an oozed out other order - ordaining an activated ather - as 'I'  - as in 'eye' out an 'eye' - is thrown - is thrown-out - is throw away - ahead  and away - afar and away - as a  jettisoned-jouissance: 'I throw therefore I am - not' - 'I throw therefore I am - naught' - for:  'I am not there' - for:  'I am naught there' - for:  'I am nothing there'. Throwing is Being Nothing There. I am being not born: I am being abjected. I am not living: I am not dying: I am abjecting: always already abjecting. To Throw is to throw one out beyond oneself - to Throw oneself afar and ahead of oneself - aborted as a beheading off of oneself - by being thrown-out over there - as being-thrown ahead of one-self - as a-head being-ahead of-one where and when one is ahead of one as a-head of-one ahead a head.

        As also already aiming afar and away: 'I throw therefore I am - abject' - abjected - as ahead of a head-of-being-t-here - 'I' am not the 'author' of 'actions' - 'I' did not 'do it' - 'it did it' - all of 'it' as none of 'it' - 'it did I' - 'it' did 'I' in  - out-of-it - 'it' abjected 'I' - 'I' am 'not' therefore 'I' do not 'throw' - 'throw throws' - 'throws-throes' - 'death throws' - 'death throes' - the abject is ather - to the 'I' of the 'other' - of the no-'I' - of the 'no-other' - that throws 'it' - as the alien - of the nothing - thrown-there over-there.  Thawed Thoth-Throws-Throes - Death-Die-Dice - abjecting ahead - an alluring alteric alien allumination - as an awesome aura - smearing semening sein.

       Is throwing an art? Is art a throwing? Art is Thrown.  For the Greeks art is thrown-by-hand: - as a hand-i-craft - as a throwing-techne - as techne means hand-man-u-facture - art is always already hand-made not mind-made - the mind does not make art - the hand - severed from the head - makes art ahead of the head. To throw is to throw ahead of one's head - to throw is to behead oneself - beyond oneself - the throw gathers itself together in the throw - in the time of the throw that gathers the nothing throwing is gathered - a gathering of time not taking time - a gathering of time taking time giving time. Throwing is a Gathering of a Sending of a Retrieving of Time. Time throws art ahead of time for the time being for the being time for the time of an alien being to come after the time has come for being.




                                                                                                                      Amun-Ra on the Underground  1977  Alexander Verney-Elliott



        Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of Da-Sein and Freud's Fort Da Dice deal dealing and  deliver Bacon-Thoth's Throwing-Being - as a raw real register oozing of being Becoming Thrown back-forth over on one's self forward-backwards all the time all over time where the thrown pushed paint shot splatters back before on one's face from the tawny cantankerous canvas: a fucked-face covered in one's own cum coming to ahead towards one's head  The Further you Throw the Closer you Become because the Further you Throw the Nearer you Become to the Truth of Alien Being out-the-world.  Van Gogh and Bacon stated that the more 'unreal' you make the Image the more chance there is of 'it' being real.  Thoth-Bull-Bacon bled bare: "I would like to make images which reflect all kinds of things that I feel instinctively about my own species, and I would like, in my arbitrary way, to bring one nearer to the actual human being...I get nearer by going farther away."  As Thrown Thoth-Bacon gets: 'nearer by going farther away' by being Egyptian - by becoming Bull - by throwing Thoth - by activating Amun  - by revealing Ra - by reeling the Real. Bacon-Thoth throw the-time-being as a mastering measuring-the-time for the-being-time. Thoth Throws the Truth of Time. Thoth Throws the Time of Truth: Death Dealing Dasein Dice: Leaving Nothing to Chance: Leaving the Nothing to Chance - Thoth throws the Number Nothing: the Number Naught: Naught is the Number of the Nothing - Comeing before - and -  after - One.  The Naught is always already added after and added before the One. Naught comes after One as Naught Comes over One: the Naught - as the Nothing - Comes over and Covers One.  The Naught is always already within The One: The Naught belongs to the One and always already remains remaindered within The One: The naught is The Nothing of The One: The One is the Naught and The Naught is The One and The Naught and The One are The Nothing: The Nothing is The One. The Nothing-One - with will-without-will what Thoth threw as: "all the foam of its freshness" still clinging to it. What is the time of throwing for the throwing of time for Thoth-Bacon? That is: the zeit-spiel-raum of the throwing-being-there as a zeitig as an existence-without-being? The ejeculated economy of existence being-thrown-ahead without-being-there? But being thrown over there as ather as gathered and grounded and grinded ahead as an awareness of being-thrown-over-there ahead of one's self onto the coverted canvas. For Bacon-Thoth zeitig is the throwing-at-the-right-time by not thinking about the time to throw where we will-to-lose-one's will where willing dice deliver dasein disclosed: time stops still when the dice is in the air refusing gravity.




                                                                                                                                                        Dasein-Dread Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2016 



        For Bacon-Thoth Throwing paint ahead at the right place at the right time projects primordial presence as throwing existence - without being - without representation: to throw is to throw time throwing the being of time for the time being for the time of being for the being of time. To repeat and rehearse the throw as a mood of the movement of the moment: to throw is also to throw a mood: one throws a mood: one is thrown into a mood one is thrown out of a mood: mood throws one: one throws mood: one is in and out of a mood a la mode de fort-da-dicing. Thoth Bacon broods brooding mooding - Bacon being moody - in a bad mood - in a good mood - the same-difference. For Bacon-Thoth mooding colours throwing and throwing colours mooding making mercurial mood swings switching on and off as a switch in a split second from one to an ather: and any mood can come up as any number can come up at ant time. What is thrown? Lighting is thrown - as a lightening strike - as a semen strike - as a source of light and a sauce of light that lights: that throws light on to the manipulated mass matter and activated abjected accidents of our Thoth-Bacon bathed beings. Bacon-Thoth is all throwing all knowing and not everyone can throw not everyone can know: not everyone can know how to throw or what to do with the thrown thing after the throwing after the knowing of the throwing and the when and the where of throwing of knowing of the nothing. Bacon-Thoth does not have 'spare time on his hand' but 'rare time in his hand' to be thrown time so that time is not killed: time is rather born through throwing as living-time against killing-time which is a reactionary and regressive forgetting of time as being and being and time: killing-time is killing-being: killing-time is an action abject more murderous than killing-being for it is killing the time of being: to kill time is to kill-being for time is time for being-time of being to be time for being to time being for. The forgetting of being is actually a forgetting-of-the-time of being of the being-of-time which waits for being to come to time for time waits for man to become being with time and in time to become being-time and in-time being-time becomes being without time for the matter of time becomes the matter of being the matter for being to become Being.

        What is thrown? What is thrown is: the sensation of time - what is thrown is: the sensation of time thrown-through-time - becoming-being-time. Time is a Thing - Time is a Thing Thrown - thrown ahead as a time of a thing as a thing of time: things have their time as times have their thing - time is a thing that has things and has time for things to come - coming to their time in time the thing to come in time - time is a thing that things through time for things have their time times have their thing - the thing time has time for is being but being does not have the time does not have the time for being does not have the being for time so being does time for being all the time without knowing the time of being to be the time for the time-being for the being-time for being is all the time not in time out of time with beingout of being with time until death unites being to time as the time of being becoming being-time for the time-being all-time all-being forever-timebeing beingfree from time all the time without beingtime.




                                                                                                                                             Amended-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014



        What is thrown ahead of being and time is the throwing itself -as the throwing ahead of the nothing - the nothing-being-thrown. An abjected alienality known as the naught of the nothing where nothing is thrown where nothing happens: as an abjected nothingness through throwing nothing actually happens: nothing actually abssoluted happens as a thinghood of time thrown time throwing as a happening at the right time as a sein zeiting sensation. Through throwing dice da-sein discovers its initiated emptithrowness: the thrown overflowingfullness of the nothingbeingthere. What is thrown ahead is an overalien as a head oozing and overflowing with an eggy engulfing and emerging emptying where the fullness of the nothing overflows on to something over there: as a stain-sein and as a zeit-stain. For brooding Bacon-Thoth Throwing-Time as Being-Time  is the Overflowing of the Nothing: that-it-is there-it-is: here happening navigating nothing. The Emptiness of Being as The Fullness of the Nothing: the Brutality of  Fact: why then is there Nothing rather than Something?  What is the Time of Throwing? The Time of Throwing is the Time of Truth Bursting Open and Overflowing all Over Space with The Nothing where Time and Truth and the Nothing collide and collude and collapse together apart as a Profane Presence - as an Alluring Allumination - as a Mass Matter - as a Dark Dasein Leaking Light.  Through Throwing the Nothing - Nothing is Thrown: - Nothing Happens - Nothing Comes - Nothing Appears - Nothing is Unconcealed: Throwing Da-sein is Knowing the Nothing.  Da-sein sensations: being Thrown out into the Nothing. Being Thrown out of one's self is Being Nothing. The Nothing is the totality of beings. The Nothing is the totality of beings being Thrown. The Nothing is the totality of beings being Thrown through The Thing. The Thing throws the Truth at Hand. Truth is Thrown by Things at Hand by Things to Hand by Things in Hand as the Throwing-into-Art of Truth - throes thrusting up ahead - an awesome-alluring-alien-abimage Beholden - Behanden - Beheaden as a Beheaded being before you all ahead with a hard on without a head-on and after being-be-headed your head becomes your hard-on and you fuck-infinity ahead be-head with your hard-head.




                                                                                                               Alien-Amun  abseen abjected ahead stares soaking in his Spunk Stained studio mirror





                                                                                                                                 Bacon-Thoth  abseen abjected ahead  in his Paint Splattered studio mirror



        What is thrown ahead is a head of a being by Bacon-Thoth - thrown through part-ed-pain-t - projected pointed ahead - as a porous-portrait: for Thoth-Bacon pain-ting a por-trait as a thrown-thing ahead is in-itiating be-heading being t-here by be-ing thrown out over there: to paint a por-trait is a sign of signing the death warrant of de-parting da-sein - as a sign of sev-ering life - ser-ving death - as a passport-passageway to the deathworld of the beingdead as the livingdead: de-livering Dyer - Lacy - Edwards exited exiled early - as an ex-ecuted er-eignis.  Through throwing ahead a head Thoth-Bacon 'kills-the-thing' thrown through the lust and lustre of pain-t - where when wet porous-portraiture - as a paint-ed pain-t - activates and attunes as a poison and a potion - as a passion and a possession. What is thrown ahead is not a trace of the time at hand in hand being thrown ahead by hand - what is thrown ahead is not the trace of being being thrown - what is thrown ahead is a projected pure presence off-of an abjected absolute absence: - as a presentation - and not as a representation. In Throwing ahead an alien abimage Bacon-Thoth does not represent an any-thing - or any-some-thing - no - not at all - actually Bacon-Thoth present a no-thing at all - as absolutely the nothing at all - and for all to see for nothing at all - for all there-is-there is the nothing at all - and there-is the-nothing-there that is the afterlife there.

        Bacon-Thoth's Eternal Throwing as the Eternal Return of Art is the Fort Da Fluxing of the Eternal Coming of Amun-Ra radiating reeling opening oozing out forever full flooded returning ready coming clean well wet dry wet dry wet dry wet dry wet. Amun is to Art as Thoth is to Throw. Art is Being in the Throw. The Throw is the Time of Art.  For Bacon-Thoth Eternal Throwing is Throwing Time all the time not-in-time out-of-time as Time Space through Time Speed and Time Ather where the Thrust of the Throwing thrusts the Intensity of Becoming Being Time all the time.  To Throw is to Become: Throwing for Bacon is Becoming. Throwing is the coming together of Being and Time as Beingtime. To Throw is to Think of Being as Time.  Bacon Thoth Throws Beingtime.  For Bacon-Thoth the AbImage cannot be Known only Thrown out-of-time all the time which is why art can never be 'contemporary' for art is out-of-time all the time and abjected ahead as an Amuning eggsisting exiting existentia. Bacon defines Existentia as the self-sensationing aborted abimage of our absolute-alienality.




                                                                                                                        Anhur Anterior Self-Portrait A.V.E February 2009  


        Nietzsche-Zarathustra throws Existentia as the Eternal Recurrence of the Sensation as a Becoming Alien again as the sensessence of the alien lies in its egg-sistence before being Becomes broken into out as the egg of the eternal return. Amun Egg-sistence: the cracking open and oozing out of being - Becomes the semening sensessence of the alien being - that is - only of the alteric alien watery way to be leaked for as far as our sensation sows only the abject alien being is admitted to the dense destiny of oozed out exited eggs-sistence scape attuned as leaking out beyond being itself initiating soaking serene sacred semen sensationing as a shimmering shuddering shinning.  Bacon is the Bull among the Shit - the Bull among the Semen - the Bull among the Sun - the Bull among the Stars:  Bacon Bull's Thoth Throat is Cut clean by Amun's Liquid Lightning Bolt Slash of Semen striking toward the Sun - because Bacon Loved Orange - because Bacon Loved Ra. Bull Bacon's arresting  Amun Ra and Bull (1987):  An Airborne Amun darts down aiming ahead at the tossing Bull Out of the Blue - Out of Osis Thrust towards the Buckling Bull - then the brave Bull is burnt Blue by the thrown thrust oust Orange Orb of Reigning Ra. By becoming bright Blue - Thoth thrown - becomes the God of the Moon - merging and eclipsing the melting Sun severing Ra serving Amun-Ra - hiding Amun hidden - inhabiting Ibis - exiting Egg - creating Crocodile - revealing Ram ramming Thoth. As Amun-Ra-m ramming reveals also ahead a Head of a Ram - and a Head of a Crocodile heading a Crown of the Solar Circle. Amun-Ra-m is the Lord of Plumes - the Lord of Perfumes - the Lord of Scales - the Lord of Skins: - the Lord of Transmutations - as anointed Amun-Ra-m is a Shape-shifting Ram-Reptilian Alter-Alien always abjecting all aiming ahead an alluring acidic monstrous moisture falling forth from its intensely inviting meandering moat mouth divinely delicious droooling delighted dasein




                                                                                                                                      Wepwawet-Anubis  Self-Portrait  A.V.E  Dec. 2008


        At another age Amun-Ra-Temu at Thebes has the Head of a Hawk  Surmounted by the Solar Circle encircled by a Slithering Serpent. Amun is the God of Many Names and the God of All Ages and the God of the No Name and the God of the No Now. As absolute abjection Amun is the No God of the No Time of the No Name of the No Nothing - time and again always away arising afar and all away.  What is thrown ahead of being and time is also the throwing of The Nothing itself -as the throwing ahead of The Nothing - the nothing-being-thrown towards The Nothing at all.  Not all-or-nothing - but The Nothing-All. What is The Nothing Thrown? Where is The Nothing Thrown? What is The Nothing if it is not nothing at all? The Nothing is not the nothing - not the nothing that is the nothing at all: The Nothing is the all of the nothing - for The Nothing never dies - Nothing-does - The Nothing-does-Happen - The Nothing dices - The Nothing does not die - for The Nothing matters - death matters - death does matter - death matters The Nothing - The Nothing abjects ahead as a moving matter scapeing and scanning the Something - Nothing happens to the Something - death happnes just as nothing happens - we are always doing-the-nothing in doing the something we do nothing in doing The Nothing at all and not something at all.  Not alien art for art's sake but alien art for nothing's sake - alien art for the sake of nothing - alien art is for the nothing's sake - not for the sake of the something - for art is not a something - or an anything - art is a nothing - a nothing  at all - for The Nothing at all.  Art is not for all - not for the all - art is for the no one - The Nothing: art is for nothing. Art is for Nothing at all. Art is The Nothing - and The Nothing is not the nothing - not the nothing at all. The Nothing is at all the Nothing is All. The Nothing is Thrown. All of The Nothing. Thrown. The Nothing is not the Known the Noting is the Thrown as Thrown ahead of the Known which is never Known at all for only the Thrown is Known as The Nothing Thrown as The Nothing Known and only those that know-how-throw know that there is nothing-to-know of The Nothing for the throwing is the knowing of The Nothing.

        The (thrown) Nothing (e)scapes All: no-one can (e)scape the Throw of The Nothing: the-nothing-thrown: the throw-scape of the nothing-there: the-no-one is scaped scanned and scattered and subsumed through the nailing of the navigating The Nothing: - the no-one is scanned and scaped by The Nothing at all thrown - through the scan-scape of The Nothing - scapeing-the-subject: - shuddering the subject - shredding the subject - shattering the subject - smothering the subject: - severing the site and the sight of the subject: - smouldered and smelted and skinned alive and ahead - as a sutured-subject served-severed: - abjected and beheaded - by becoming being-abject as an abscape at one with The Nothing. The thin skin-scape of The Nothing seals off and out the skin of the skinned subsumed subject as an activated abscape: The Nothing is always already coaxing its way in and closing in on you all - coming towards you - coming all over you -covering you all up in the thrown thick stuff-scape of The Nothing there: - covering and concealing consuming and containing all of your nothing at all - by being scaped and scraped up - all up - thrown through The Nothing - throwing out of Thought out of the Nothing since the Nothing matters much more than the matter that Thoughts. The Nothing matters for the Thought that does not matter for the Nothing. The Nothing matters being-for-nothing for the Nothing is far fuller-for-forging being-for-time that Thinking fails-for-fulfil. The Nothing is the Fulling of Thinking: the full-thinging is the fill-thinking as a throwing-for-nothing: for thinking is throwing-for-nothing thanking the thinging for the Fulfilling of the Nothing. Thinking is the Thinging of the Thing of the Nothing that throws thought for being to become being to begin with by being with words as thoughts thrown away ahead.





                                                                                                                                                 Portrait of M.V.E as Ptah A.V.E  2007



        Thought-Thrown - as a Thinking-Throwing matters-mind - as a mind-matters as a think-thing: Thinking-is-a-Thinging - as a Thinging-Thinking: - as a Thinking-Thinging: to think is to throw thought away by being thoughtless by being mindless by being headless: Thinking is ahead after Throwing as an action activates a Thought through Throwing thought away. Throwing throws Thought thrown. The Thought of the Theory is always already after the Throw of the Theory of Thought. To Throw is to throw a Thing: a Thinking-Thing as always already a Mood-Thing a Time-Thing: the Time of Mood the Mood of Time. Throwing throws before Thinking thinks to throw for Time is throw ahead of Thought and Time is the Void that Holds and Pours the Liquid of Though through the Air of Time  How does the Hold of Time throw the Thought of the Nothing? It pours - It spills - It leaks - It gushes - through the air of time. As a thrown Thing Thought thirsts - thrusting ahead - as a Liquid Leakage - seeping and soaking - thoroughly through the naught of The Nothing. Thinking being is Thrown ahead as an after Thought before being Thinking thinks to Throw being.  Throwing is initiated as an activated Thought abjected ahead without Thinking about it. Throwing decapitates Thinking from being-thought-about by being-thrown-about. The Thinking is really the real thing of the Thinging as an Abjecting for what we call 'Thinking' is really an 'Abjecting'. The Thinking originates outside ourselves as an Abjecting ahead as The Nothing at all as all that Comes to Thought as the Coming of Thinking there as the coming off of Thinking that Throwing throws Thoth thought forth for.


        Though Throwing through The Nothing is Hard - The Nothing is Hard - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Throw - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Throw Through - Throwing through The Nothing is a Hard Thing - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Think about - The Nothing is a Hard Thing to Thing about - and The Nothing is a Heavy Thing to Throw about - to Throw Through - to Throw Thought -for The Nothing Heavy weighs down - weighs down on you all - as a Heavy Thing - for The Nothing is the heaviest Thing of all things - the matter of The Nothing is the matter of the all - all at once - coming down on you all - The Nothing is the Thickest Thing of all - of the all - all at once - so to hold fast on to The Nothing Heavy requires the Hardest Hand - free from fear - free from force - by becoming heavier and harder than The Thing of The Nothing coming down all over you all.  Nothing-Happens when where nothing-is-happening to you all at all - as an erupting Ereignis-Ereignet erection - as an enticing encouraging engulfing envelopment. Where and when there the Nothing-Happens: - Time-Matters -  as nothing-matters - so time-matters as a matter-of-time - and as a matter-of-nothing: - as a matter-of-fact - for time is a matter-of-fact - a fact-of-matter - as nothing is a matter-of-fact: time is a thing: - a material-thing as well as a mood-thing: - a mood-thing-thrown - a time-thing-thrown: through-throwing time-matters - time matters as a matter-of-fact - as a fact-of-matter: time is a fact-of-matter as a matter-of-fact being thrown through the nothing that matters time time itself as a matter of time: time matters - as - time-is-matter:  it is a matter-of-time: the nothing is a matter of time - as - the nothing is the matter of time - as all is a matter of time - all is a matter of time all the time. As a Time that Matters: Throwing is a Gathering of Time - Throwing is a Giving of Time through Sending Time Thrown the Retrieving of Time not the Taking of Time at the same time Time is a Thing that Gathers together through Throwing the Nothing through Retrieving the Nothing through Holding the Nothing through Pouring the Nothing out. The Nothing pours out. The Nothing pours out of The Open.  Throwing draws The Open open - opening out of The Nothing - Throwing throws through The Open opening as an opening out of The Nothing at all as all. The Nothing is Heavy. The Nothing is Full. For Thoth though - through Throwing - the Nothing becomes Light - the Nothing becomes Voidful. The Nothing is Voidful. The Nothing is a Voidful about. The Nothing is Aboutful. The Nothing is Thrown About. The Nothing is Thrown about the Voidful. The Voidful is Aboutful. Aboutful and ahead of the Throwful of Thoth.









                                                                                                                               Horus-hor-d'Oeuvre Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2011




        Amun Comes to a Head at the End of the Night.  But at the Beginning of the Day Bacon's Bull Being Throws Thoth Time at the Beginning of the Night.  As Thrown Thoth Bacon's Bull breaks forth from being-in-the-world to being out-the-world Thrown thrusting Toward the Orange orbit of the Reigning Ra ramming Temporality Thrown. Through Thoth throwing there then bled Bacon in initiation is: "making things available"  through throwing in space in time all the time there then "making the farness vanish" bled by "bringing things close"  by taking out space and time all the time (Being & Time, 139, 105).  Bacon bled: the further you throw the further you remove and retrieve the thrown alien object closer away to from you like leaked Freud's frothy Fort Da Flux game again and again and again: to throw is to retrieve the trace and space of (not) being out (over) there-here.  But Bacon bled: the more artificial you can make 'it' the more 'chance' you have of 'it' both 'being' and 'looking' much more real and you always get nearer to being by being further away from being for to be being is to be ahead of being as being-thrown-ahead. For Freud and Bacon Throwing these things there as a radical retrieving Throws thoth Time bled back in-on-itself proving painfully and also logically leaked that Time is not 'linear' but 'circular' as in Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence: Time does not 'move on' but 'bleeds back' fast-forward imploding in-on-out itself instead. There 'is' no Time 'like the present' as the 'present' is always already absent outside of thrown time all the time not in time with the now not now.  




                                                                                                                                                                         Severed-Seth Self-Portrait  A.V.E  2008



        There is no Time like Art - like Art Time as Art is the Truth of Time. Art is not a Question of Time: Art is an Answer to Time. Art is the Answer to the Time of the Nothing: the Time of Throwing is the Art of Time. Art is the Remainder and Reminder of the Memory of Time and the Mood of Being. Art is the Being of Time: Art reveals the Nothing: Art leaves us hung - hanging - headless: hollowed out of ourselves - abjected away as a draining dasein delivering difference.  Bacon-Thoth throw Time throes abjected ahead of our time thrown as a semening silhouette sensation time trace tracing the time of the abjected ather.  For Bacon-Thoth - Through Throwing - Time Throws - Time Thoes - Time Travels - Time Flies - Time Flees arriving ahead as Ather afar and after before Being being born beheaded by beginning being ending executed. For Bacon-Thoth: to know time is to throw time: to be throw in time out of time all the time.  For Bacon-Thoth: - time is not tellable: - time is touchable - time is tasteable - time is seeable - time is smellable: time is the sensation of being. Beings 'want the time' - 'want the have the time'  - 'want to have more time' - 'to save the time' - 'to take less time' - 'to kill time' - that is: 'to kill being'. What is time for? Time is for Nothing.  Who is time for? Time is for Nothing. Nothing is for Time. Time is for no-one. No-one is for Time.  No-one has the time - no-one will ever have time have-the-time - the time cannot be had: time cannot be timed:  time is thrown - always already ahead -  as after and aside inside itself by being before being-time being out-of-joint joining-time-being by coming ahead all over time time and time again. The Cuming off of Amun is the Clearing of Being being born through Thoth the liquid light that throws being ahead. After Amun has Cum to a Head Thoth carries Amun's cuming off and ahead and away and awaiting a Cuming again and again as a firm-froth thoth-thrusting Coming to a head as a Head as a head of time as a head of being ahead of being ahead of time Beheading being to time all the time Bringing being to time Becoming being time for all time and for all being and all for nothing at all for nothing at all that is coming as the coming of the time waiting for being becoming the time of the nothing.




                                                                                                                                            Amun-Ra's  Ereignis-Erection


        As Bacon bled to Beard: "Repetition can put one into a kind of trance-like state that you would never experience from a single image. The image repeated constantly puts you into a state of trance where it begins to work on you in different ways. I think that has happened with certain painters....one knows that people can be driven mad by the sound of dripping water. It may be the fact that they can't stop it or that it takes them over from their own obsession of themselves and the drip, drip, drip of the water takes them away into somewhere out of themselves where they begin to go mad."  (Bacon from Remarks from an Interview with Peter Beard).  Bacon's bed-ed bodies buggering in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out throwing the subject oozed out of the self all out of joint where contours collapse and human subject becomes born as an alien oozed out object as an abjecting and freeing fucking force freeing being by becoming be-ing. Furious Fucking - as a fort-da-force - severs spent subjectivity where being becomes be-ing and activated an alluring alien abjectivity as an Aleatoric Alétheia thrust through Thoth-Bacon's Game of Chance as an angoisse Alien Ather. 




                                                                                                                    Amun-Ra Ereignis-Erection  Alexander Verney-Elliott 1980 



        For Fucking Forth is not a Sex Act between Beings but an Alien Event for Fort-Daing the Eternal Return of the Alien for Fucking has Nothing to do with Sexuality at all and all to do with Alienality as an anal-aliening-athering for there are no sexed-subjects anymore only our anonymous alien-athers all alight and all wet with foreign-feelings and strange-sensations. For Fuck-ing as a Futur-ing is always already an alien-ate-ing-ahead as an ab-ject-ing of the 'I' being there which is why there is always minus two eyes being there where one and one make minus one minus one plus the nothing there looking into the no eyes that are always never there. Fucking is the reeling repetition of the realing thing reeling in and reeling out the realing coming off all over the other as an alien abduction attuned and attained and initiated inside as the invasion of the body snatchers taking being back to be-ing time again as an alien time to be-ing ali-en by be-ing without a body again as the alien was always a no body at all and a no body with a no head on for the face of an alien is without a head-on only with a hard-on with a mind of its own all of its own coming-off on its own without thinking about it at all all the time coming to a head coming-headless off its head fast all over its face all hard without a head all head all hard ahead a head adead a dead and being-all-hard is being-all-ahead being-all-adead and being-all-ahead being-hard-being-ahead is being-infinite as the infinite is being-all-hard which is too hard for the soft-finite to understand.




                                                                                                                                Seething-Seth Self-Portrait  A.V.E  21.09.09



        Fucking is Flying whilst Dwelling is Earthing being bound to the ground as Earthbounding whilst Fucking flies forth and All Ahead as an aborted abground sprung Spunking. Fucking forth is fucking for the Godhead as the Absolute Nothingness coming along ahead of God as a Return of Amun beheading the God behind the Godhead becoming the Headgod attended and amended awaiting Amentet as a Hardon Headon coming to a Head and coming off all over You All.

        Aborted Amun is the Absolute Abjection and the Essential Headgod as the Godhead ahead of God who cannot come to Being because God cannot come to Being God to begin with or to begin without at all so God fucked all but became fuck all so fucked forth fucking Being there to be fucking forth for God being there for Being coming for God who cannot Come for God cannot come off for God for God fucks for Being that fucked forth for God for a God that cannot Come for only Amun can Come coming all over again but by coming off without coming to being with Being because Amun is the Spunk Divine Sublime Dread Headgod that comes to a Head becoming a Godhead coming ahead all over God behind Being as the Abject Sublime Divine Dasein.

        Experiencing and Executing and Exiting being-as-thrown-thoth time out-of-itself is attuned activated and available through the Chinese Water Torture: so as constant dripping wears away a stone so the sown drip drip drip on the fixed forehead initiates insanity throwing being out of body into time where the sunk subject of being be-comes thrown over to the ob-ject of time off-time as the thing of being time in-it-self drip-ping out-of-it-self out-of-join-t-out-of-ti-me. Our or-bit ooz-ing out-of-body exit-ing ex-perience is be-ing-time-in-it-self out-of-body by be-ing-in-time.  Thus the Chinese Water Torture throws forth the hollow-ing out of the sub-ject be-coming the hollo-wing out-of-being be-coming be-ing-out-of-time be-ing-time-out-of-it-self by be-ing be-ing-time-out-of-time-be-ing act-ivat-ing an anogoisse aleatoric alétheia abyss abliss free floating fluid fixity from tapping ticking tickling trickling tricking time torn-ap-art-as-stasis splashing splattering sensation severing seeping skin drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop...drip...drop ad abjected ad nauseum ab infinitum.                                                                                                                                               

        Alien Allan Pettersson's nauseous Ninth Symphony (1970) is the thoth-thrown forth-da-flux falling and pulling and pushing and paining of outted  trodden time to ining spiralling stasis space sailing swaying back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth forgetting where wair going goning gone go not now nothing where wheir whair to tart time taken to task pulverising time is pulsating time is pouting time is pulling time is prodding time is projecting time thrown through potenting pourings by being bodied.  Bacon bled to Sylvester:  "Anything I paint, if it comes off at all in my work, I feel in myself. If I don't feel it physically, I know it just can't be working. With all the figures that work, I feel that this is physically right, and this is a thing I feel within my body."   Sylvester responded: "As you're painting a figure you feel its a gesture in your own body."  Bacon back: "Yes, I do."  (Looking Back at Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 2000).

        "I can only hope that the throwing of paint onto the already-made image or half-image will either re-form the image or that I will be able to manipulate the paint further into - anyway, for me - greater intensity....Half my painting activity is disrupting what I can do with ease." (Francis Bacon, Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 1987).  The thrown torn alien art oozed object as a thrown 'thing-out-itself' is aborted-outer-orbit as an 'un-this-worldly-object'  becoming but never nearly afar arriving away afterwards at all the time thirst thrust thrown there though then thrown out-of-there out-of-time out-of-being out-of-it.




                                                                                                                                       Man Becoming Bull  1977  Francis Bacon



 "Anything I paint, if it comes off at all in my work, I feel in myself. If I don't feel it physically, I know it just can't be working. With all the figures that work, I feel that this is physically right, and this is a thing I feel within my body."   Sylvester responded: "As you're painting a figure you feel its a gesture in your own body."  Bacon back: "Yes, I do."  (Looking Back at Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, Thames & Hudson, 2000).

 But Throwing for Thoth-Bacon opens up the possibility of impossibility as the thrown alien art of the thrown future frothed Throwness where we can ab-Image our authentic Alien Being by being open to - and in tune with - the timing and spacing and becoming of our Alien Throwness abjected-beyond the ex-Human (which cannot grasp its Being or Throwness because it is in fact gone away somewhere no longer present-at-hand unavailable void extinct). But through Bacon's Thoth-Throwing we can understand the 'it' that 'is' thrown-there: the Thrown slurp stuff ontological ooze of an authentic-abjected Alien Being. For Bacon Thoth-Throwing is trance-trapping and then raw-revealing utter Unhiddenness so thoth-throwing throws-up the pure-possibility of the impossibility to make the Image shine as New. But you both do not see the Unhiddenness of the New Shining ab-Image because it is so shimmeringly shiny that it blinds your blindness blinded so you will only ever see it once you are dead and now you are dead you can see the shining 'New Image' as it gives you 'blinding light' to see because when you were alive you never saw nothing New by being blinded. But be-re remember the thrown real radically 'New' is the uncanny underside of the radically 'Old' froth of abject-ancient alien-art and a long lost long forgotten froth forever still sleeping silent Thrown thrusting fresh froth fast forward flying ahead-of-behind the 'contemporary' of 'human' no-time like the present for the pure-presence of being-new is found in the fresh frisson of ancient-abjected Egyptian Art for only the old is forever the new for now-there is no-now for being-now for time-now for the time-now-of-the-no-time-now for now is the time of the no-time of the no that is the now that is time not-now and the time has come for now to come to tell the time that the now is the no of the time now for now there-is no-time-now only now that is no time and so for-now you know-now now-know that there is no time now only now that is now finitely-now now infinitely-now always-now thrown-now for-now for-what is-thrown is-now-in-the-throw-of-the-thoth-now of the now-thoth thrown-now. Thoth is the Throw of Truth and what is thrown is the now of the no time the truth being that there is no time now but only now.




                                                                                                                                        Amun Nose & Lips & the No Eyes There



        But Bacon-Thoth shows us Through Throwing that we can actually grip grasp and catch our Throwness as a raw register of Being towards Becoming Alien through the bled movement of the Body scent sense Through Thrown pain paint. Bacons bodily Thoth Throwness is disclosed and disseminated to us violently via his heated sewer swamp state of oozed mudded mind and neurotic nervous system (Bacon Befindlichkeit). But for Bacon Eggsistence means to be Thrown into Impossibility all the time out-of-time in time.  For Bacon-Thoth  'chance' and 'throwing' are present-at-hand gift giving 'games' which severe body-time-space all the time where Throwing Forward is also a Retrieving Back a la Freud's Fort Da game again and again.  But what does Bacon Throw? Bacon Throws his nervous system via the hand through the materiality of paint. Bacon bled: "Painting is the pattern of one's nervous system being projected on the canvas."  The Thrown Paint is the Sensation of the nervous system being Thrown on the Canvas as an atta attack alien Aleatoric Altarity and that nervous-system itself is the sensation of being-there those nerves there that being nevous-there being-all-on-edge-there as a vivacious-vibration of-our dread-dasein thrown-there.




                                                                                                                                  Kinetic-Khepri Self-Portrait A.V.E  Nov. 2008



        But Throwing for Thoth-Bacon opens up the possibility of impossibility as the thrown alien art of the thrown future frothed Throwness where we can ab-Image our authentic Alien Being by being open to  - and in tune with  - the timing and spacing and becoming of our Alien Throwness beyond the ex-Human (which cannot grasp its Being or Throwness because it is in fact gone away somewhere no longer present at hand unavailable void extinct).  But through Bacon's Throwing we can understand the 'it': the Thrown slurp stuff ontological ooze of an authentic Alien Being. For Bacon thoth Throwing is trapping and then revealing Unhiddenness so throwing throws up the possibility of the impossibility to make the Image shine as New.  But you both do not see the Unhiddenness of the New shining Image because it is so shimmeringly shiny that it blinds your blindness blinded so you will only ever see it once you are dead and now you are dead you can see the shining 'New Image' as it gives you 'blinding light' to see because when you were alive you never saw nothing New by being blinded.  But be-re remember the thrown real radically 'New' is the uncanny underside of the radically 'Old' ancient alien art and a long lost long forgotten froth forever still sleeping silent Thrown thrusting fresh froth fast forward flying ahead-of-behind the 'contemporary' of 'human' no-time like the present for the pure-presence of being-new is found in the fresh frisson of ancient Egyptian Art for only the old is forever the new for now there is no-now for being-now for time-now for the time-now-of-the-no-time-now for now is the time of the no-time of the no that is the now that is time not-now and the time has come for now to come to tell the time that the now is the no of the time.  


                                                                                                                                       Head of Queen Tiye, ca. 1352–1336 B.C.E. 



        The Thoth thrown birth-being alien-abjection off-of the Alien as an atta-aten abject-abyss angoisse execstatic eggsistence always already aborted ahead and away as a 'way of relating' there to the wound-womb whirl-world and always to take a stance stake steak so-in-out of the thrown-thrust wound-world without ever-even entering in it at all. An alluring alien aleatory floats flickers forms ferments oozing outside world wound.  Throwing forth for Thoth-Bacon is being-there-thrown-there as a not-there at all all at the same-time no-time at-all as being-thrown-all ahead of the inside-outside as a fresh-froth-free from evil-ego ever-ejaculating eggo-ecstatic euphoria-enacting erratic-erotic rapture-rupture thorn-thrust-thirst dasein-dice thrown-there freeing-fresh frowzy-fluent-fluorescent filament-forward as an alteric alien Aletheia aroma as an eggo-essence emptied-ego oozed-out off-of open-over to-towards the trickle-trill tremor-tingle throb-thoth throttle-through rippling-rhizome reel real region-reigning serving serene semen scapes splicing her hard harpy head altogether all apart absolutely absorbing an aboriginal absent being by being beautifully-beheaded-ahead as aheaded and abjected as-an aborted-absolute abjected-afar abejected-away and abroad lingering leaving left-lithe lisp-lips leaking-locked wed-whilst waiting-weld weldt-wet where-when with-want well-wet ever even when-where ever-even fresh-for even-ever feared-for even-ever far-for ever even for-far.




                                                                                                                                 Frauenkopf  1911  Alexej von Jawlensky



        Alien Being is an atta angoisse awful awe oozed object of an atta ab-jected ahead thirst thrust Thrown outside orbit over our eerie earth's eggbit. Nor now do does an Alien Being be sit set well within the then World wound wonder as a sealed Subject served severed as an alien ather other orbiting objecting floating forever forward froth actually ahead of our severed supine subject (being boringly hideously human). An authentic atta alien born being is in Thrown Out-into-the-World but being floating never making a landing because the Thrown abject Alien abyss does defy grounded gravity always already and flies forth frothing forever free. Alien Being Throws itself bled bare Beyond the thrown World and but beyond Itself in being-projected-in Throwness always already oozed outside itself in its inked initiation. Alien Eggsistence flies-floats outside over the World but abyss always well within ready reach on of Throwing 'itself' Beyond and Through 'it' to the other side of 'it' towards further thrown possibilities through the hole horizon of other real regions. But what does bored Baon really Throw thoth forth froth? Bacon being Thoth Throws the eggo Ecstasy of the alien awe aura aroma abyss off-of the then oozed out Abject Sublime as an exiled eggo expendicture empties out of our subjective substances senstioning spunked psyche soggy substances spilt spilling out of outside-in 'its' inked ining initiated surf stuff slimes as a jubilant jouissance joy juices jetting jets of oily oozed shimmering shuddering shining silver sliver slime spume spurting spunk luminously leaking light lightening inducing illuminating an anointed Aten atta awe Aleatory Aletheia altaric alteric Alien Being being born before becoming late left language leaked lost out of our onus ontological ointment ooze offering oracle oils.                                                                                                                                    

        For Thoth-Bacon: Forgetting Boring Waiting Falling Throwing Gambling Opening Wondering Shuddering Pondering Thrusting Sensationing Wandering Fatiguing Spurting Wanking Drinking Suturing Projecting Ordering Eternal Returning Leaking Levels ooze open up under the thirsty atta alien attack adrenalin at an abject abyss activating volatile voluptuous vile violent 'Valves of Sensation' sown served through thrown terrorist terrain as an arbitrary abject action of oozed oils pressed pushed projected painting pertaining pulsation shimmering shining sensations.  For Bacon-Thoth 'knows' always already that he 'does not know how to do it': how to bring 'it' about, how to bring 'it' off, how to make 'it' come off.  One can only do it - a non-illustrational photo-portrait - by not knowing how to do it.  To try to ooze operations, ordered charred chance, through thrown organised organic chaos chess.  The paradox being that photorealist-portraiture always looks so unreal and so unatural whereas accidental-portraiture as arbitrary and artificial always uncannily appears much real for in real reality we all appear artificial and arbitrary as we never ever look like passport photographs of ourselves: our aborted appearances are always already distorted and deranged and decapitated disappearances and thus Thoth-Bacon displays and plays out our own raw real reality which much more real than realism that never ever has anything at all real about for what is real really appears as unreal and unrecognizableto out conscious life but to our other life of that other night when we are lefta ll in the dark being comes to light as utterly other to what is recognisable in the light of day for the light of night throws a new dark on dasein where what we see is utterly other to the dark of day.




                                                                                                                              Immortal-Imhotep Self-Portrait A.V.E. March 2009    



        Bacon-Thoth has Time on His hands and throws Time through His Hands for Bacon-Thoth knows when the Time has Come to come to Time to Throw to Come on Time to Come through Time to Come over Time where the coming of Time is the coming off of Time where and when wet Time comes all over You but Bacon-Thoth does not tell you the Time Bacon Thoth shows you the Time as a wed-wet semening-sensationing coming off of Time covering you in Time drenching Dasein.

        Bacon-Thoth sow sedated states hence he has to thrown 'the Will to lose his Will': Bacon will Will to do Anything at all arbitrary to thrust thrown by breaking being bare to too bleed the willed articulation of the image initiating slime surging Spilling: Spunking, Forging, Forgetting, Waiting, Chancing, Throwing, Leaking leftovers initiate instinctive impact on the nailed nervous springboard system soil.  Radical Forgetting of Fixed Form opens up the Froth Flush of Fluid Form froth foam oozing outside Inane Illustration and a Castrated Conscience.  Bacon bravely stated that the moment 'one knows what one is doing' one is merely making another form of inane illustration like fraud Freud. Becoming Baconian altaric Alien art Arrives ahead abroad as afterwards at afar as a forged frothed Forgetting. Forgetting Being Becoming Alien. Bacon-Thoth has The Time on His Hand Knowing what Time to Throw Knowing the Timing of Throwing to the Thereing of the Being Becoming all Alien Forgetting the Human.

        Forgetting forth for frothing Thoth-Bacon becomes being- blind Becoming as an Alien atta attack Act as an adrenalin object opened oozed outside commonsense conscious conditioning - as Marc Cousins adds:  "...precisely the capacity to act which depends upon a radical form of forgetting...an act of passion requires that you in some sense forget the object of passion...Really what it opens up is what you might call a kind of non-intellectualist conception of action...by an action which completely opposes the normal kind of Western way of looking at an action which often might be said to be the way in which the move from a conception to an execution the translation is made." (Mark Cousins, Radical Forgetting, Architectural Association).  For Bacon-Thoth to throw-forth is to offer-ahead of His Head His Hands to Bring Being back into the Image Initiated for to Throw Forth is to Gather Up the Image Ahead of Being There throwing-blind decapitating-dasein.




                                                                                                                   Ra-Horakhty or Ra-Horus of the Two Horizons  Musée du Louvre 



        Bacon knows always already he has no 'conception' of what (Bacon really) 'wants to do' and Bacon does not know 'how to do it': Bacon knows now always already that there simply still cannot be a 'conceptual art' as 'conception is conscious' and (authentic alien)  'art is subconscious.'  'Conception' is always already added after authentic alien awe aura aroma Art arrived: crass contemporary 'Conceptual Art' is a boring-banal apathetic-apology for alien Art as a forgetting-negating of our auratic authentic ancient angoisse aroma alluring alien art awe object orbit offal: crass 'Conception'  as a conscious construct always already only operates at the ludicrous level of inane illustration and nauseating narrative with mundane meanings: 'Conception' (is) 'Conscious' ('human') Art - 'Subconscious' (is) 'Subterranean' ('alien') Art. And art-alien as being abceptual cannot be conceived and cannot be conceptualised as Art is alien to the Concept just as Being is alien to the Concept as Art is always already Being as presenting Being as being Art as the Origin of Art is Being and the Origin of Being is Art and Being and Art are alien to the Concept as Being and Art are before and after the Concept which came after the Forgetting of Art and the Forgetting of Being as Art being Being and Being being Art and therefore there are no Concepts of Art or Being as Art is Art as Being is being thus that Being is Art Art is being. Being and Art are the arch-enemies of the Concept. The Concept knows nothing of The Nothing There of the Thereing of Art and the Thereing of Being being The Nothing All. Concepts represent Nothing at all - Art does not represent Anything at all - Art presents Being All - as The Nothing-Alling. Concept is Nothing. Art is Being. Being cannot be represented just as Art cannot be represented. Art is Being presented. Art brings Being to presence.




                                                                                                                        Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2006    


        A 'conceptual art' is indeed an absurd oxymoron operating as a puerile product of our media manipulating epoch end initiated in the tedious android age of onto-technology.  So so-called  'conceptual art' is always already without concepts and art: it does not exist. Yet the thrown thrusted nailed 'New Image' as an alien creation cannot bare be 'Known' (now) only 'Thrown' now outside of 'contemporary time' (the 'no time' of the 'no present') all the time beyond the banality of our crass 'contemporary art' which is always already available on time in time outside real time all the time outside Beingtime and Beingsensation because being 'contemporary' it is always already deaded-done in the no-time at all and all 'contemporary art' is always already dead-on-arrival dead-on-departure and all done with - without waiting awhile - for the time to come to for an art coming for time for the being time to come and not for the time-being today that is forever forgotten in the time to come. As art-alien is always to come and contemporary-art as art-human has come too early therefore has come too late to come to Time to come so there can never ever be a 'contemporary art' for art is never now never in the now never in the know for there is never any art in the now in the know as an art alien waits awhile for you all to die as an art-art wishes you all dead before an art-alien can come to ahead as away ahead of the dead that were always already dead anyway.

        Bored Bacon is always already dazed hazed lazed smazed mesmerized hypnotised tranquillized anesthetized thrust through thirsty Throwness Drunkess Fallingness Boringness Forgettingness activating an alien angoisse art of our oozing eggo-essentialism aiming ahead as an alighting Alienness Altarity. Brave Bacon thus throws Heidegger's Falling forward into in an Alienness wetness where an atta alienation is the 'truth' of 'authentic alien being': that is: being bled bare beyond one's ontic eggoself orbiting observing alien-ation around 'it' re-working re-throwing re-falling re-thrusting there where what hour Heidegger throws there Dasein down dare:

        "When Dasein, tranquillized, and 'understanding' everything, thus compares itself with everything, it drifts along towards an alienation in which its own most potentiality-for-Being is hidden from it. Falling Being-in-the-world is not only tempting and tranquilizing; it is at the same time alienating." 

        By beginning Bacon Throws forth froth foam from the thrown abyss an anxiety thrill thrown up by his angoisse Alieness of not knowing how-to-do 'it'.  Bacon's abattoir Alieness anxiety afterwards initiates ignition to Throw froth forward back bleak upon unleashed beam bled Bacon projecting possibility for finding an authentic alien being born as anxiety discloses Dasein: Hear Heidegger here:

        "Anxiety throws Dasein back upon that which it is anxious about – its authentic potentiality for being in the world. Anxiety individualises Dasein for its ownmost Being-in-the-world, which as something that understands, projects itself essentially upon possibilities. Therefore, with that which it is anxious about, anxiety discloses Dasein as being-possible.”




                                                                                                                          Soporific-Sopdu Self-Portrait A.V.E  22.02.10



        Being-with-Dying releases Being There for the Living and the Dying there-together as all anxiety slowly slips away attuning a serene sein still thit there where we dasein dislodges the two from being-there-in-the-world toward being-out-of-there-out-the-world as away from the world where serene sein becomes being for its own being-no-time abroad with no-time as away and ahead of the time-being of being-there-in-the-world where dasein Dying away becomes Being ahead of itself for the being-time of our being-coming to be being-time after the time of dying for dying is not a possibility for being only a possibility for the body of being that gives being back to the time-being-becoming-being-time. Death is only at all possible for Dasein but not at all Possible for Sein for Being is always already waiting-whiling as a be-coming-be-heading ahead and abroad aborted from the body that be-holds the being of the being-there to begin-with for when the body dies dasein Dies being becomes being-out of there being thit being-out-of it out-there without the thereing-there of being-there by being aborted ahead out-as-thit as out-of-time-there for the there is the where there is no time there and the where of the there where there is no time-there is where being is there without time-there.




                                                                                                                        Quenching-Qebehsenuef Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2015



        Out of anxiety and  boredom of being-not-there Thoth-Bacon throws forth an aborted abyss of oozed out authentic alienbeingtime: anxiety, accident, boredom, dread and chance cannot be controlled or anticipated or ordered so the instinctive image is initiated in spite of Bacon not-being-there.  Answering Archibaud Bacon bled: "When you're using oil paint, it can result in an effect that you cannot control...That's also when something unexpected suddenly appears; it comes with no warning...What's most surprising is that this something which has appeared. almost in spite of oneself, is sometimes better that what you were in the process of doing..."

         By being bored Bacon breaks the 'willed articulation of the image' by 'doing anything' to get out of conscious conditioning and inane illustration. By drifting in the fog of a haze of sein-sensations Bacon loses himself in the nothing.  Bacon said to Sylvester:  "And yet, what so-called chance gives you is quite different from what willed application of paint gives you. It has an inevitability very often which the willed putting-on of the paint doesn't give you...You see, you don't know how the hopelessness in one's working will make one just take paint and just do almost anything to get out of the formula of making a kind of illustrational image - I mean, I just wipe it all over with a rag or use a brush or rub it with something or anything or throw turpentine and paint and everything else onto the thing to try to break the willed articulation of the image, so that the image will grow, as it were, spontaneously and within its own structure and not my structure...And out of all that, possibly, a more organic image arises than if it was a willed image."




                                                                                                                                Antemortem-Anubis Self-Portrait  A.V.E  2008



        Heidegger hazed: "Profound boredom, drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling fog, removes all things and human beings and oneself along with them into a remarkable in difference. This boredom manifests beings as a whole...In anxiety, we say, 'one feels uncanny.' What is 'it' that makes 'one' feel uncanny? We cannot say what it is before which one feels uncanny. As a whole it is so for the one. All things and we ourselves sink into indifference...The receding of beings as a whole, closing in on us in anxiety, oppresses us. We can get no hold on things. In the slipping away of beings only this 'no hold on things' comes over us and remains. Anxiety makes manifest the nothing..." (Martin Heidegger, Pathmarks, Cambridge University Press, 1998).  For Bacon boredom and anxiety - as momentary radical forgetting of being there - open up the possibility of some 'thing' taking one over and throwing one elseeother elsewhere. For Bacon anxiety causes throwness which in turn thrownness causes anxiety. Anxiety  has no object but throws open a negative space which throws up a positive object or eggject.  Anxiety and Boredom and the Nothing breed  ab-images in Bacon.  Bacon ab-paints in a fog of forgetfulness with the will to lose his will in a haze of heated smazed spunked sensations and said to Sylvester: "When I was trying in despair the other day to paint that head of a specific person, I used a very big brush and a great deal of paint and I put it on  very, very freely, and I simply didn't know in the end what I was doing, and suddenly this thing clicked, and became exactly like this image I was trying to record. But not out of any conscious will, nor was it anything to do with illustrational painting.  What has never yet been analyzed is why this particular way of painting is more poignant than illustration. I suppose because it has a life completely of its own. It lives on its own, like the image one's trying to trap; it lives on its own, and therefore transfers the essence of the image more poignantly."  (Francis Bacon, Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester Thames & Hudson, 1987).  Bacon's bled image 'it' lives out on 'its' own as anxiety and accident and alieness dripping does do.  Bacon breaks anxiety and alieness out of pushed paint nailing newness. An alienist anxiety accentuates and activates nailing nerves to the sensationed spectator's shattered shuddered supine spine sending shock shivers. To Throw is to send shockwaves of oozed shot sensation to the severed servile spine sending it instead stiff as a hard-on about to shoot sein aimed ahead of being-there by being-not-there attained and attuned as all anew being all shiny and new for shot sein comes out as always new for when wet semen-sein falls fast across the face the shot shape of semen-sein is initiated as always a fresh frisson forever new and settles as a sparking-sein. 

        Beheaded Bacon's bored alienist angoisse anxiety attacks navigate nail new imagery initiating forth fresh foam froth subconscious spunk spurts splattered about and ahead all over our you your both becoming attuned anew as an alien anxiety beheading being there through becoming-being not near anymore by being-beheaded-ahead as near new nearing newer being-beheaded fresh-faced and all-anew:

        "The inability to tell you, the inability to announce, the topic of the urge which is the new: if I could say the 'new is' and go on and explain it and describe it then I would be doing very well.  I can't say it because as I stand here wanting to think about the new it becomes as always a struggle, a kind of fight as to whether in the first instance whether I will fall back stupidly in just repeating in what has been said about the new which won't be new or will say something else which will not be recognisable as about the new at all.  You can see then that the first point we have to deal with is that the new is a point of discrimination between what we already know and therefore can't be new and that which we don't know and therefore can't nominate as the new.  The space between the two I propose to call the space of anxiety.  That is to say whom so ever comes a problem of the new, whom so ever wishes to do something new is immediately confronted not with the problem of the new - as if we could draw up some amiably obvious way an inventory of all that had been done and then make one additional proposal  -  'this has never been done before'  -  and escape into the new.  If I could tell you I would let you know.  The question here is: why can't I  -  at either a historical or psychical level  -  even let you know what the new is because, as it were, we can't know what it is.  What we can know is there where we approach the zone of anxiety...Anxiety is that where, as it were, the subject strives towards an object that is not there.  Not there and yet I claim at the last moment it will be there...There in which finally the heroism of Samuel Beckett was found in the condensation of his work which says: 'I can't go on - I'm going on.'   I can't go on - I'm going on.  Why, why wouldn't one end the state of anxiety just by saying: 'that's it - it's too much and is not enough?'...In response to this condition of anxiety in which the subject wages, hopes, there will be something there where the trajectory of the desire is aimed  -  there where I would die if only I could see an object appear  -  if only I could see a new object appear  - and the waiting in that period is what?   The waiting of anxiety...Very soon the subject will grasp at any fleeting shadow, any vague outline of an object...You know by looking at an empty page  - you know by the mistake that you make by drawing too early  -  you know by leaving it too late: one is always in one's anxiety too early or too late.  How does one account like for the timing: the timing of the subject there that the object might arise?... Either there's a gap in reality or there's a gap in thought.  There where you see the question of gap you will find, as I suggest, the question of anxiety - there, in a productive way, where people are able to use anxiety, you see the question of the new."

(Mark Cousins, Anxiety and the New, public lecture; The Architectural Association, London, 31 October, 1997)

        Egyptian Art is the ancient-new for the new in art is the ability to shine ahead of time by being the time ahead of the no-now that Contemporary Art tries boringly to be but cannot be for the now is never new for only the old can be new which is why ancient Egyptian art is always already ahead of Contemporary Art that is always already dated and dead out of time out of being for the now has no time for being no being for time which is why there can be no Contemporary Art today for there is no time today for being to be the time today only Egyptian Art by being Being has the Time still to Shine to be There today for Egyptian Art is the Ancient New for Egyptian Art is the Eternal New for Egyptian Art is that Forever New and  that Forever Now by being essentially eternal Egyptianists Bacon was never Contemporary Giacometti was never Contemporary Brancusi was never Contemporary Modigliani was never Contemporary Jawlensky was never Contemporary by-being-forever-the-not-now-being-now.




                                                                                                                                                    Tsunami-Sensation Self-Portrait  2004  A.V.E.



        As an abject angst alien again bored Bacon is not a painter of our 'humanist angst' but Bacon is a painter of an alteric 'alienist awe'.  Yet alien being  - what is alien being?  As 'It' 'is' not 'itself'. Alien is the farthest from being (human).  As being-thrown-anxiety bored Bacon's alienist alien death dictum is (being a born again alien): "I throw therefore I am (not)."  The alien being is raw rather 'thrown' by (not) being 'itself' out-to the truth of alien being so that egg-sisting in this eggs-it cracks open out and leaks light the truth of its bled being spilling all over the place and seeping through and through throw and throw. An alien Angst arises wet when Da-sein throws the activated annihilation off of its inky ex-existence as an egg-sistence as an egg-sist. Bacon's alienist anticipatory reptilian resoluteness of throwing thoth froth forth forward is alien being ahead-of-itself as being-out-of-itself. Alienist Anticipation throws to the 'not yet thrown' while 'thrownness' refers readily to the 'already projected' pus.  An angst Alienist Throwing as being-toward-death dungness is in an attunement throwness to being-out-the-world.  Do not now also forget that thrown fear throws initiated image oozed outside itself in and also beautifully breeds an alien anxiety attack for Bacon who is always afraid that the image may never arrive yet never at all afraid to throw thoth froth forward freezing fear frisson free forever.




                                                                                                                                                              Severed-Seth Self-Portrait  A.V.E  2008


        "Through fright we leave ourselves and, thrown outside, we experience in the guise of the frightening what is entirely outside us and other than us: the outside itself."  (Maurice Blanchot, L' entretien infini, Paris 1969).

       An Authentic aroma awesome alluring Apophansis Alien Art as an alteric Aletheia altaric abjected abyss arrived on off thrown through the ab-scene abyss before being the thrown crude crap conscious 'conception' of our (inauthentic) 'Conceptual Art' was wettly 'conceived' and Authentic Alien Art remained remembered long leaked after  android 'conception' had long stopped conceiving and deceiving for there never was a 'conceptual art' because authentic alien art always already ends where 'conception' begins  and begins where 'conception' ends: an authentic alien atta art fights against the politics and ideology of commonsense 'conception': a radical authentic atta alien art has no 'concepts' and has no need for human 'concepts'.  The end of the 'concept' calls in the end of 'man'. Thus 'conceptual art' is (and was always already) dead because 'man' has-was always already ended and deaded before begunded began.  Alien atta Apophansis art arrived always already before begun born con 'conceptual' android art.  Authentic aroma alien art is the thrown rawed radical forgetting of the 'human' and 'human conception' and the hideous humanism of 'conceptual art' which had no real 'conception' of 'art' at all.  Heidegger latched onto an ancient alien image of 'truth' revealed in the Greek word 'aletheia'.  Aletheia aura awe alluring alteric instinct images an altaric alien atta abimages - as an "un-coverdness" or "un-concealment"  - or as "un-aliening" - as you all should well know by now or not you all will no doubt be in the know and in the throw still not knowing the throwing for to know is not to throw to throw is to know not to know how to throw: only the no-one knows how to throw for the no-one knows nothing of the know only the know of the throw which is the know of the nothing not the no of the nothing - the nothing is not known - the nothing is thrown - ahead away and afar from the known which is never known only thrown - thrown ahead away and afar from the known - but only what is the thrown can be the known.



                                     Being & Love



                                                                                                                                         Osis Osiris (Roman Quintana) A.V.E July 2009  




"Love is Other Beings."

Alex Alien (1959-2007).



"Love aims at the Other."

Emmanuel Levinas, (1906-1995). 



"Love is the beauty of the soul."

Saint Augustine (354-430).



"It is safer to be feared than loved."

Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).



"If you want to be loved, be lovable."

Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-17 AD).



"I am mortal, born to love and to suffer."

Friedrich Hölderlin (1770 - 1843).




“Being's Name is Love - its Work is Death."

Alex Alien, Being & Loving,  2007.




"Love forgives the beloved even his lust."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science,  1882.




"If I love you, what business is it of yours?"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832).




"Love takes us where knowledge leaves off."  

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274).




"Because of Deep Love, we are courageous."

Lao-Tse  (604-531 BCE). 




"What goes by the name of love is banishment." 

Samuel Beckett, First Love, 1973.  




"Love blots out its name: to you it ascribes itself."

Paul Celan, Poems of Paul Celan, Persea Books, 1983.




"Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies."

Aristotle (384-322 BCE).




"Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness."

Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939). 




"The way to love anything is to realise that it might be lost."

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874 - 1936). 




"Abraham wanted not to love, wanted to be free by not loving."

G.W.F. Hegel, The Spirit of Christianity, 1798-1799.




"Love is all we have, the only way that each can help the other."

Euripides (c. 480–406 BC).




"A man doesn't learn to understand anything unless he loves it."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832).




"Augustine once said: I love you - I want you to be what you are."

Martin Heidegger to Hannah Arendt, 1925.




"Discourse is not love... Metaphysics approaches without touching."

Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 1961.




"What I needed most was to love and to be loved, eager to be caught."

Saint Augustine (354-430).




"That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil,  1886.




"Love is something spoken, and it is only that: poets have always known it."

Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love, 1983, Columbia University Press, 1987.




"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead."

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970). 




"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other."

Rainer Maria Rilke (1875 – 1926).




"Love will make men dare to die for their beloved-love alone; and women as well as men."

Plato, Symposium, (360 BCE).




"Love is only possible through the idea of the Infinite, through the Infinite placed in me."

Emmanuel Levinas, God & PhilosophyThe Idea of God, 1975.




"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."

Lao Tzu  (c 600 B.C).




"Love is a springtime plant that perfumes everything with its hope, even the ruins to which it clings."

Gustave Flaubert  (1821 - 1880).




"Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak, pawned a part of their narcissism."

Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939).




"The important thing is not to think much but to love much and so do that which best stirs you to love."


Saint Teresa of Ávila, (1515 – 1582).




"Love is not vain because it is frustrated, but because it is fulfilled. The people we love turn to ashes when we possess them."

Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922).




"The aim of all life is love for love knows nothing of death for there is no death where there is love that shines forth ahead of death for love lives on after death."

Alexander Verney-Elliott, Being & Loving, 2007.




"Lesbian love carries spiritualization forth into the very womb of the woman. There it raises its lily-banner of 'pure' love, which knows no pregnancy and no family."

Walter Benjamin, Central Park; Theory of Remembrance, 1939.




"But people go to bars to be closer to each other. The frustration is that people can never be close enough to each other.  If you're in love you can't break down the barriers of the skin."

 Francis Bacon, Francis Bacon: His Life & Violent Times,  Andrew Sinclair, Crown Publishers, 1993. 




"The powers of Evening sever a lock of hair. For the Heavenly, when -  Someone has failed to collect his soul, to spare it,  -  Are angry, for still he must; like him -  Here mourning is at fault."

Friedrich Hölderlin, Mnemosyne, (1770-1843). 




“Love brings to light the high and the hidden characteristics of the person who loves — what is rare and exceptional about him: to that extent it can mislead us about what is normal in him.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil, 1886.




"Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. The consciousness of loving and being loved brings a warmth and richness to life that nothing else can bring."

Oscar Wilde, (1854-1900).




"Let the future and the farthest be for you the cause of your today: in your friend you shall love the overman as your cause. My brothers, love of the neighbour I do not recommend to you: I recommend to you love of the farthest. — Thus spoke Zarathustra."

Friedrich Nietzsche, On Love of the Neighbour; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.




"I am granted the scent of the sweetness created for me by those in Kheraha, and those in Iunu. Every god is in fear of me, so great is dread of me, so extensive awe of me, I have championed every god from his detractor, I have shot at his emergence, I live by love of me."

Amun-Ra, Chapter 17, Book of the Dead, circa: 2025-1700 BC. 




"People do not die for us immediately, but remain bathed in a sort of aura of life which bears no relation to true immortality but through which they continue to occupy our thoughts in the same way as when they were alive. It is as though they were travelling abroad."

Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922).




"Being is desirable because it is identical with Beauty, and Beauty is loved because it is Being. We ourselves possess Beauty when we are true to our own being; ugliness is in going over to another order; knowing ourselves, we are beautiful; in self-ignorance, we are ugly."

Plotinus (205 AD - 270 AD).




"The human being's bodily being can never, fundamentally never, be considered merely as something present-at-hand if one wants to consider it in an appropriate way. If I postulate human bodily being as something present-at-hand, I have already before hand destroyed the body as body."

Martin Heidegger, Conversations with Medard Boss, 1963, Sicily; Zollikon Seminars,  Northwestern University Press, 2001.




"If the couple of lovers cannot care for the place of love like a third term between them, then they will not remain lovers and they cannot give birth to lovers. Something gets solidified in space-time with the loss of a vital intermediary milieu and of an accessible, loving, transcendental."

Luce Irigaray, An ethics of sexual difference, Editions de Minuit 1984; Continuum, 2004.




"But maybe at the beginning, I painted to be loved…yes, that’s certainly right. It’s so nice being loved. Now I don’t give a toss, I’m old. At the same time it gives you such pleasure if people like what you do. Today I paint very little, although I do paint in the morning because I’m unable to stop; or I paint when I’m in love..."

Francis Bacon, The Last Interview 1991 - 92; with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003.




"Through the work of mourning [the bereaved individual] is reinstating all his loved internal objects which he feels he has lost . . . Every advance in the process of mourning results in a deepening of the individual’s relation to his inner objects, in the happiness of regaining them when they were felt to be lost."

Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation, 1937; London: Hogarth Press, 1975.




"Men do not understand how a thing which is torn in different directions comes into accord with itself - harmony in contrarity, as in the case of the bow or the lyre... What was scattered gathers. What was gathered blows apart... Yearning hurts, and what release - may come of it - feels much like death... The beginning is the end."

Heraclitus, Fragments.




"The slash of paint with which he transforms the features of a friend is a gesture of love so fierce that that it makes a revolting wound. 'Each man kills the thing he loves,' quotes Bacon from Oscar Wilde - and he adds, typically, 'Is that true? I don't know.'  Tension breeds violence, and violence is everywhere in Bacon's work."

Nigel Gosling,  Francis Bacon: Genius of Violence, The Observer, 5th March, 1967.




"That I am a great worry to her, making her dying more difficult, you will probably appreciate. The last hour I spent with my mother... was a piece of 'practical philosophy' that will remain with me. I believe that to most philosophers the question of theology and philosophy, or rather faith and philosophy, is a purely academic question."

Martin Heidegger, Correspondence with Karl Jaspers, 1927; Ed. Walter Biemel & Hans Saner, Frankfurt & Munich, 1990.




"Tis night: now do all the gushing fountains speak louder. And my soul is also a gushing fountain. 'Tis night: now only do all songs of the loving ones awake. And my soul also is the song of a loving one. Something unappeased, unappeased, is within me; it longeth to find expression. A craving for love is within me, which speaketh itself the language of love."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Night Song, 1884;  Thus Spake Zarathustra, Wordsworth Editions, 1997.  




"There is, in the event that is love, an absolute trust - absolute and also, therefore, secret and obscure. Each lover trusts the other and entrusts themselves to the other, frantically and passionately. An event of this kind, if and when it happens, owes nothing to either freedom or autonomy. It lies outside ethics and law and outside ties of violence or respect."

Sylviane Agacinski, Critique of Egocentrism; Modern French Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.




"He is I, and I am he,  Send forth thy light upon me, 0 Soul unknown, for I am one of those who are about to enter in, and the divine speech is in my ears in the underworld, and let no defects of my mother be imputed unto me; let me be delivered and let me be kept safe from him whose divine eyes sleep at eventide, when he gathereth together and finisheth the day in night."

Of Coming Forth By Day; The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2150 - 1550 BC.




"I can't give you anything but love, Baby, That's the only thing I've plenty of, Baby. Dream awhile, scheme awhile, We're sure to find, Happiness, and I guess, All those things you've always pined for. Gee, I'd like to see you looking swell, Baby, Diamond bracelets Woolworth doesn't sell, Baby. 'Till that lucky day, you know darned well, Baby, I can't give you anything but love."

Dorothy Fields & Jimmy McHugh, I Can't But You Anything But Love, Baby (1928).




"For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher: or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant. And of this too his birth is the cause; for his father is wealthy and wise, and his mother poor and foolish. Such, my dear Socrates, is the nature of the spirit Love."

Plato, Symposium, 360 B.C.E. 

u hold in the other's heart.



"Love is founded on the understanding of being just as much as is care in the anthropological [psychological] sense. One can even expect that the essential determination of love, which looks for a guideline in the fundamental-ontological determination of Da-sein, will be deeper and more comprehensive than the one seeing love as something higher than care."

Martin Heidegger, Conversations with Medard Boss, March 8, 1965; Zollikon Seminars, Northwestern University Press, 2001.




"Its very clear, Our love is here to stay, Not for a year, But ever and a day. The radio and the telephone and the movies that we know May just be passing fancies, And in time may go. But oh, my dear, Our love is here to stay; Together were going a long, long way. In time the Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, They’re only made of clay, But our love is here to stay."


George & Ira Gershwin, Our Love Is Here To Stay (1938).




"Humans have always misunderstood love: they think that in loving they are selfless because they want another being's advantage, often to their own disadvantage: but on the other hand they want to possess that being... In other cases love is a subtler  parasitism, one soul's dangerous and unscrupulous nesting in another soul - or occasionally in the flesh... oh! at what cost to the 'host!... I never desecrated the holy name of love."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Late Notebooks,  1885 - 1888.




"Love is originary. I'm not speaking theologically at all; I myself don't use it much, the word love, it is a worn-out and ambiguous word. And then, too, there is something severe in this love; this love is commanded... The essential thing is fusion. We say that love is a fusion, that it triumphs in fusion. Diotima, in Plato's Symposium, says that love as such is a demigod, precisely because he is only separation and desire for the other."

Emmanuel Levinas, Philosophy, Justice and Love; On Thinking-of-the-Other, The Athlone Press, 1998.




"Well, happiness and love is a wonderful thing to paint also.  I always hope I will be able to do it. After all, it's only the reverse side of the shadow, isn't it?  If you really love life you're walking in the shadow of death all the time... Death is the shadow of life, and the more one is obsessed with life the more one is obsessed with death. I'm greedy for life and I'm greedy as an artist."

Francis Bacon, Interview with Francis Bacon,  Richard Cork; Francis Bacon: Paintings 1981-1991, New York, Marlborough Galleries, 1992.




"Red lips are not so red As the stained stones kissed by the English dead Kindness of wooed and wooer Seems shame to their love pure. O Love, your eyes lose lure When I behold eyes blinded in my stead! Your slender attitude Trembles not exquisite like limbs knife-skewed, Rolling and rolling there Where God seems not to care; Till the fierce Love they bear Cramps them in death's extreme decrepitude."

Wilfed Owen, Greater Love, (1893-1918).




"A full and powerful soul can not only cope with painful, even terrible losses, privations, dispossessions and disdain: from such hells it emerges fuller and more powerful and - the crucial thing - with a new growth in the blissfulness of love. I believe that the man who has sensed something of the deepest conditions of every growth in love will understand Dante when he wrote over the gate to his Inferno: 'I too was created by eternal love.' ..."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Note Book 7, 1886 - 1887.




"One becomes a subject of being not by assuming being but in enjoying happiness, by the interiorization of enjoyment which is also an exaltation, an 'above being.'  The existent is 'autonomous' with respect to being; it designates not a participation in being, but happiness. The existent par excellence is man... In Kant the I is met with again in this need for happiness. To be I is to exist in such a way as to be already beyond being, in happiness."

Emmanuel Levinas, Affectivity as the Ipseity of the I; Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.




"In Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare was not promoting love without familiar guardianship; but without the longing for a situation in which love would no longer be mutilated or condemned by patriarchal or any other powers, the presence of the two lost in one another would not have the sweetness - the wordless, imageless utopia - over which, to this day, the centuries have been powerless; the taboo that prohibits knowledge of any positive utopia also reigns over artworks."

 Theodor W. Adorno, Society; Aesthetic Theory, The Athlone Press, London 1997.




"Love? I have nothing to say about love... At least pose a question. I can't just examine 'love' just like that. You need to pose a question. I'm not capable of talking in generalities about love. I'm not capable...Why have philosophers always spoken of love? That's how philosophy started... No .. no.. no .. no.. it's not possible... I have an empty head on love in general... And as for the reason philosophy has often spoken of love, I either have nothing to say, or I'd just be reciting clichés."

Jacques Derrida, Derrida, Amy Zeiring Kofman and Kirby Dick, 2002.




"Narrow bands dividing us, fall away! Sacrifice alone is the heart's true way! I expand myself to you, as you to me. May what isolates us go up in fire, cease to be. For life is only reciprocated, By love in love is it alone created. To the kindred soul abandoned, The heart opens up in strength gladdened. Once the spirit atop free mountains has flown, It holds back nothing of its own. Living to see myself in you, and you to see yourself in me, In the enjoyment of celestial bliss shall we be."

 G. W. F. Hegel, Poem to Marie von Tucher, April 13th, 1811.




"On Derrida's terms, we do not know the name of what we desire with a desire beyond desire. That means that leading a just life comes down to coping with such non-knowing, negotiating among the several competing names that fluctuate undecidably before us, each pretending to name what we are praying for. For we pray and weep for something that is coming, something I know not what, something nameless that in always slipping away also draws us in its train... Adieu, Jacques."

John D. Caputo, Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004), Cross Currents, Vol. 55,  No 4, Winter 2005-06.




"What is the void summoned here by the declaration of love?  It is the void - unknown - of the disjunction... 'I love you' brackets side by side two pronouns, a 'you' and an 'I', that cannot be bracketed side by side as soon as they are referred to the disjunction. The declaration nominally fixes the encounter as that whose being resides in the void of the disjunction. A Two that proceeds amorously is specifically the name of the disjunct as apprehended in its disjunction. Love is the interminable fidelity to a first naming."

Alain Badiou, What is Love?; Conditions, Continuum, 2008.




"There is in man’s nature a secret inclination and motion, towards love of others, which if it be not spent upon some one or a few, doth naturally spread itself towards many, and maketh men become humane and charitable; as it is seen sometime in friars. Nuptial love maketh mankind; friendly love perfecteth it... For it is a true rule, that love is ever rewarded either with the reciproque or with an inward and secret contempt. By how much the more men ought to beware of this passion, which loseth not only other things, but itself!"

Francis Bacon, (1561–1626) Of Love; Essays, Civil and Moral, The Harvard Classics, 1909–14. 




"If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity... To love someone is to isolate him from the world, wipe out every trace of him, dispossess him of his shadow, drag him into a murderous future. It is to circle around the other like a dead star and absorb him into a black light...There exists, between people in love, a kind of capital held by each. This is not just a stock of affects or pleasure, but also the possibility of playing double or quits with the share you hold in the other's heart."

Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007).




"Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the loving one: thou lovest thyself, and on that account despisest thou thyself, as only the loving ones despise. To create,  desireth the loving one, because he despiseth! What knoweth he of love who hath not been obliged to despise just what he loved! With thy love, go into thine isolation, my brother, and with thy creating; and late only will justice limp after thee. With my tears, go into thine isolation, my brother. I love him who seeketh to create beyond himself, and thus succumbeth. — Thus spoke Zarathustra."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Way of the Creating One; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.




"How can you be satisfied? Because everything escapes you, you know that perfectly well. You know, even if you're in love with somebody, everything escapes you. You would want to be nearer that person - how can you cut your flesh open and join it with the other person - it is an impossibility to do - so it is with art. It is almost like a long affair with objects and images and sensations and what you can call the passions. It is very much like that. You may love somebody very much, but how near can you get to them? You're still always unfortunately sort of strangers."

Francis Bacon, Bacon's Arena, Adam Low, BBC 2, 2005.




"The power of love - which is the manifestation of the forces which tend to preserve life - is there in the baby as well as the destructive impulses, and finds its first fundamental expression in the baby’s attachment to his mother’s breast which develops into love for her as a person. My psycho-analytic work has convinced me that when in the baby’s mind the conflicts between love and hate arise, and the fears of losing the loved one become active, a very important step is made in development. These feelings of guilt and distress now enter as a new element in the emotion of love."

Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation, 1937; London: Hogarth Press, 1975.




"Thus we come back to the love 'as strong as death.'  It is not a matter of a force that could repel the death inscribed in my being. However, it is not my nonbeing that causes anxiety, but that of the loved one or of the other, more beloved than my being. What we call, by a somewhat corrupted term, love, is par-excellence the fact that the death of the other affects me more than my own. The love of the other is the emotion of the other's death. In my receiving the other - and not the anxiety of death awaiting me - that is the reference to death. We encounter death in the face of the other."

Emmanuel Levinas, A Reading of Bloch: Toward a Conclusion;  Friday, May 7, 1976.




"The fact that Hannah Arendt did not then compel Heidegger to come to a decision about her does not, of course, mean that she did not expect him to arrive at one. The secrecy, after all, was his game. In her eyes, it was he who would have to raise their relationship to a more compact reality... Heidegger loves Arendt, and he will love her for a long time yet. He takes her seriously as a woman who understands him; she becomes his muse for Being and Time. He will admit to her that without her he could not have written that work. But at no time will he realize that he might learn from her."

Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger - Between Good and Evil, Harvard University Press, 1998.




"I love things that are not there... I love love that is not there, but which floats like an invisible city, like an inconceivable smell. Love that awakens the desires for enchanted lands, filling the head with visions, giving strength and grandeur, leading all beings to completion, presenting one with wonderful garments woven with figurative strength... I love passion that does not exist... I love thoughts that are not there... I love beauty in everything and nothing but beauty. I only love the soul. Bodies I am indifferent to... You see, I am so much outside life that everything unattainable is, for me, more precious than reality."

Marianne von Werefkin, Briefe an einen Unbekannten 1901-1905, Clemens Weiler, Cologne, 1960.




"Between one and the other, between a male one and a female one, there is, at least at present, no passage. Being would be a waiting whose opening has closed itself up in a circle - likewise in oblivion - so that the thinker can remain at rest there... The other - or the female one - has let herself be used as a bridge-being at the end of which is nothing: this passage is but an eternal return to the same... What is man, before the Being of man already is? ... Man makes himself come about in forgetting. No being without forgetting... This is the terror of forgetting, this inside-outside cry of she who is absent, who cannot disappear."

Luce Irigaray, The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1999.




"Dear Hannah! Why is love rich beyond all other possible human experiences and a sweet burden to those seized in its grasp? Because we become what we love and yet remain ourselves. Then we want to thank the beloved, but find nothing that suffices. We can only thank with out selves. Love transforms gratitude into loyalty to our selves and unconditional faith in the other. That is how love steadily intensifies its innermost secret. Here, being close is a matter of being at the greatest distance from the other - distance that lets nothing blur - but instead puts 'thou' into mere presence - transparent but incomprehensible - of a revelation...Your M."

Martin Heidegger to Hannah Arendt, February 21, 1925; Letters 1925-1975,  Ed. Ursula Ludz. Harcourt, 2004.




"Consciousness must act solely that what it inherently and implicitly is, may be for it explicitly; or, acting is is just the process of mind coming to be qua consciousness. What it is implicitly, therefore, it knows from its actual reality. Hence it is that an individual cannot know what he is till he has made himself real by action... He has to start right away and, whatever the circumstances are, without troubling further about beginning, means, or end, proceed to action at once. For its essential and implicit nature is beginning, means, and end all in one. As beginning, it is found in the circumstances of the action..."

 G.W.F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Harper & Row, New York 1967.




"Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is. Then I fell in love, head over heels in love, with the most wonderful boy in the world. We would take long walks by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes. We were so very much in love. Then one day he went away and I thought I'd die, but I didn't, and when I didn't I said to myself, ‘is that all there is to love? Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Is that all there is, is that all there is."

Peggy Lee, Is That All There is?, Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller, 1969.




"Isn't it time to free ourselves from the loved one, and bear the tension - as the arrow endures the tensed string - to gather its forces - and spring to a state of being that is more than it could  ever be?  It is death to stand still.  And its hard, being dead, and takes much difficult recapitulation - to glimpse the tiniest hint of eternity. The living, though, are too ready to posit a border - between two states of being: a human mistake. Angels, it's said, are often uncertain - whether they traverse the living or the dead. The eternal current pours through both worlds, bearing all ages with it, and over powers their voices with their song.  They finally need us no longer."

Rainer Maria Rilke, The First Elegy; Duino Elegies, 1912-1922.




"I don't believe in love really - I mean love is marvellous if it happens - I would have said sexual love - sexual obsession was the strongest one - I think there's only sexual obsession  - what is love - ask me - what is love?  - I would of thought love was just - in so far as you can be descent from one person to another - after all god knows that's rare enough  - Sex is sex - is what it is isn't it? - sex is what it is - sex is what it is - it's the moment of ecstasy -  if you like the person or if you don't even like them  - but it's the moment - but it's really the moment of coming isn't it? - of coming off - that's what 'em - that's what pleasure is - isn't it? -  Cheers!"

Francis Bacon to Daniel Farson, Bacon's Arena, Adam Low, BBC 2, 2005.




"To love is to exist as if the lover and the loved one were alone in the world. The intersubjective relation of love is not the beginning of society, but its negation. And that is certainly an indication of its essence. Love is the I satisfied by the thou, grasping in the other the justification of its being. The presence of the other exhausts the content of such as society. The affective warmth of love is the fulfillment of the consciousness of that satisfaction, that contentment, that fullness found outside the self, eccentric to it. The society of love is a society of two, a society of solitudes, resisting universality... No one is identical to himself. Beings have no identity."

Emmanuel Lévinas, The I and the Totality; On Thinking-of-the-Other, The Athlone Press, 1998.




"What I love in the person I love - to the point of wanting to die from this love - isn't some individual existence but the universal aspect of that person. Love is my necessity. I'm impelled to drift into happiness, sensing chance there... Love is simple, uncomplicated... My wish is that in any love of the unknown we can, by ousting transcendence, attain such great simplicity as to relate that love to an earthly love, echoing it to infinity... Time is the same as desire. The object of desire is for time not to exist. Time is the desire for time not to exist...What was I desperately in love with? A glimpse, an open door. A sudden impulse and an irrepressible need..."

Georges Bataille, On Nietzsche, Paragon House, New York 1992.




"Moods or attunements cannot be forced, nor ever forcibly altered: only another mood can budge the one we happen to be in, Heidegger says in Being and Time. Here  he emphasizes that one can only let attunement be. Rather, 'mood' and 'attunement' are taken as modes of Befindlichkeit, the primary disclosure that constitutes the Da- of Dasein... Can a fundamental attunement or mood be attained? Do we ever gain access to it?  And if if our philosophizing depends on our immersion in a fundamental, founding mood, does such immersion promise anything like transparency? How can we know whether we are at home, whether we are truly there in there-being?"

David Farrell Krell, Daimon Life - Heidegger & Life-Philosophy, Indiana University Press, 1992.




"Call us what you will, we are made such by love;  We can die by it, if not live by love, And if unfit for tomb or hearse  Our legend be, it will be fit for verse;  And if no piece of chronicle we prove,  We'll build in sonnets pretty rooms  As well a well-wrought urn becomes  The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs,  And by these hymns, all shall approve  Us canonized for love:  And thus invoke us, You, whom reverend love  Made one another's hermitage;  You, to whom love was peace, that now is rage; Who did the whole world's soul contract, and drove  Into the glasses of your eyes ;  (So made such mirrors, and such spies, That they did all to you epitomize,) A pattern of your love!"

John Donne, The Canonization; The Love Poems of John Donne, Dean of St. Paul's, Zodiac Books, 1950.




"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it! Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now!"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), trans. William Hutchinson Murray (1913-1996).




"To preach love already presupposes in those to whom one appeals a character structure different from the one that needs to be changed. For the people whom one should love are themselves such that they cannot love, and therefore in turn are not at all that lovable... Moreover, love cannot be summoned in professionally mediated relations like that of teacher and student, doctor and patient, lawyer and client. Love is something immediate and in essence contradicts mediated relationships. The exhortation to love - even in its imperative form, that one should do it - is itself part of the ideology coldness perpetuates. It bears the compulsive, oppressive quality that counteracts the ability to love."

Theodor W. Adorno, Education after Auschwitz, 1967; Can One Live After Auschwitz?,  Stanford University Press, 2003.




"Everybody says love is about finding the person who is right for me and then everything will be fine. But it's not like that. It involves work. An old man tells you this!... I insist on this - that solving the existential problems of love is life's great joy. There is a kind of serenity in love which is almost paradise... Well, I absolutely agree that sex needs to be freed from morality. I'm not going to speak against the freedom to experiment sexually like some old arse - un vieux connard - but when you liberate sexuality, you don't solve the problems of love. That's why I propose a new philosophy of love, wherein you can't avoid problems or working to solve them... Everybody wants a contract that guarantees them against risk. Love isn't like that. You can't buy a lover. Sex, yes, but not a lover. "

Alain Badiou, A Life in Writing, Review, Guardian, 19.05.12.




"In To Be Two and I Love To You I've tried to open a path towards such a construction of the transcendence of the other.... All relationships with the other now involve a negative: in language of course - for example; 'I love to you' and not 'I love you' - but also in perceiving, in listening, in touching. In To Be Two I try to define a new way of approaching the other, emphasizing how we can caress each other without losing either the I or the thou... Substituting the two for the one in sexual difference corresponds, then, to a decisive philosophical and political gesture, one which renounces being one or many in favour of being-two as the necessary foundation of a new ontology, a new ethics, and a new politics in which the other is recognised as other and not as the same: greater, smaller, at best equal to me."

Luce Irigaray, Democracy Begins Between Two; French Women Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.




"To embrace a 'thing' or a 'person' in its essence means to love it, to favour it. Thought in a more original way such favouring means to bestow essence as a gift.  Such favouring is the proper essence of enabling, which not only can achieve this or that but also can let something essentially unfold in its provenance, that is, let it be. It is on the 'strength' of such enabling by favouring that something is properly able to be. This enabling is what is properly 'possible', whose essence resides in favouring. From this favouring Being enable thinking. The former makes the latter possible. Being is the enabling-favouring, the 'may-be'. As the element, Being is the 'quiet-power' of the favouring-enabling, that is, of the possible... To enable something here means to preserve it in its essence, to maintain it in its element."

Martin Heidegger, Letter on Humanism, 1947.




"You are not the other. - Are you crying? Don't cry. I love you for these failings. I love how you smell of the primeval forest. I love your not knowing good and evil. I love your ignorance of half the world. I am delighted that you don't know your own power... Night comes. - I've been in touch with you all day, Promethea, do you understand that? - It's love. - But sometimes in the midst of love there are wars, walls, sometimes there are foreign languages separating love, a crowd of strangers, sometimes one can pass by each other at a distance of years, centuries, histories... Love is often scoured, invaded, spoiled. And then love thinks of love. But today I didn't have to think about you... I'll never have you enough. It is torture. It is luck. I love you too much, I love you illegally: I love you truly. I love you when I didn't love you yet."

Hélène Cixous, The Book of Promethea, University of Nebraska Press, 1991.




"The lover is a narcissist with an object. Love involves a sizable aufhebung of narcissism; consequently, the relationship established by Freud between love and narcissism must not cause us to forget their essential difference. Is it not true that the narcissist, as such, is precisely someone incapable of love? The lover, in fact, reconciles narcissism and hysteria. As far as he is concerned, there is an idealizable other who returns his own ideal image (that is the narcissistic moment), but he is nevertheless an other. It is essential for the lover to maintain the existence of that ideal other and to be able to  imagine himself similar, merging with him, and even indistinguishable from him. In amorous hysteria the ideal Other is a reality, not a metaphor... 'Narcissistic structure' thus remains a permanent fixture in the love grievances that beckon to us..."

Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love, 1983, Columbia University Press, 1987.




"Thinking men and artists have not infrequently described a sense of being not quite there, of not playing along, a feeling as if they were not themselves at all, but a kind of spectator. Others often find this repulsive; it was the basis of Kierkegaard's polemic against what he called the esthetic sphere... People, of course, are spellbound without exception, and none of them are capable of love, which is why everyone feels loved too little... Spellbound, the living have a choice between involuntary ataraxy - an esthetic life due to weakness - and the bestiality of the involved. Both are wrong ways of living... The only trouble with self-preservation is that we cannot help suspecting the life to which it attaches us of turning into something that makes us shudder: into a specter, a piece of the world of ghosts, which our waking consciousness perceives to be nonexistent."

 Theodor W. Adorno, After Auschwitz; Negative Dialectics, Routledge, 1973.




"For often we do not know what we love, and we must wait to know, wait on the other. Wooing we are at the opposite extreme to any will to power with pretensions to complete control. Wooing awaits in love and the sweet kiss that answers may inspire from the very roots up of our mortal passio essendi... If wooing is a kind of willing, or being willing, it is not will to power. It awaits something other being given... The Good seems to be an unoriginated original that yet is communicative of other-being as originated. Is the Good itself good? We love the good but does the good love us, or the beings that come to be? If the Good were an agapeic origin, would its being not be something like an unconstrained love of the 'to be' that gives being beyond itself? Can one think this giving as original, radically originative? Is it possible to think this thought?"

William Desmond, Art, Origins, Otherness, State University of New York Press, 2003.




"The violence of love leads to tenderness, the lasting form of love, but it brings into the striving of one heart towards another the same quality of disorder, the same first for losing consciousness and the same after-taste of death that is found in the mutual desire for each other's body. In essence, love raises the feeling of of one  being for another to such a pitch that the threatened loss of the beloved or the loss of his love is felt no less keenly than the threat of death. Hence love is based on a desire to live in anguish in the presence of an object of such high worth that the heart cannot bear to contemplate losing it. The fever of the senses is not a desire to die. Nor is love the desire to lose but the desire to live in fear of possible loss, with the beloved holding the lover on the very threshold of a swoon. At that price alone can we feel the violence of rapture before the beloved."

Georges Bataille, Sensuality, tenderness and love;  Eroticism, 1957.




“Where is beauty? Where I have to will with all my will; where I want to love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image. Loving and perishing: these have gone together from eternity. Will to love: than means to be willing to die, too. Thus I speak to you cowards!.. For it is already coming, the lowing sun, -   its love of the earth is coming! All sun-love is innocence and creative desire! Just look how it comes impatiently over the sea! Do you not feel the thirst and the hot breath of its love? It wants to suck at the sea and drink the sea's depths up to its height: now the sea's desire rises with a thousand breasts. It wants to be kissed and sucked by the sun's thirst; it wants to become air and height and light's footpath and light itself! Truly, like the sun do I love life and all deep seas. And this I call knowledge: all that is deep shall rise up - to my height! — Thus spoke Zarathustra.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Of Immaculate Perception; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1881-1885.




"Love wants union. The desire that one might call metaphysical is a desire for what we are not in want of, a desire that cannot be satisfied and that does not desire union with what it desires. It desires what the one who desires has no need of, what is not lacking and what the one who desires has no desire to attain, it being the very desire for what must remain inaccessible and foreign - a desire of the other as other, a desire that is austere, disinterested, without satisfaction, without nostalgia, unreturned, and without return... Eros is still the nostalgic desire for lost unity, the movement of return toward true Being.  Metaphysical desire is desire for that with which one has never been united, the desire of a self not only separated but happy with the separation that makes it a self, and yet still in relation with that from which it remains separated and of which it has no need: the unknown, the foreign, autrui."

Maurice Blanchot, Knowledge of the Unknown; Plural Speech; The Infinite Conversation, University of Minnesota, 1993.




"Heidegger never focuses on thwarted love, a theme of primary concern in Rilke's work: love renounced, rather than 'my death,' is the ground of resoluteness in Rilke's poetry. Thus a language of love as a mode of reaching toward another person is a primordial facet of poetic discourse in Rilke's work which remains unnoticed by Heidegger... The paradigm of resoluteness in Rilke's poetry is not one's own death but the relation to another from whom nothing is to be expected... Rilke's view of love is not that of the intellectual eros of Plato's Symposium but that of Christain renunciation... Heidegger does not address the theme of eros in his essay on Rilke, nor does love form a significant part of Heidegger's thinking in any of his major published works. This is especially conspicuous in his analysis of Dasein, who may be anguished, guilty, resolute, fearful, domineering, or solicitous - but never in love."

Edith Wyschogrod, Spirit in Ashes: Hegel, Heidegger, and Man-Made Mass Death,  Yale University Press 1985.




"Heidegger wrote little about love. If you engage in thinking about love, I suspect that you will find that Edgar Allan Poe's poem Annabel Lee is in the neighborhood of the region of your thought. Harkening to the poem's second stanza, I would suggest that great love includes a childhood innocence. Hence, Annabel Lee leads the person engaged in thinking about love to think about the necessity of childhood innocence for the emerging and existence of a great love. There is no method or theme to such thinking. A great love is the topic which engages your thinking, a topic which poetry can help you to illuminate. I should mention that Plato, who was no great defender of poets, banishing most of them from his ideal republic, includes learning from poetry in many of his dialogues. For instance, in the Symposium, in which the God of love is praised by a circle of speakers, two of the speakers, Phaedrus and Agathon, recite verses of poetry to support their thinking."

Haim Gordon, Heidegger On Poetry And Thinking: Some Educational Implications, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1998.




"According to Hegel, the notions of self-love and self-consciousness combine to form the identity of God. For the Christian, God is love. The speculative significance of this claim emerges with the recognition that 'love implies a differentiation between two who are, however, not merely different from one another. Love is this feeling of being outside myself, the feeling and consciousness of this identity. I have myself-consciousness not in myself, but in another in whom alone I am satisfied and am at peace with myself - and I am only insofar as I am at peace with myself, for if I do not have this, I am the contradiction that sunders itself.'  The love relation provides a representation (Vorstellung) of God that points toward the more complete expression of divine subjectivity disclosed in the structure of self-consciousness. God's self-love is, of course, impossible apart from His self-knowledge... Created in the image of God, the human subject reflects divine subjectivity."

Mark C. Taylor, Erring - A Postmodern A/theology, University of Chicago Press, 1984.




"Love, Lévinas says, is characterised by an essential and insatiable hunger. Unlike the desire to eat, amorous desire is not merely an agitation (trouble) that precedes the attempt at gratification but is a desire augmented by such an attempt. In love, Lévinas says, 'the burning bush which feeds the flame is not consumed'; or, rather,  since it is the inexhaustibility of the flame that is at issue, 'the burning bush that feeds the flame does not extinguish it.' We can, however, be mistaken about the nature of our desire. We confuse love with the hunger for food, and as this hunger is satisfied through the consumption of a food object we attempt to sate desire with the consumption of a love object; thus, he says, 'the ridiculous and tragic simulation in kissing and biting.'... If the inability to be satisfied by an object (or an act, one might add) - what Lévinas calls the 'pathos' of love - is the essence of love it must also be the source of its pleasures: 'The very positivity of love lies in its negativity.'..."

Stella Stanford, The Metaphysics of Love, The Athlone Press, 2000.




"Love aims at the Other; it aims at him in his frailty... To love is to fear for another, to come to the assistance of his frailty. In this frailty as in the dawn rises the Loved, who  is the Beloved. An epiphany of the Loved, the feminine is not added to an object and a Thou antecedently given or encountered in the neuter (the sole gender formal logic knows). The epiphany of the Beloved is but one with her regime of tenderness. The way of the tender consists in an extreme fragility, a vulnerability. It maintains itself at the limit of being and non-being, as a soft warmth where being dissipates into radiance, like the 'pale blush' of the nymphs in the Afternoon of a Faun, which 'leaps in the air drowsy with thick slumbers,'  dis-individualizing and relieving  itself of its own weight of being, already evanescence and swoon, flight into self in the very midst of its manifestation...The movement of the lover before this frailty of femininity, indulges in compassion, is absorbed in the complacence of the caress."

Emmanuel Levinas, Phenomenology of Eros; Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.




"But what do they love?  Let us then speak of love. What does it mean to 'love' something? For if love is the measure, the only measure of love is love without measure (Augustine again). One of the ideas behind 'love' is that it represents a giving without holding back, an 'unconditional' commitment which marks love with a certain excess... Love is not a bargain, but an unconditional giving; it is not an investment, but a commitment come what may. Lovers are people who exceed their duty, who look around for ways to do more than is required of them... Rather than rigorously defending their rights, lovers readily put themselves in the wrong and take the blame for the sake of preserving their love. Love, St. Paul said in his stunning hymn to love, is patient, kind, not puffed up or boastful; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...The mark of really loving someone or something is unconditionality and excess, engagement and commitment, fire and passion."

John D. Caputo, On Religion, Routledge New York 2001.




"He arrives - Your beauty - the beauty of the world. Your love - the beating of the universe, the loving rhythm of nature, time in harmony with the sun. In you , I behold its radiance. In you, I savour its power, I bathe in its warmth. At times, the eternal joins with the instant. We are present to each other, but between us remains eternity, while we continue to grow. How do we unite these two times?... How do I return to you?... How do I call the going beyond?... We can remain together if you do not become entirely perceptible to me, if a part of you stays in the night. Already, beauty has created a distance: a veil over us... Only love consents to a night in which I will never know you. Between those who love each other, there is a veil... I become because I recognise myself in you... With you, the world remains fluid... How do I remain in love - cultivating sun and grace?... To be silent to allow you to speak, to give birth to you. And to us, as well. To listen to the other's love."

Luce Irigaray, Prologue - To Be Two, The Athlone Press, 2000.




"Freud also had a concept of love in his system, but it was, throughout, entwined with his theory of the sexual instinct... Civilisation and Its Discontents explored the possibilities and dangers of love as a road to happiness. He dismissed the oceanic feeling or pleasurable sense of oneness - the possibility of love between a mother and baby and, by extension, between a man and a woman - as infantile and unrealistic. Such love was dangerous, Freud wrote, because, when one fell into it, the boundaries of one's ego could melt away, a condition he associated with psychosis. Love was also threatening because it entailed giving up control, which left one extremely vulnerable: 'We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love.'  He counterposed this intensely pleasurable, but dangerous, state of love with its tempered, socialized form: 'sublimated' or 'aim-inhibited libido,' the way to reason and science."

Louis Breger, Freud - Darkness in the Midst of Vision, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.




"There’s what Freud called Liebesbedingung, the condition for love, the cause of desire. It’s a particular trait – or a set of traits – that have a decisive function in a person for the choice of the loved one. This totally escapes the neurosciences, because it’s unique to each person, it’s down to their singular, intimate history. Traits which are sometimes minute are at play. For instance, Freud singled out in one of his patients a cause of desire that was a shine on a woman’s nose! The reality of the unconscious outstrips fiction. You can’t imagine how much in human life is founded, especially where love is concerned, on little things, on pinheads, on ‘divine details’. It’s true that’s it’s above all in men that you find causes of desire like that, which are like fetishes whose presence is indispensable to spark off the love process… People in love are in fact condemned to go on learning the other’s language indefinitely, groping around, seeking out the keys – keys that are always revocable. Love is a labyrinth of misunderstandings whose way out doesn’t exist."

Jacques-Alain Miller, On Love. Lacan, October, 2008.




"Whatever is, is experienced in relation to its possible non-being. This alone makes it fully a possession and, thus petrified, something functional that can be exchanged for other, equivalent possessions. Once wholly a possession, the loved person is no longer really looked at. Abstraction in love is the complement of exclusiveness, which manifests itself deceptively as the opposite of abstract, a clinging to this one unique being. But such a possessiveness loses its hold on its object precisely through turning it into an object, and forfeits the person whom it debases to 'mine.' If people were no longer possessions, they could no longer be exchanged. True affection would be one that speaks specifically to the other, and becomes attached to beloved features and not to the idol of personality, the reflected image of possession. The specific is not exclusive: it lacks the aspiration to totality. But in another sense it is exclusive, nevertheless: the experience indissolubly bound up with it does not, indeed, forbid replacement, but by its very essence precludes it."

Theodor W. Adorno, Morality and the temporal sequence, 1944; Minima Moralia, 1951.




"What is wanted is rather some regard for the arrival of the hitherto unexpressed nature of unconcealedness, for it is in this form that Being has announced itself. Meanwhile the truth of Being has remained concealed from metaphysics during its long history from Anaximander to Nietzsche. Who does metaphysics not recall it? Is the failure to recall it merely a function of some kinds of metaphysical thinking? Or is it an essential feature of the fate of metaphysics that it own ground eludes it because in the rise of unconcealedness! its very core, namely concealedness, stays away in favour of the unconcealed which appears in the form of beings ... Metaphysics gives, and seems to confirm, the appearance that it asks and answers the question concerning Being. In fact, metaphysics never answers the question concerning the truth of Being, for it never asks this question. Metaphysics does not ask this question because it thinks of Being only by representing beings as beings. It means all beings as a whole, although it speaks of Being. It refers to Being and means beings as beings... The being that exists is man. Man alone exists... The proposition 'man exists' means: man is that being whose Being is distinguished by the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being." 

Martin Heidegger, The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics; Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, 1957.




"Freud had been smoking since the age of twenty-four, beginning with cigarettes and moving quickly on to cigars. His father had been a heavy smoker, hanging on to the habit through to his eighty-first year, Freud's age when he gave his stock to Alexander. At the height of him commitment to tobacco, Freud was not only a user but a committed advocate... Freud called smoking 'a protection and a weapon in the combat of life,' and he was devoted to it for the great balance of his existence. When in 1923, he discovered a cancerous growth on his jaw and palate, he refused for some time from letting his doctors know because he was aware that they would tell him that he had to give up his cigars... Cigar smoking gave Freud, who, despite an early fling with cocaine, almost never touched other drugs, the combination of energy and tranquillity that he needed in order to write. Smoking calmed his nerves and let him focus his attention onto the field of enquiry at hand. His cigar unified him... Freud's hunger for cigars was about as strong as any human hunger could be, and he himself was in control of satisfying it... Even after he gave his cigars to Alex, Freud would continue to smoke. If food was the stuff of life, Lebensmittel, then cigars were to Freud 'Arbeitsmittel,' the 'stuff of work,' and Freud, by his own estimation, still had a good deal of work to do."

Mark Edmundson, The Death of Sigmund Freud; The Legacy of His Last Days, Bloomsbury, 2007.




"Love is the passion of facticity in which man bears this nonbelonging and darkness, appropriating (adsuefacit) them while guarding them as such. Love is thus not, as the dialectic of desire suggests, the affirmation of the self in the negation of the loved object, it is, instead, the passion and exposition of facticity itself and of the irreducible impropriety of beings. In love, the lover and beloved come to light in their concealment, in an eternal facticity beyond Being... Just as in Ereignis, the appropriation of the improper signifies the end of both history of Being and of the history of epochal sendings, so in love the dialectic of the proper and the improper reaches its end... Lovers bear the impropriety of love to the end and so that the proper can emerge as the appropriation of the free incapacity that passion brings to its end. Lovers go to the limit of the improper in a mad and demonic promiscuity; they dwell in carnality and amorous discourse, in forever-new regions of impropriety and facticity, to the point of revealing their essential abyss. Human beings do not originally dwell in the proper; yet they do not (according to the facile suggestion of contemporary nihilism) inhabit the improper and the ungrounded. Rather, human beings are those who fall properly in love with the improper, who - unique among living beings - are capable of their own incapacity.” 

Giorgio Agamben, The Passion of Facticity; Potentiality, Stanford University Press, 1999.




"What is beautiful in the relation to the other, what moves us, what overwhelms us the most - that is love - is when we glimpse a part of what is secret to him or her, what is hidden, that the other does not see; as if there were a window by which we see a certain heart beating... We know, for example where the other's vulnerable heart is situated; and we do not touch it; we leave intact. This is love... There are things we do not understand because we could never reproduce them: behaviours, decisions that seem foreign to us. This is also love... At the end of the path of attention, of reception, which is not interrupted but which continues into what little by little becomes the opposite of comprehension. Loving not knowing. Loving: not knowing... it's easy to love ... once you love! You have to get there first!.. I think we probably love more easily than we write - which does not mean that we love well. But we have more numerous experiences of love than writing. Because we cannot not love when we live. It is our motivating force. That is what living is: the search for love."

Hélène Cixous, Alterity: Being Human; French Women Philosophers, Routledge, 2004.




"Most histories of this period tend to concentrate on the atrocities that were committed against the Jewish nation and others unfortunately enough to be regarded as 'untermenschen', (sub-human). My story is very different and it is only now, in these more enlightened, tolerant times that I feel able to recount my experiences without fear of condemnation. Although I hated our oppressors with the same intensity as everyone else, my survival was entirely due to love. This love came from a jewish family who took me in and cared for me, a Polish woman and her son and a senior SS Officer who fell in love with me. I am neither proud of this story nor ashamed of my conduct. I did what I had to do in the circumstances and, like so mant others, used everything at my disposal to survive. Where others had unlimited financial resources to buy favours and delay the inevitable, all I had was a most unusual face and body... Additionally, I must make it clear that I was not abused in any way or seduced against my will; quite the reverse since I was frequently the instigator!!"

Janni Kowalski, Love Sets You Free (Liebe Macht Frei) - The Biography of Janni Kowalski, Jeremy Harder, Old Forge Publishing, 2004.




"Consequently, Freud's text raises the possibility for thinking about mourning as an affirmative and loving internalization of the lost other... Identification with the lost other establishes the condition for founding the self and, hence constituting internal divisions within the psyche... But in recognizing that there can be no final serverance of attachments without dissolving the ego, Freud’s late theory suggests a different alternative: the mourning subject may affirm the endurance of ambivalent bonds to those loved and lost others as a condition of its own existence. Freud’s work counsels us, then, to relinquish the wish for a strict identity unencumbered by the claims of the lost other or the past. In so doing, we realize the possibility of mourning beyond melancholia, a response to loss that refuses the self-punishment entailed in blaming the lost one for our own contingency and that enables us to live in light of our losses. Freud’s work on mourning  helps us, finally, to establish an intimate, indeed ethical, relation between past and future as we embark on the present work of endless mourning."

Tammy Clewell, Mourning Beyond Melancholia: Freud's Psychoanlysis of Loss; Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2004. 




"If I adopt the attitude of love, according to Sartre, I try to gain access to 'the secret of what I am' which the other possessed about me in my capacity as object. For this to be possible, the other must continue to appear as a transcendence. One thus tries to 'assimilate' the other as seeing and recognizes oneself as seen, as object... The one who wishes to be loved asks the other to decide freely to love only him or her. The Lover 'is and consents to be an object. But on the other hand, he wants to be the object in which the Other's freedom consents to lose itself' (BN: 367, EN: 435). But the loved can only be lover when he meets the other as subject, not object... Each lover requires that the other party, as a subject, shall love him or her. This cannot be simultaneously. The ideal of love is 'a fusion of consciousness in which each of them would preserve his otherness in order to found the other' (BN: 376, EH: 444). To Sartre, however, this is impossible because each of the two consciousnesses is separated by its internal negations. The one cannot unite with the other without the alterity of the other being abolished."

Eva Lundgren-Gothlin, The Love-Seeking Object; Sex & Existence, The Athlone Press, 1996.




"Even before the death of the other, the inscription in me of her or his mortality constitutes me. I mourn therefore I am. I am - dead from the death of the other, my relation to myself is first of all plunged into mourning, a mourning that is moreover impossible. this is what I also call the ex-appropriation, the appropriation caught in a double bind: I must and must not take the other into myself; mourning is an unfaithful fidelity if it succeeds in interiorizing the other ideally in me, that is, in not respecting his or her infinite exteriority... If death comes to the other and comes to us through the other, then the friend no longer exists except in us, between us...being-for-death... But I can have the experience of 'my own death' by relating to myself only in the impossible experience, the experience of the impossible mourning at the death of the other.  It is because I 'know' that the other is mortal that I try to keep him or her in me, in memory... being-for-death is always mediated... in the experience or in the 'non-experienceable' structure of impossible mourning.  Mourning would be more originary than my being for death."

Jacques Derrida, Interview with Maurizio Ferraris,  Aut Aut  235, January-February 1990.




"Mourning must be impossible. We cannot assume that we can merely resurrect or interiorize 'within us the image, idol, or ideal of the other who is dead'. Nor can we assume that 'the other who is dead' is simply outside of us and that we are 'a subjectivity that is closed upon itself or even identical to itself'. Mourning is impossible, and for us most of all. The 'race of the other', the other who has died and that remains other, is at once inside and outside of us,  marking a gap that moves in 'us', as 'us' - the living who sign our name. Mourning has always already begun. It begins with the name, with naming and with writing the date, with dating: Jacques Derrida 15 July 1930 - 8-9 October 2004... How does one respond to the death of Jacques Derrida? How does one mourn for Derrida, who warned of the dangers of mourning (as idealization and interiorization), while insisting that mourning is both unavoidable and impossible? The gap that the death of Jacques Derrida has let behind is open, gaping; it cannot be closed. One can perhaps only respond by tracing the gaps (écarts, béances, décalages), the histories of the gap, in Derrida's work."

Sean Gaston, The Impossible Mourning of Jacques Derrida, Continuum, 2006. 




"While desire focuses on the other, always in a somewhat fetishist[ic] manner, on particular objects, like breasts, buttocks and cock, love focuses on the very being of the other, on the other as it has erupted, fully armed with its being, into my life that is consequently disrupted and re-fashioned. The absolute contingency of the encounter takes on the appearance of destiny. The declaration of love marks the transition from chance to destiny and that's why it is so perilous and so burdened with a kind of horrifying stage fright. In love, fidelity signifies this extended victory: the randomness of an encounter defeated day after day through the invention of what will endure. Love is always the possibility of being present at the birth of the world. The birth of a child, if born from within love, is yet another example of this possibility. To love is to struggle, beyond solitude, with everything in the world that can animate existence. This world where I see for myself the fount of happiness my being with someone else brings. 'I love you' becomes: in this world there is this fount you are for my life. In the water from this fount, I see our bliss, yours first."

Alain Badiou, In Praise of Love, Serpent's Tail, 2012.




"Heidegger's nearness is a romantic allegory, and it particularly allegorizes an attraction for a dangerous lover, as described in many formula romances. Flight from the beloved and the evasion of immanent love describes the basic plot structure of the dangerous lover formula. Immanent love defines the complete presence of both lovers, as equally confessed lovers, beloved together in the same place and at the same time. All meaning is finally immanent and this is the final aim, or the climax and ending of the book. This full presence of love states the love story's meaning; everything in the narrative means this, and this is all it means. Clearly love's completion defines romance, but with the dangerous lover formula, love's presence constitutes the end of the story; all events tend toward this culmination. Yet 'to tend toward' here, means both to flee, to cover over and to always be in a movement toward. Again we see Heidegger's nearness here - the moving closer which causes familiar nearness to withdraw. The structure of this proposition - the fleeing movement of love - lies in withheld secrets, postponements, misunderstandings, and evasion."

Deborah Lutz, Heidegger, The Erotics of Ontology, and the Mass-Market Romance, Comparative Cultural Studies and Popular Culture, 2003.




"One must learn to love.— This is what happens to us in music: first one has to learn to hear a figure and melody at all, to detect and distinguish it, to isolate it and delimit it as a separate life; then it requires some exertion and good will to tolerate it in spite of its strangeness, to be patient with its appearance and expression, and kind hearted about its oddity:—finally there comes a moment when we are used to it, when we wait for it, when we sense that we should miss it if it were missing: and now it continues to compel and enchant us relentlessly until we have become its humble and enraptured lovers who desire nothing better from the world than it and only it.— But that is what happens to us not only in music: that is how we have learned to love all things that we now love. In the end we are always rewarded for our good will, our patience, fair mindedness, and gentleness with what is strange; gradually, it sheds its veil and turns out to be a new and indescribable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. Even those who love themselves will have learned it in this way: for there is no other way. Love, too, has to be learned."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Book IV, 1882.




"Freud observed, with disarming honesty, that, 'I cannot discover this oceanic feeling in myself. It is not easy to deal scientifically with feelings.'... I want to argue that this 'archaic' feeling, which once, in Freud's own words, 'embraced the universe', this guardian awareness of our interconnectedness with all other beings and our grounding in the wholeness of Being, and which Freud himself, under pressure, did finally recognize, is of the most decisive importance for our present critical task...'Love', says Freud, 'threatens to obliterate the boundaries between ego and object'. Is this challenge to the boundaries inherently, or necessarily, pathological? Why must love be understood (only) as a 'threat'? It seems to me that, if our age is indeed threatened by the continued domination of the subject-object structure, what is an historical transformation of this structure through the retrieval and redemption of what Freud is calling 'love': the experience of a unifying unity which grounds all the structural formations of our perception, and in the 'play' of which, as Fink phrases it, the difference between 'consciousness' and its 'object' opens out the lighting of Being."

David Michael Levin, The Opening of Vision, Routledge, 1988.




"As the place onto which lack is projected, and through which it is simultaneously disavowed, woman is a 'symptom' for the man. Defined as such, reduced to being nothing other than this fantasmic place, the woman does not exist. Lacan's statement 'The woman does not exist' is, therefore, the corollary of his accusation, or charge, against sexual fantasy. It means, not that woman does not exist, but that her staus as an absolute category and guarantor fantasy (exactly The woman) is false (The) [crossed through]. Lacan sees courtly love as the elevation of the woman into the place where her absence or inaccessibility stands in for the male lack ('For the man, whose lady was entirely, in the most servile sense of the term, his female subject, courtly love is the only way of coming off elegantly from the absence of sexual relation.'), just as he sees her denigration as the precondition for man's belief in his own soul ('For the soul to come into being, she, the woman, is differentiated from it... called woman and defamed'). In relation to man, woman comes to stand for both difference and loss: 'On the one hand, the woman becomes, or is produced, precisely as what he is not...'  For Lacan, men and women are only ever in language..."

Jacqueline Rose, Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and he École Freudienne, Verso, 1986.




“One can be loved while remaining ignorant of that very thing - that one is loved - and in this respect remain  as though confined to secrecy. It could be said that  such a secret is never revealed. But one cannot love, and one must not love, in such a state of ignorance of friendship itself... One loves only by declaring that one loves... Being loved - what does that mean? Nothing, perhaps - nothing in any case of friendship itself in which the loved one, as such, has nothing to know, sometimes nothing to do. Being loved therefore remains - with regard to friendship itself, and therefore with regard to the friend - an accident... One can love being loved, but loving will always be more, better and something other than being loved. One can love to be loved - or to be lovable - but one must first know how to love, and know what loving means by loving. The structure of the first must remain what it is, heterogeneous to that of the other, and that structure, that of loving for the lover, will always  - as Aristotle tells us, in sum - be preferable to being-loved, as acting is preferable to suffering, act to potentiality, essence to accident, knowledge to non-knowledge.”

Jacques Derrida, Obligarchies: Naming, Enumerating, Counting; The Politics of Friendship, Verso, 2005.




“I'd known lots of people before but, even though I was over forty when I met Peter, I'd never really fallen in love with anyone until then. What Peter really liked was young boys.  He was actually younger than me, but he didn't seem to realize it. It was a kind of mistake that he went with me at all.  Of course, it was a most total disaster from the start. Being in love in that extreme way - being totally, physically obsessed by someone - is like having some dreadful disease. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. He was marvellous-looking, you see. He had this extraordinary physique - even his calves were beautiful. And he could be wonderful company. He played the piano marvellously and he had a real kind of natural wit, coming up with one amusing remark after another, just like that - unlike those dreadful bores who plan from morning to night what they're going to say... I must say most of the time Peter was terribly neurotic, even hysterical....Of course, he hated my painting right from the beginning and he said, 'You can leave your paintings and come and live with me.' And I said: 'What does living with you mean?' And he said: 'Well, you could live in a corner of my cottage on straw. You could sleep and shit there.'  He wanted to have me chained to the wall... But he was so neurotic that living together would never have worked.”

Francis Bacon on Peter Lacy,  Francis Bacon Anatomy of an Enigma,  Michael Peppiatt,  Westview Press, 1996. 




“One sees that in Blanchot's first essay on René Char (1946) his anarchist poetics or poetics of the fragment is already clearly articulated... Char, or a lover of Char, might protest that the 'we' in his poem are lovers, not a Blanchot-like 'we' where, Joyce-like, no one is anything, that is, neither the one nor the other; to which Blanchot might reply that the world of lovers is a communauté désoeuvrée - or, more accurately, the relationship between lovers is more interval than unity. In his commentary of Marguerite Dumas's La maladie de la mort, Blanchot thinks of love as a scandal to ethics just in the sense that it is outside all bounds, a neutral relation, a relation of strangeness, possibly a 'return to the wilderness that does not even transgress prohibitions, given that it ignores them, or to the 'anogistic' [aorgique] ( Hölderlin) which unsettles any social relationship, just or unjust, and, contumacious to any third party, cannot be satisfied with a society of two where the reciprocity of the 'I-you' would reign, but prefers to invoke the original, precreational chaos, the night without end, the outside, the fundamental unhinging' (The Unavowable Community, 1988). So Blanchot, persisting in his allegory, might say: the night of the lovers is the other night...”

Gerald L. Bruns, Maurice Blanchot - The Refusal of Philosophy, John Hopkins University Press, 1997.




“The 'unknown' is not the negative limit of a knowledge. This non-knowledge is the element of friendship or hospitality for the transcendence of the strange, the infinite distance of the other. 'Unknown' is also the word chosen by Maurice Blanchot for the title of an essay, Knowledge of the Unknown, which he devoted to the one who had been, from the time of their meeting in Strasbourg in 1923, a friend, the very friendship of the friend. For many among us, no doubt, certainly for myself, the absolute fidelity, the exemplary friendship of thought, the friendship between Maurice Blanchot and Emmanuel Levinas, was a grace, a gift; it remains a benediction of our time and, for more reasons than one, a good fortune that is also a blessing for those who have had the great privilege of being the friend of either of them. In order to hear once again today, right here, Blanchot speak for Levinas, and with Levinas, as I had the good fortune to do when in their company one day in 1968... If the relation to the other presupposes an infinite separation, an infinite interruption where the face appears, what happens, where and to whom does it happen, when another interruption comes at death to hollow out even more infinitely this first separation, a rending interruption at the heart if interruption itself?”

Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.




“The great debt I owe to Emmanuel Lévinas is, I believe, well known. He is today my oldest friend, the only one I feel entitled to address in the tu form. It is also known that we met at the University of Strasbourg in 1926, where so many great teachers made philosophy anything but mediocre for us. Was this encounter the result of chance? It could be said. But our friendship was neither hazardous nor fortuitous. Something profound drew us together. I won't say that this was already Judaism, but rather, in addition to his cheerfulness, a sort of solemn, noble way of envisaging life by investigating it without a trace of pedantry. At the same time, it is to him I owe my first encounter with Husserl, and even with Heidegger, whose lectures he had attended in a Germany already stirred up by perverse political impulses. We left Strasbourg for Paris at almost the same time, but although we never lost touch entirely, it took the misfortunes of a disastrous war for the ties of our friendship, which could be said to have slackened somewhat, to become firmer again, particularly since, while a prisoner of war (in France initially), he entrusted me, through what amounted to a secret request, with the task of watching over those dear to him, who were, alas, vulnerable to the perils of a heinous political system.”

Maurice Blanchot, letter to Salomon Malka, L' Arche, May 1988.




“How could one agree to speak of this friend? ... Everything we say tends to veil the one affirmation: that everything must fade and that we can remain loyal only so long as we watch over this fading movement, to which something in us that rejects all memory already belongs...What separates: what puts authentically in relation, the very abyss of relations in which lies, with simplicity, the agreement of friendly affirmation that is always maintained. We should not, by means of artifice, pretend to carry on a dialogue. What has turned away from us also turns us away from that part which was our presence, and we must learn that when speech subsides, it is not only this exigent speech that has ceased, it is the silence that it made possible and from which it returned along an insensible slope toward the anxiety of time. Undoubtedly we will still be able to follow the same paths, we can let images come, we can appeal to an absence that will imagine, by deceptive consolation, to be our own. We can, in a word, remember: without memory, without thought, it already struggles in the invisible where everything sinks back to indifference. This is thought's profound gift. It must accompany friendship into oblivion.”

Maurice Blanchot,  On the Death of Georges Bataille; Friendship,  Stanford University Press, 1997.




"Freud evoked this complicated, hard-to-imagine journey of the love object from outside to inside the mourner with a poetic, elusive phrase: 'The shadow of the object falls across the ego and obscures it.' It is a slow process, the detachment achieved only piece by piece, and in concluding the essay, Freud acknowledged that it remained a mystery to him why the process was so painful. Painful, but imperative... At the conclusion of On Transience, Freud said that mourning should spontaneously cease one day, freeing the energy it consumed for other pursuits. The living and the dead might arrive at an uneasy truce, merely out of exhaustion or, perhaps, out of the transformation of grief, creating something new in memory of the departed... Freud was asked in his old age what should be the goals of a healthy, vital life. He is reported to have replied, "Lieben und Arbeiten" - to love and to work. Love had earned a clear place in Freud's estimation. He had come to see in its many forms the source of all emotions, behaviours, and actions. It was the inescapable essence of humanity... Through mourning and the triumph of human creativity over loss, the mourner finds again what has been lost within himself. In learning to give himself over to the symphony of life and death, he rediscovers himself, and so realizes the potential inherent in all beings to love and work."

Matthew von Unwerth, Freud's Requiem - Mourning, Memory and the Invisible History of a Summer Walk,  Continuum, 2006. 




“By 'mood,' one needs to emphasize right away, Heidegger does not mean an inner, subjective feeling or psychological sentiment. Readers of Being and Time cannot be misled on this point, which is reiterated in the lecture course: 'mood' in Heidegger's usage is a kind of ontological tuning or attunement, the attunement of Dasein and being, or the mode in which being is revealed and concealed in Dasein... As a mode of attunement, mourning has a sober and almost serene quality; in Heidegger's words, it is not a psychological but a spiritual (or ontological) category... Moreover, mourning here does not signify a breach or simple farewell. As in the case of a loved one, the experience of the loss of gods actually nurtures and strengthens the bond of love and the desire for reunion. As Heidegger notes, 'Where the most beloved is gone, love remains - for else the other could not at all have gone [as the beloved]. Thus, mourning here is both acceptance of the loss, a refusal to cling, and a determined waiting for reconcilliation, an expectant readiness for the return of gods... One should mark this well: mourning - sacred mourning - as the central mood of Hölderlin's hymns and also Heidegger's entire lecture course. Mourning thus necessarily involves a transgression of traditional metaphysics (predicated on the juxtaposition of two separate 'worlds').”

Fred Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger,  Cornell University Press, 1993.




"He looks at us. In us. He looks in us. This witness sees in us. And from now on more than ever...The one who looks at us in us - and for whom we are - is no longer; he is completely other, infinitely other, as he has always been, and death has more than ever entrusted him, given him over, distanced him, in this infinite alterity... We can get over our mourning of him only by getting over our mourning, by getting over, but ourselves, the mourning of ourselves, I mean the mourning of our autonomy, of everything that would make us the measure of ourselves... The gaze is his, and it will always remain his, infinitely; it comes from him singularly, from him alone, alone as always, more alone than ever, over there, outside, far away. Far away in us. In us, there where this power of the image comes to open the being-far-away... The one who looks at us in us - and for whom we are - is no longer; he is completely other, infinitely other, as he has always been, and death has more than ever entrusted him, given him over, distanced him, in this infinite alterity... We can get over our mourning of him only by getting over our mourning, by getting over, by ourselves, the mourning of ourselves, I mean the mourning of our autonomy, of everything that would make us the measure of ourselves...Why does one give and what can one give to a dead friend?... Why wait for death? Tell me why we wait for death."

Jacques Derrida, Louis Martin - By Force of Mourning; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.




"Love remains a relation with the Other that turns to need, and this need still presupposes the total, transcendent exteriority of the other, of the beloved. But love also goes beyond the beloved. This is why through the face filters the obscure light coming from beyond the face, from what is not yet, from a future never future enough, more remote than the possible... Love aims at the Other; it aims at him in his frailty... The movement of the lover before this frailty of femininity, neither pure compassion nor impassiveness, indulges in compassion, is absorbed in the complacence of the caress... Love does not simply lead, by a more detoured or more direct way, toward the Thou. It is bent in another direction than that wherein one encounters the Thou... If to love is to love the love the Beloved bears me, to love is also to love oneself in love, and thus return to oneself... Love accordingly does not represent a particular case of friendship.  Love and friendship are not only felt differently; their correlative differs: friendship goes unto the Other; love seeks what does not have the structure of an existent, the infinitely future, which is to be engendered. I love fully only if the Other loves me, not because I need the recognition of the Other, but because my voluptuosity delights in his voluptuosity... If to love is to love the love of the Beloved bears me, to love is also to love oneself in love, and thus to return to oneself."

Emmanuel Levinas, Totality & Infinity, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969.




"Freinds and lovers, lusciously deformed. Flesh slipping, seized in the obscurity of love. Anceient panic-joy of bodies embattled, their contours blurred into one. A meaty frame coming down on the same, its just completed heave left hanging liked a shucked-off skin.  Muscles succulently acquiesce. One head broken in a shriek of pleasure-pain, the other hard-death-masked in deaire. Pressed deep into the milky sheets, quickly, urgently, seeking the inner core of self and other.  Or humped in a field, figure slipping over figure, their edges woven with green lits from the field. Lover burrowed into and eclipsing lover. The instant lived over again. Love here in the grass room, the blades sprouting between the heavy velvet drapes. A luxury arena - bedroom field, best of both - with the bare canvas earth showing in between. Friends and lovers, memory of embraces. Pinned to a mattress or strung up over their shadows... Bodies brought to an extreme, held at the last point of longing, the shudder before collapse. Everything leading up to this one instant - passion point, death point - then falling away. Here it comes - hold it there - it's gone. Triptych. And wait to begin again.  Manflesh with manflesh. The turn of the face beneath, opened in your own despair. His scream, himself slipped out of himself. Thick-knit flesh falling on the bone. Lover come back. Picture and meat. Last look before dissolve: the smile-snarl sliding off to dry into dust... Opening old wounds. Old loves, past friends. Renewing the pain. He into them, they, he, into us."

Michael Peppiatt, In Francis Bacon's Studio, Art International No. 8, Autumn, 1989.




“In Love we pursue the Other, only to find that he or she is [existentially] inaccessible, while in meditation we pursue the self, only to find it equally ineffable... There is more to desire than just suffering. There is a yearning in desire that is as spiritual as it is sensual. Even when it degenerates into addiction, there is something salvageable from the original impulse that can only be described as sacred. Something in the person wants to be free, and it seeks its freedom any way it can. This is one of the major insights to have precipitated out of my study of the psychologies of East and West. There is a drive for transcendence that is implicit in even the most sensual of desires. While there are certainly currents in both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions that dismiss or denigrate desire, encouraging us to forsake it through renunciation or sublimation, there is another, more controversial, alternative that I have found necessary in helping my patients. Known in the East as the tantric, or 'left-handed,' path, desire, in this view, is a vehicle for personal transformation. It is a yoga in its own right. Rather than treating it as the cause of suffering, desire is embraced as a valuable and precious resource, an emotion that, if harnessed correctly, can awaken and liberate the mind. In this way of thinking, desire is the human response to the discontent described in the Buddha’s First Noble Truth. It is the energy that strives for transcendence but, if it is to truly accomplish its goals, the seeker must learn to relate to it differently.”

Mark Epstein, Open to Desire - Embracing a Lust for Life: Insights from Buddhism and Psychotherapy, Gotham Books, 2004.




“To have a friend: to keep him. To follow him with your eyes. Still to see him when he is no longer there and to try to know, listen to him when you know that you will see him no longer - and that is to cry. To have a friend, to look at him, to follow him with your eyes, to admire him in friendship, is to no in a more intense way, already injured, always insistent, and more and more unforgettable, that one of the two of you will inevitably see the other die. One of us, each says to himself, the day will come when one of the two of us will see himself no longer seeing the other and so will carry the other within him a while longer, his eyes following without seeing, the world suspended by some unique tear, each time unique, through which everything from then on, through which the world itself - and this day will come - will come to be reflected quivering, reflecting disappearance itself: the world, the whole world, the world itself, for death takes from us not only some particular life within the world, some moment that belongs to us, but, each time, without limit, someone through whom the world, and first of all our own world, will have opened up in a both finite and infinite - mortally infinite - way... One should not develop a taste for mourning, and yet mourn we must. We must, but we must not like it - mourning, that is, mourning itself, if such a thing exists: not to like or to love through one's own tear but only through the other, and every tear is from the other, the friend, the living, as long as we ourselves are living, reminding us, in holding life, to hold on to it.

Jacques Derrida, Jean-Marie Benoist - The Taste of Tears; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001. 




"What dawns on those who are embarrassed or spurned, illuminates as harshly as the violent pain which wracks the body. They recognize, that in the innermost core of deluded love, which knows nothing of this and may know nothing, lives the demand of what is undeluded. They have been wronged; they derive their claim of justice from this and must at the same time reject it, for what they wish, can only come out of freedom. In such urgent necessity, those who are rejected become human beings. Just as love inalienably betrays the generality to the particular, by which alone the generality is honoured, so too does the generality now turn fatally against love, as the autonomy of those who are nearest. Precisely the rejection, by which the generality asserts itself, appears to the individual [Individuum] as being excluded from the generality; whoever loses love, feels deserted by all, which is why they despise consolation. In the senselessness of the withdrawal they come to feel what is untrue of all merely individual fulfillment. Thereby however they awaken to the paradoxical consciousness of the generality: of the inalienable and unimpeachable human right, to be loved by the beloved. With their petition, founded on no title or claim, they appeal to an unknown court, which out of mercy accords to them what belongs to them and yet does not belong to them. The secret of justice in love is the sublation of rights, to which love points with speechless gestures. “So must love, deceived /silly yet everywhere be.” [lines by Hölderlin from Tränen, 'Tears']."

Theodor W. Adorno, Golden Gate; Minima Moralia, 1945/47.




"Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling. I say the strongest emotion, because I am satisfied the ideas of pain are much more powerful than those which enter on the part of pleasure. Without all doubt, the torments which we may be made to suffer, are much greater in their effect on the body and mind, than any pleasures which the most learned voluptuary could suggest, or than the liveliest imagination, and the most sound and exquisitely sensible body could enjoy. Nay I am in great doubt, whether any man could be found, who would earn a life of the most perfect satisfaction, at the price of ending it in the torments, which justice inflicted in a few hours on the late unfortunate regicide in France. But as pain is stronger in its operation than pleasure, so death is in general a much more affecting idea than pain; because there are very few pains, however exquisite, which are not preferred to death; nay, what generally makes pain itself, if I may say so, more painful, is, that it is considered as an emissary of this king of terrors. When danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible; but at certain distances, and with certain modifications, they may be, and they are delightful, as we every day experience. The cause of this I shall endeavour to investigate hereafter."

Edmund Burke, Of the Sublime; A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin Of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, 1757.




“The question presses: where is the romance in philosophy?  Is there a philosophical erotic?  The romance of reading philosophy is a truth rarely acknowledged. To be a student of philosophy is to desire to master a difficult philosophical text, to feel the onanistic ache of penetrating into a vast realm of ideas, the thrilling vibration of the opening into a manifold metaphysic. In fact the motivation for metaphysical thinking itself often begins with the desire for a teacher, a master, and the mind consumed by the ideas of others which, at least for a time, seem to expand the self and the mind, almost to the point of an erotic annihilation.  Because philosophical truth claims ostensibly to apply to everyone, the reader of philosophy participates in a destruction of the self, reaching the mind into a place of universal objectivity, such that the world and all those in it can be written and spoken about in an enraptured unity.  Heideggerian Dasein is the immolated subject, ravished of singularity for metaphysical thinking. As Jean-Luc Nancy points out, the Greek for 'philo' means 'love of' or 'beloved,' and 'sophy' is 'wisdom' or 'thinking'.  Hence philosophy is the love of thinking: philosophy begins with love.  Romance and philosophy share this origin, this original impetus for thinking, discourse, and writing, yet romance takes the more radical position, perhaps an amorous specificity within the more generic originary movement: romance is the love of love.  Beginning and ending with love, meaning love at every moment, romance saturates meaning with this excessive generosity of desire.”

Deborah Lutz, Heidegger, the Erotics of Ontology, and the Mass-Market Romance, Comparative Cultural Studies and Popular Culture, 2003.




“Abstractions are vitally necessary insubstantial components of the ideative meaning of all intentional utterances, but are not themselves a 'part' or 'property' of the object encountered in perception, i. e., 'LOVE' is not a 'part' or 'property' of the lover, but reflects the manner or the way the generality of lovers exist whilst they are in a state of loving - or [put another way] the state of loving in which they exist whilst they feel emotions of love or act out loving behaviour...We are habituated to an awareness that we have never in the past and will never in the future confront the irreal object 'LOVE' anywhere in our experience. We are aware that an irreal 'object' cannot exist, for that which is not really an object cannot be a real-world existing entity. WE know that to find 'LOVE' we must find an actual real flesh and blood person to love or to love us, for love is a state or activity of human beings, and if we exclude human beings as possible ultimate enactors or enablers of these states or activities, we will fail to trace, identify and perhaps experience the actual originative or seminal denotata which gave rise to the abstraction in the first place - which is the loving states and activities of human beings. All abstractions are ultimately  reducible to entities. Heidegger could never grasp this fact, but rather reified the semantic structures of these 'irreal objects' [which inhere in the phenomena and give them their communicative sense.] into quasi-entitic independent actualities... In many respects Heidegger's phenomenology can be described as a preoccupation with the irreal or unreal, in that what he seems to be interested in is not so much the actuality of entities, but the factuality of phenomena.” 

Jud Evans, Heidegger's Ontological Confusion, Athenaeum Reading Room, 2007.




“It is that dimension of lack which is inaugurated in you by the entry into language and culture - an entry whose price is that you will always be lacking the object. A lack which for Lacan - through the category of the petit-objet a  - is not just an object of loss - it is what Lacan calls the cause of desire.  The  fort/da game then played by the infant is - as it were - a kind of  heroic but entirely fruitless commentary on the movement backwards and forwards but in which the lost object can never return -  in which in so I master anything I master the reel and not the object which the reel was supposed to stands for. If seems that we have strayed some way from the question of damage it is to point out that when we consider the question of damage to the subject at least in this first form of shock we are having to expose a whole kind of region of trauma - of its relation to representation - of its relation to loss - which actually determine - although quite unconsciously - the actual mechanisms of trauma - of course people are traumatised - what of course is required is a certain rebuilding of the ego which will be able to tolerate what is perhaps the most intolerable fact about a trauma and it is this: that you will never ever know what it was.  The capacity of humans to withstand the lack of satisfaction of  such a question requires an enormous amount of psychic work: to know I will never know. All pseudo accounts of traumas are always precisely leaping there with another new - although they are always the same - answer as to what it really was  - what happened - but the structure of trauma is precisely that it is the unrepresentable and the damage is a consequence of unrepresentability.”

Mark Cousins, Trauma & Loss - Damage, Architectural Association, 27.10.1995.




"We may find the clue in one of the so-called ideal standards of civilized society. It runs: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' It is world-renowned, undoubtedly older than Christianity which parades it as its proudest profession, yet certainly not very old; in historical times men still knew nothing of it. We will adopt a naive attitude towards it, as if we were meeting it for the first time. Thereupon we find ourselves unable to suppress a feeling of astonishment, as at something unnatural. Why should we do this? What good is it to us? Above all, how can we do such a thing? How could it possibly be done? My love seems to me a valuable thing that I have no right, to throw away without reflection. It imposes obligations oil me which I must be prepared to make sacrifices to fulfil. If I love someone, he must be worthy of it in some way or other... He will be worthy of it if he is so like me in important respects that I can love myself in him; worthy of it if he is so much more perfect than I that I can love my ideal of myself in him; I must love him if he is the son of my friend, since the pain my friend would feel if anything untoward happened to him would be my pain - I should have to share it. But if he is a stranger to me and cannot attract me by any value he has in himself or any significance he may have already acquired in my emotional life, it will be hard for me to love him. I shall even be doing wrong if I do, for my love is valued as a privilege by all those belonging to me; it is an injustice to them if I put a stranger on a level with them. But if I am to love him (with that kind of universal love) simply because he, too, is a denizen of the earth, like an insect or an earthworm or a grass-snake, then I fear that but a small modicum of love will fall to his lot and it would be impossible for me to give him as much as by all the laws of reason I am entitled to retain for myself."

Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, 1929.





“OF all the tragedies of the Holocaust, that of the German Jews has to have been the most intimate. Auschwitz didn't just demonstrate the ease with which their entire community could be reduced to household products; it turned their very identity into a contradiction in terms. It was the ultimate rebuff to what Walter Benjamin once called the German Jew's 'unrequited love' for Germany. This exquisitely personal sense of loss, in any case, is the explanation of choice for scholars struggling to understand how Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger - the German Jewish debunker of totalitarianism and the Nazi philosopher - who were lovers before the war, could have become friends again after... BUT philosophers are also fascinated by the way Arendt used and transformed the tenets of Heideggerian existentialism, a system of thought undergirding much of post-modernist theory. 'People are ashamed to owe anything to Heidegger - and Hannah Arendt is the easy way out,' the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut says. Not, he hastens to add, because she was a less sophisticated thinker, but because she was a writer of uncommon decency and lucidity. Indeed, it may be the startling immediacy of Arendt's voice that has caused so many people to take the Heidegger question so personally. 'There is a concept that is very important in Hannah Arendt's thinking,' Mr. Finkielkraut continues. 'It's the concept of friendship. When you read her, you get the feeling of friendship, and that's one of the reasons she is so highly praised - because her philosophy is charming. It's as if when reading her, we were becoming friends with her. But friendship means trust. So if she decided to reconcile herself with Heidegger, I trust her. I want to know her reasons, but I have confidence in her.'...”

Judith Shulevitz, Arendt and Heidegger: An Affair to Forget?; The New York Times, October 1, 1995.





“That twilight space of what is called mourning: the mourning that follows death but also the mourning that is prepared and that we expect from the very beginning to follow upon death of those we love. Love or friendship would be nothing other than the passion, the endurance, and the patience of this work... Death, or rather mourning, the mourning of the absolute of force: that is the name, or one of the names, of this affect that unites force to the without-force, thereby relating the manifestation of force, as image, to the being without force of that which it manifests or lets be seen, right before our very eyes and according to our mourning... All work in general works at mourning. In and of itself.  Even when it has the power to give birth, even and especially when it plans to bring something to light and let it be seen ... Whoever thus works at the work of mourning learns the impossible - and that mourning is interminable. Inconsolable... Right up until death - that is what whoever works at mourning knows, working at mourning as both their object and their resource, working at mourning as one would speak of a painter working at a painting... But let us return to Alberti:  'Painting,' he writes, 'contains an absolute divine force that not only makes absent men present, as friendship is said to do, but shows the dead to the living so that even after many centuries they may be recognized by them with great pleasure and with great admiration for the painter', In Alberti's description we see pleasure and admiration becoming inextricably linked to mourning, the force of the three affects increasing from their combination...”

Jacques Derrida, Louis Martin - By Force of Mourning; The Work of Mourning, University of Chicago Press, 2001.





“Six compelling principles, or characteristics, of Kleinian psychology hint at the metaphoric links between the complex of melancholy and the writing of art history that I wish to draw... Meaning of mourning: grief, imagined or real, over another's death later in life revives all sorts of infantile fears about inevitably losing the "good mother": "In normal mourning, as well as in abnormal mourning and in manic-depressive states [Klein's name for melancholy], the infantile depressive position is reactivated."  Eros and Thanatos: the death drive that Freud had posited in Beyond the Pleasure Principle in 1920 is crucial for Klein as well. According to Julia Kristeva, she describes the death drive as "directly linked to the life drive, and not dissociated from it...." and asserts that it "manifests itself only through its relation to an object."  Klein has noted, "In the deepest layers of the mind there is a response to this instinct in the form of fear of annihilation of life."  Fear and hurt: "pining" is Klein's word of choice for "feelings of sorrow and concern for the loved objects, the fears of losing them and the longing to regain them...."  "Pining for the lost loved object also implies dependence on it, but dependence of a kind which becomes an incentive to reparation and preservation of the object."  Writing: the act of reparation, making whole once again, lies in the domain of the creative arts.  "Pain, suffering, and reparation are at the foundation of creativity and sublimation."  Indeed, writing (and painting) provide routes for "re-creat[ing] the harmony of the inner world and ... maintain[ing] tolerable relations with the outside.”

Michael Ann Holly, The Melancholy Art, The Art Bulletin, March 2007.





"It would be the greatest torture, if love really could contain such a self-contradiction, for love to require itself to keep hidden, to require its own unrecognisability. Would it not be as if a plant, sensitive to the vigour and blessing of life in itself, did not dare let it become known and kept the blessing to itself as if it were a curse — alas, as a secret in its inexplicable withering away. But this is not so at all. For even if a single, particular expression of love, a single impulse of the heart, were, out of love, forced back into painful concealment — this same life of love would find yet another expression for itself and still become recognizable by its fruits... For one is not to work in order that love becomes known by its fruits but to work to make love capable of being recognized by its fruits. In this endeavour one must watch himself so that this, the recognition of love, does not become more important to him than the one important thing: that it has fruits and therefore can be known...Therefore the last, the most blessed, the absolutely most convincing evidence of love remains: love itself, which is known and recognized by the love in another. Like is known only by like. Only he who abides in love can recognize love, and in the same way his love is to be known... What love does, it is; what it is, it does — at one and the same moment; simultaneously as it goes beyond itself (in an outward direction) it is in itself (in an inward direction), and simultaneously as it is in itself, it thereby goes beyond itself in such a way that this going beyond and this inward turning, this inward turning and this going beyond, are simultaneously one and the same."

Søren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, Princeton University Press, 1995.





"In the relation of the self (the same) to the Other, the Other is distant, he is the stranger; but if I reverse this relation, the Other relates to me as if I were the Other and thus causes me to  take leave of my identity. Pressing until he crushes me, he withdraws me, by the pressure of the very near, from the privilege of the first person... Friendship is not a gift, or a promise; it is not a form of generosity. Rather, this incommensurable relation of one to the other is the outside drawing near in its separateness and inaccessibility. Desire, pure impure desire, is the call to bridge the distance, to die in common through separation. Death suddenly powerless, if friendship is the response that one can hear and make heard only by dying ceaselessly...The death of the Other: a double death, for the Other is death already, and weighs upon me like an obsession with death... If death is the real, and if the real is impossible, then we are approaching the thought of the impossibility of death... Dying means: you are dead already, in an immemorial past, of a death which was not yours, which you have thus neither known nor loved, but under the threat of which you believe you are called upon to live; you await it henceforth in the future, constructing a future to make it possible at last - possible as something that will take place and will belong to the realm of experience... Loss goes with writing... Learn to think with pain... To live without a lifetime - likewise, to die forsaken by death... To write elicits such enigmatic propositions... To write is no longer to situate death in the future - the death which is always already past... To write is to know that death has taken place even though it has not been experienced."

Maurice Blanchot, The Writing of the Disaster, University of Nebraska Press, 1995.





"The crypt is the live burial of the love object and its subsequent desires? the desires that cannot be expressed as such - inside of 'me' (Derrida, Fors xvi). In the intrapsychic topos of incorporation, a secret 'crypt' is erected to commemorate the refusal of not only the loss of the object, but also the associated desires from the introjection process, while simultaneously maintaining those desires through a spectral, performative paradox that never achieves synthesis (xvii). This differs from introjection as the object is not synthesized, but rather entombed whole inside of a dead space within the Ego. Derrida says that the 'dead object remains like a living dead abscessed in a specific spot in the ego' (The Ear of the Other 57). This live burial splits both Ego and Id...The crypt is a special kind of unconscious in the Ego of which the Ego is unconscious.  This is only possible because of two conditions. 1). The crypt is already constructed. 'The Ego cannot quit the place where it had once been.' says Abraham and Torok, for it is the Ego that has already erected the Crypt, and now, the Ego 'can only withdraw into seclusion and construct a barrier separating it from the other half of the Ego.'  The Ego refuses acknowledge the refusal of mourning, and so bars itself the consciousness of the crypt it has erected to receive the dead object. That means that 2). The Ego mimes proper introjection. Incorporation cannot be observed as a failure to show outward signs of mourning or love, for this process is mimed, performed. The Ego necessarily mimes proper mourning as part of the unacknowledgement, or unconsciousness of the crypt... That Heidegger and Freud encounter this ghosting and undecidability is evident, it is only now, however, that we can perhaps turn to an account that begins to account for all of us in the name of responsibility. I believe that I act normally but sometimes 'I' am not myself/ves, I may ask, am I not introjecting?... This secret might not even be 'my' secret, it could have been an inherited secret, an-other's secret, and to present it here as a gift (to you)."

Tobias C. van Veen, The Crypt and Incorporation, Quadrant Crossing, Spring 2003.





"Derrida was a great philosopher, and that simply means love was the motivation for everything he did... Derrida always said he only deconstructed those texts he loved... After 1989 Derrida began thematizing his work as revealing aporia, as the call to undergo the experience of the impossible.  How he gets to aporia is a love story.  Derrida's first (philosophical) love was for Husserl, and love for Levinas' love of the other and for Heidegger's love of difference led him to deconstruct Husserl's love of presence.  His love for Paul de Man brought him to think of the gift, and mourning de Man's death brought him to think of de Man's love of aporia, to which his thought passes.  Paul de Man's gift of love then for Derrida is the thought of aporia.  Love is aporetic: it’s impossible, yet we’re called to experience this impossibility.  First, let us use the aporia of the gift as our model, following the analyses in Politics of Friendship.  Pure love is impossible, it cannot be experienced or be present, for any love that is acknowledged or recognized by lover or beloved would fall into an economy, a reciprocity of mutual benefit and hence cease to be love and become a mere friendship of utility, as Aristotle might say. That is, such a friendship is not really a loving friendship, an aimance, since it reduces the alterity of the friend to a mere element in a calculus of utility.  Yet for the relation to the other to be a relation, there must be a moment of re-appropriation that reaches through a certain self-image, through a certain narcissism (Derrida 1995d, 199).  But then we are back at the beginning once again: any relation to the other that passes through a living present is an appropriation, a domestication, which destroys alterity.  But yet again, it must be my love, I must be the one committed to the other, the one who gives my love, for what is a love that is not my commitment?  Another way to articulate the aporia of love would be to use the model of the aporia of decision: pure love is impossible because it cannot follow a program of previous love without the risk that the partners are simply in love with love and not with each other; but on the other hand, not just any relation deserves the name of love, and so it cannot not have a relation to past loves.  So to wrap up, in following Derrida’s injunction to double affirmation: he loved wisdom, and he loved the love of wisdom, philosophy.  And he gave us, through his love, a great philosophy, the only philosophy, that of love."

John Protevi, Derrida's Love of Philosophy: From Deconstruction to Aporia, Tulane University November 19, 2004. 





"The object of desire involves as its shadow the constitutive fear of its loss... The reason why psychoanalysis is conventionally not thought to have a theory of love is commonly asserted that while psychoanalysis has a theory of naked desire - it has no theory of love - Some people hold up to this as a fundamental weakness of psychoanalysis - I would argue the case that in fact psychoanalysis does have a theory of love - it is called mourning: mourning is, as it were, not just the expression of grief in terms of the loss of the object but the always already feared loss which occurs simultaneously in gaining the object - in this sense the economy of desire is - if not the same - is shadowed by the economy of mourning - of grief - of loss... If we were to recognise that mourning is a general category in respect to the object of which death of the object is but an extreme, a limit case - it is not death as such which calls forth the expression of mourning but as it were that fear of the loss of the object which Freud once designated though said was in fact a property of women - though men perhaps on average have more savage defences against the fear of the loss of love... It is the moment when Freud gets close to stitching any relation together - any constitutive relation - between sexuality, desire and loss... The Other here with a capital 'O' - the space or time into which I speak hoping to pick up what it wants of me - what it wants me to say - that wish which actually originates in alterity - the wish that I wish what you wish - the wish that I can say something to the Other that the Other wants to hear: the interrogation of what alterity is within myself so that I may begin to discover that Other - the Other which is as it were moving towards me - the Other has no meaning but the Other is where I situate what I am trying to mean - there where I fail to mean where I fail to say what I mean and each time that I begin to speak I am unable to say what I mean - is it because I don't know what I mean or is it because I can't speak it? It's there in the space of the Other that I have to try to find what I mean and how to say it... The entire moral significance of being a scholar is to be able to say to the Other: 'You exist and I do not fear you.'  Now if that point is achieved that perhaps is what the meaning of kind of sleep - the rest - which is - we can perhaps kind of phenomenologically grasp -  it is not the physical fact of death - but that of coming to rest together with the Other - come - let us sleep now."

Mark Cousins, The Pleasure Principal & the Death Instinct, Architectural Association, 28th June, 1996.





“We remember that philosophia in Greek means the love or friendship towards Sophia which is wisdom but also cleverness or skill or knowledge. So then we ask what is Philia - what is love or friendship or desire?... This love means an affirmative desire towards the Other - to respect the Other, to pay attention to the Other, not to destroy the otherness of the Other - and this is the preliminary affirmation, even if afterwards because of this love, you ask questions. There is some negativity in deconstruction. I wouldn't deny this. You have to criticise, to ask questions, to challenge and sometimes to oppose. What I have said is that in the final instance, deconstruction is not negative although negativity is no doubt at work. Now, in order to criticise, to negate, to deny, you have first to say 'yes'. When you address the Other, even if it is to oppose the Other, you make a sort of promise - that is, to address the Other as Other, not to reduce the otherness of the Other, and to take into account the singularity of the Other. That's an irreducible affirmation, its the original ethics if you want. So from that point of view, there is an ethics of deconstruction. Not in the usual sense, but there is an affirmation. You know, I often use a quote from Rosensweig or even from Levinas which says that the 'yes' is not a word like others, that even if you do not pronounce the word, there is a 'yes' implicit in every language, even if you multiply the 'no', there is a 'yes'. And this is even the case with Heidegger. You know Heidegger, for a long time, for years and years kept saying that thinking started with questioning, that questioning (fragen) is the dignity of thinking. And then one day, without contradicting this statement, he said 'yes, but there is something even more originary than questioning, than this piety of thinking,' and it is what he called zusage which means to acquiesce, to accept, to say "yes", to affirm. So this zusage is not only prior to questioning, but it is supposed by any questioning. To ask a question, you must first tell the Other that I am speaking to you. Even to oppose or challenge the Other, you must say 'at least I speak to you', 'I say yes to our being in common together'. So this is what I meant by love, this reaffirmation of the affirmation."

Jacques Derrida, On Love - An Interview With Nikhil Padgaonkar, 1997. 





"Mourning over the loss of something that we have loved or admired seems so natural to the layman that he regards it as self-evident. But to psychologists mourning is a great riddle, one of those phenomena which cannot themselves be explained but to which other obscurities can be traced back. We possess, as it seems, a certain amount of capacity for love—what we call libido—which in the earliest stages of development is directed towards our own ego. Later, though still at a very early time, this libido is diverted from the ego on to objects, which are thus in a sense taken into our ego. If the objects are destroyed or if they are lost to us, our capacity for love (our libido) is once more liberated; and it can then either take other objects instead or can temporarily return to the ego. But why it is that this detachment of libido from its objects should be such a painful process is a mystery to us and we have not hitherto been able to frame any hypothesis to account for it. We only see that libido clings to its objects and will not renounce those that are lost even when a substitute lies ready to hand. Such then is mourning. We cannot be surprised that our libido, thus bereft of so many of its objects, has clung with all the greater intensity to what is left to us, that our love of our country, our affection for those nearest us and our pride in what is common to us have suddenly grown stronger. But have those other possessions, which we have now lost, really ceased to have any worth for us because they have proved so perishable and so unresistant? To many of us this seems to be so, but once more wrongly, in my view. I believe that those who think thus, and seem ready to make a permanent renunciation because what was precious has proved not to be lasting, are simply in a state of mourning for what is Lost. Mourning, as we know, however painful it may be comes to a spontaneous end. When it has renounced everything that has been lost, then it has consumed itself, and our libido is once more free (in so far as we are still young and active) to replace the lost objects by fresh ones equally or still more precious. It is to be hoped that the same will be true of the losses caused by this war. When once the mourning is over, it will be found that our high opinion of the riches of civilization has lost nothing from our discovery of their fragility. We shall build up again all that war has destroyed, and perhaps on firmer ground and more lastingly than before."

Sigmund Freud, On Transience, Das Land Goethes, November, 1915.





"We are all adolescents when we are enthralled by the absolute.  Freud did not preoccupy himself with adolescents because he was himself a firm non-believer, the most irreligious human that ever existed.  Faith implies a passion for the object relation: faith is potentially fundamentalist, as is the adolescent. Romeo and Juliette are excellent examples of this; I’ll come back to them later... I’ve already suggested that such an idealization of satisfaction due to an ideal object is elaborated and lived out as a revenge against the Oedipus complex and the parental couple. The ideal adolescent couple constructs itself in the place of the parents.  In our culture, Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) Romeo et Juliet (1591 or 1594) is the paradigm of this fantastical construction. The mutual idealization that two adolescents share is experienced as a rejection of parental authority: Romeo and Juliet’s love for one another is all the more fueled by the fact that they defy the Montague and Capulet clans who hate one another and engage in a merciless feud.  This young couple’s ideal is defiant and secret as all adolescent acts aspire to be.  Moreover, the reciprocal idealization of the two lovers is perceived by all as a 'fatality'. What is  fatality ? I suggest we consider the inevitability of this pleasure fulfilling attraction which we call 'fatality' to be precisely ideality’s permeation of drives and the domination of polymorphous perverse drives by one or more models proper to the ideal Ego. The result of this is that the adolescent believes that his or her pleasure is legitimate and justified. Several lines of these Shakespearean adolescents resonate with Marlowe: 'We cannot love or hate of our own free will.  For our will is governed by fatality.' Nevertheless, as Shakespeare’s genius powerfully reveals, the belief that the Ideal Other inevitably exists  is fragile and has a difficult time withstanding the assaults of the adolescent’s latent polymorphous perversity remaining from childhood. Here are two examples, which serve to prove this. Firstly, beneath the exalted discourse of the lovers one perceives sadomasochist desire.  Juliette literally cuts up Romeo’s body at night fall: 'Come, gentle night/come, loving, black-brow’d night./ Give me my Romeo; and when he shall die/ Take him and cut him out in little stars … ' (III, II, 9-25) As for Romeo, his jealousy emerges as a fatal pleasure in stabbing his male rivals : 'O I am fortune’s fool! ', he cries out as he stabs Tybalt and Paris. In the end, this paradisiacal ideal of the couple turns out to be impossible.   Romeo and Juliet die : in 1591 or in 1594 Shakespeare was no longer an adolescent.  He had left his wife Anne  Hathaway and his son, Hamnet, had just died. Romeo and Juliet, his ninth play in the second cycle of his lyrical masterpieces (along with A Midsummer Night’s Dream) reads as an adieu to the adolescent belief that the Ideal Object exists. "

Julia Kristeva, Romeo and Juliet : the ideal and impossible couple; Adolescence, a Syndrome of Ideality, The Psychoanalytic Review, Volume: 94, October 2007.




        In the Beginning was the Love - and the Love was with Being - and the Love was Being. All Beings were Loved by Being and All Beings shone into Being through Loving And the Love beamed Being and Loved among Us and We beamed Loves Being - Being as of the only beaming from the Lover Full of Being and Time. In the Beginning Being loved all Beings from Its own Loving. But not all beings are beings to begin with without the Beam that Love lights Being to be. For few beings-beam for few beings-love. To be Being is to be the Beam that comes from the Love that Lights Being being there. Love is the Nothing of Being beaming for being to beam the Nothing there as the glow of geist as the light of love. Geist is Love - Love is Geist. There is no-being-without-light like there is no being-in-itself only being-in-its-love as being-in-its-beam for the love-being-to-beam for and through for being-love as a being-loved and as a being-in-love. The Nothing Beaming there is the Beaming of the Loving of Being. Being Beams to Being through Loving that beams-being open out onto other beings coming to light through the beam that beams being being-there to begin with as a love-of-being and a being-of-love. Not all beings beams as not all are beings to begin with but began as abeings as the-not-there that do not beam dasein by being born severed seins as acridine absent abeings as always all about at the same no-time the-not-there at all as absent abeings do not beam-being-bright do not come-to-light do not come-to-love.

        Love originates as Hate as a Hate of our being I without another Other I that also Hates its I for our Unconscious is our Hate and our Conscious is our Love as our Unconscious Hates our Conscious I that conceals its Unconscious Hate for this Unconscious Hate originates our Conscious Love and so I love You because I hate you.

        Abeings as all about being but never near being or there have a fear of love as a fear of being so never come to being so never came to love: they are the not there as aborted abeings: those that have not come to presence those that have not come to love those that have not come to being. Abeings fear becoming being because they fear becoming love becoming in love becoming in love with being with time for abeings fear the touch of being which is the touch of time bringing being to presence brining being to presence through love which is the being of time and the being of being-there: abeings are the not there being not there for love not there for love of being not there for love of time not there for abeings fear the touch of time as the being of love for abeings are never in-time with being for abeings are never in-being with time for abeings are always already too late for time for abeings are always already to late for being for abeings are always already too late for love. For abeings fear coming to time for abeings fear coming to being because abeings fear coming to love much more than anything at all and much more than the nothing at all.




                                                                                                                                         Osis Osiris Portrait of M.V.E  A.V.E  March 2009



        Abeings as aborted ahead and about are always already out of orbit out of being-there by not being-there by not being-in-being by not being-in-love by not being-in-time but being begins by being-there by being-in-time-there with being-in-love-there where being-in-love is being-in-time-together-there because to be in-time is to be in-love.

        The Idea of the Infinite is the Being of Art whose Origin is Love where the Art of Being is Being the Infinite as Art Infinite for Art is Time. 

        What is Time? Love. Time is Love for Being comes to Love through Time and Being comes to Time through the Time of Love to be Being. 

        What is Love? Love is the Original and Authentic Relation to the Other. Being-in-Love is Being-in-Other for Love in Being is Being Other.

        What is Death? Death is the Sign of Being done with Desire as Being Satisfied with Love and Being Loved and Having Loved Being There.

        What is Being? Heidegger states Being is essentially nothing more than Itself - whereas for Sartre Being is no more than Nothing Itself.

        Being is more than Itself for Being as Love is ahead of Being Itself - as Love Being is not Nothing in Itself but Being is The Nothing Itself.

        For Nietzsche Being is Becoming the Eternal Return of the Same Time - whereas for Levinas Being is the il y a the no name of The Other.

        What is True Being? True Being is True Love and True Love is a Sensation of Being There - and a Sensation of the Thereing is the Shining.

        The Good is Being that Gives Love There for the Good is that which Gives Being the Time to Love Being There for the Love of Being There.

        Why is there Loving and not rather Nothing? Because there is Being rather than Nothing as Being is not Nothing but Loving that is Being.

        Being and Love are as One just as Being and Death are as One and Being cannot Die because Love cannot Die because Death cannot Die.

        Loving to Presence is the Essence of Being and being Being is an ability to Love as Being comes to Presence only when Love comes to Be.

        Presence to Loving as Being There is Attuned as an Aura and Abeings do not have an Aura for Abeings do not have a Loving to Glow Geist.

        To Love is to Give what You have Got of what God has Not as God has not Got Love to Give as You have Love to Give so Give what you Got.

        Love is One's Lack of the Other and Being in Love is Being in Other as One with Other where Two Ones become One One without the Other.

        Being in Love is Being without the Lover being there in Love with the There being there without the Lover being there Being with the There.

        There is the Nothing There of the Nothing Loving nothing there being there as the Nothing There loving there nothing as Loving the Nothing.

        Love originates as Hate as Hate of I that Hates I and so I Love the other that also Hates its I which is why it also Loves Me for Love is Hate.

        Yet Hate cannot cope with that hate it has to endure and enshrine for the economy of hating is eating that eats away at being hating being.

        Hate has to endure to the end of hating that ends up loving the hating as hating the loving it desires to hate transforming hating into loving.

        Our love to hate is our darkest desire of love as in hate there is a heat and a desire akin to love as an infinite intensity transcending da-sein.

        What is Love? Love is our essential existential matter of being as existenz is being-in-love for 'I' come to Exist as existential matter through the matter of Love which is the matter that matters the most for Being as being as a Whole for Being matters for Love for Love matters for Being and which is all that matters but metaphysics has forgotten the matter of Love as the matter of Being as the matter for Being. In Love 'I' come to Exist as a being and 'I' can only exist if 'I' have come to Love as being-in-love or by being-loved for only Love brings Being to Exist at all. To Exist means to Loveforth for Being appears when Love appears but who appears today? but who exists today? To Exist is to Loveforth for only that which Lovesforth can come to Exist can come to be Being at all. What is the Truth of Being?  Hidden. Love. Hidden Love. Love is still the Hidden Truth of Being and as such is still Withheld from Metaphysical Humanity but yet not Withheld from Philosophical Womanity. Metaphysics belongs to the Nature of Man whereas Philosophy belongs to the Nature of Woman. Philosophy will Overcome Metaphysics as Woman will Overcome Man for Metaphysics and Man are at an End for Man and Metaphysics cannot come to Love whereas Woman and Philosophy can come to Love to come to Being.

        What is Being?  Withing. Being-with. To-be is to-with. There is no Being without Withing. There is no Being without Thereing. Being-there. Being is there-with-being and in being-there-with we are being-with-one which is the Withing within the Thereing of being-there. Being begins being to begin with by being-with being-there and being-with is being-with-being-there and being only ever comes to Being by being with one there as the Withing of Being which is being-belonging-together as the Thereing of Being where we are With being There as being-together being-one with belonging-together with the There being-one-with the With of There of being-there-together-with the There with-one-with the With of Being one-there-together-being-one-together-belonging-together-with-one both-being-one living-one-together-dying-one-together for being with-the-with the two become the one for what is with is one-being-one not being-two for what is with is one-with which is where as when we are one-being-in love as-one.




                                                                                                                                          Severed-Seth Self-Portrait A.V.E June 2009 



        What is God? All Hating. God hates You. All Shitting. God shits You. God is Hate. God is Shit. The God Shit is Your Shit your Shit for God your Love for Shit for God cannot Shit that is God cannot get Fucked so God says: You Must not Fuck Arse for God is not Getting it Up the Arse and God wants It All Up the Arse like You All Do and God Hates You All for getting It All and Doing it without Doing God for God cannot Be Done and You want to Fuck God and for God to Fuck You and so God Hates You when You Fuck or Get Fucked for God is not Getting It and You cannot Get It that God Fucks with You without Fucking You and Your Desire for God is Your Desire to be Well Fucked Forever where Spirit is Spunk Up the Arse and You All want God to Shoot Loads inside You Spunking inside You such is Spirit and So one cannot Think God one can only Stink God and God cannot take Your Tool so We fuck for God for God to Come but God cannot Come for God has no Spunk God has no Spirit and Your Vibrator is Your God within without Being in for God is a Vibration without Being and Your Belief in God is Your Belief in Spunk Coming not in Spirit Coming and when You Pray for God You Pray for Spray You Pray for Spunk and Your Spunking is Your Goding whilst when You Shit You Shit of God You Think of God You Stink of God and actually You All want to eat Your God to eat Your Shit but cannot stand the smell of God's Spirit that is God's Shit. If those Christian Cunts were actually Getting It Off on a Regular Basis then They would NOT Need the God Fuck the God Shit now then would They? So They all Do God when They should actually be Doing Arse! So why Do God when You can Do Arse? And God hates all those Christian Cunts more than Any One for their Denial of Arse for their Denial of Spunk for their Denial of Being for God is without Being so cannot come to Spunk cannot come to Spirit so God Hates all you Christian Cunts who Love God! God hates Your love and God knows Your Love is a Lie for if you actually Loved God You would actually Hate God Forget God and Go and Get Fucked which is what God wanted All Along but God cannot get Fucked and God knows You All need a Good Fucking and not a Good Goding and when You are Praying to God You are Fucking for God as God cannot Fuck and God is Your Forgetting of Fucking: God says: Forget God! God says: Fuck! Let there be Spunk! Fuck God! Fuck You for God does not Love You for Shit does not Love You! Yet you Love your God like You secretly Love Your Shit for what You secrete is God being the Godshit You Love and the Godshit You Are for You Smell of Shit for You Smell of God and when You Smell Your Shit You Smell God smelling You smiling at You smelling Your Shit smiling at Your Shit Your Godshit for Allshit for All Shiterniety and so the Next Time you say that You do not Give a Shit about God is when you Shit God giving a Shit for God for You are the God Shit  and to have a Good Shit is to have a God Shit. Next Time you Take a Shit you Give a God.




                                                                                                                                       Adjourned-Anedjti Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2012  



        Being is not being-in-itself but being-ahead-of-itself as being-towards-love being being-towards-death becoming being-after-death as being-after-life where and when we become being-time together and what we take for as the What of Being is the Where of Being and the When of Being for Being is not the What but the Where and the When for there is no Question of Being to begin with for Being is without Question for Being there can be no Question.

        Being is being-one of the other-one Being the Other for Being and the Other are one-another as one-being being-abroad as the absent-other as the Other is Being being-away where-there is no other-being other than one-being for the other-one is one-with-being being-abroad for being there is no-other-being than being-other to-the-other where-there is no-other where-there is only Being other to the Other and Being is being-abroad where-there is no Other Being.

        Being is not an entity like Love is not an entity but rather Being like Love is an alien-apparition and Love is the alien-aura of Being for Love brings Being to-be-there for Loving is the Thereing of our-being-there and there is no being-thereing without loving-withing which is why not all are there not all are being for not all are being-there to begin-with to-be-with to-love-with for not all actually even exist as an ereignis-emanation of our being-thereing.

        But Being being like Love is necessarily nebulous for Being and Love are not concepts and cannot be grasped cannot be defined cannot be known but only shown shone ahead as a sensationing-shining of our clearing-careing where we are attuning-attaching as a withing-waiting forth for the timing-thereing as a throwing-togethering becoming being-one-together attached as one-love-together becoming being one-being-together as a fused-frisson-forever.

        Being itself is not Time. Being itself is Love. Being is Love for the Time of Being and The Time of Being is Love. Being becomes Time through becoming Death when and where Love brings Being to Time and Being becomes Time only by Being in Love with the Time that is there for the Love of Being There that is the Being of Love There that Time brings back to Being to Love to Love Being and Being only becomes Time through Love.

        Being-a-whole is confirmed and constituted as Being-in-love by Being ahead-of-itself as Being-already-in-love by Being alongside-love as Being-alongside-death where and when an actualised Being-in-love-being-dead survives the sein of Da-sein by Being-beheaded ahead of Being-there-in-the-world by Being-out-of-the-world where and when Being-dead-in-love becomes Being-dead-in-time-together decapitating-da-sein.

        Being-is-Belonging: Living is the Belonging - Dying is the Belonging - In being-alive-we-belong. In being-dead-we-belong. Alive and Dead we still Belong by Belonging to the Loving that binds Being to the Belonging to the Loving as being-alive and as being-dead as Love knows no difference between Life and Death. Being is Loving. Being is Belonging. Being is the Belonging to the Loving. Only the belonging together of Being and Loving lets being-be being-free for being as a belonging is always a freeing for the belonging-together of Being and Loving lets being-be-free for being-to-be-free for being-to-be-being. There is no Being without Belonging and no Freeing of Being without Belonging to Being for to belong to being is to be free from being for being free. 




                                                                                                                                             Amen-Amun  Self-Portrait  A.V.E  Dec 2007


        If being-with-being-there is living-together so being-with-being-there is dying-together so when our loved one dies we must be with-the-there-together and do-death-there-together and die-there-together for in being-there-together we do-death-there-together even if one body is left alive the death of being-together is still done-together and both-beings-die-together depart-together even when one body is still left behind another being is born - just like the lizard that loses its tail grows it back. As being is always already being-with death does not sever being from being as a severing of seins is a suturing of seins joining beings back together again as being-one-together where being-with turns two to one. Abeings are never there With the Withing like Abeings are never There with the Thereing as abeings are the-not-with-the-not-there and therefore abeings do not exist for there-is-nothing-with for there-is-nothing-there.

        Since Being is 'being-with' as 'being-ahead-of-itself' there is no 'being-in-itself' or 'being-for-itself' (as an alienated decapitated-capitalist selfish-subjectivity): being is not 'being-in-itself' but 'being-out-itself' as a being-in-mooding as a being-in-sensationing where being is ahead of being by being-in-a-mooding by being-in-a-sensationing: being begins by being-out-itself by being-in-a-mood by being-in-a-sensation as being ahead of being beheading being-in-itself for Being begins by being beheaded aiming ahead at some sort of mood at some sort of sensation - like love. 'Being-for-itself' would be akin to an abeing that simply does not exist since there is no such being as a 'being-for-itself' despite what Sartre says. By being born being is already aborted 'Ahead-itself' not 'For-itself' for being to be 'For-itself' is not to be born at all. Being is not 'For-itself' since Being is already 'Ahead-itself' as being-out-itself for being-with being-there.

        What being-does is What love-does as being-love-ahead of being-there love-there for being is always already ahead of being as love is always already ahead of love which is why love like being cannot be known only shown shone through the work of being which is the work of love which is the work of death where we are all alive at work being-dead-in-love aborted abroad of our-being-there by being-dead-ahead.

        Love-for-Being  is thus thrown ahead of the I of Identification for Being-in-Love needs nothing to identify with when being-in-love: I love with You so I do not identify with You and an act of love is without an act of identification for nothing is being-identified with only love is being with as being without identification: and what would being-in-love want with identification as being and love are ahead free from identity and do not identify with being identified with identification.

        The Being-of-Love is being-ahead-of-itself-beheaded-from-itself for love-aheaded-of-itself being-ahead as-love-ahead-of-itself for being-love-itself-aheaded-of-being-itself beheaded-by-love-beheaded from being-aheaded for being-love as being-beheaded for time-being-aheaded which is what it is to be-love as to be-being as ahead all the time for the time-being ahead all the time which is the time of being as the time of love for the love of time for the time of being for the being of time for being is love for time is love as the love of being with time as the love of time with being for the time-being for the being-time as the being of time to love the time to time the love for love is the time of being for love is the being of time out of time for being in love is being out of time for love knows no time and needs no time to be.

        Being begins by Being-in a Sensation of Sein for being is a sensation of being-in-some-sensation or being-in-some-sort-of-state: there is no 'being' without an 'in' for 'to be' is 'to be in' a sensation-state that is a sign of our being-there and being-with: being-in is being-there-in being-in is being-with-in: being-there-in-love-being-there-in-pain-with-being for being is always already 'in' a sensation-state-there as being-with a sensation-state-there. But Being is also being-out-of-the-body-of-being-there as a mooding: anxiety boredom dread mourning pining dying all abort and behead being beyond being-in-there beyond being-with-there.    

        Love begins by Being-in-Time Waiting awhile for the Time to Come to be Being-in-Love as the Time of Love as the Love of Time that is the Time Being of being-there in love-there for the Time There together-there but Time takes Time to take Love to the Time Being as the Time Loving for being-in-love with the time-of-being for the Love of the Time there-together.

        The Loving is the Mooding of Being to Begin with for Being was Born forth thrown into the Mood of Love which in turn threw Being forth toward the Love of an ather becoming-being as the Loving is the Clearing of Being as an Opening of Being by being-there for an ather-becoming-being being-there yet still Science knows nothing of the Loving.

        Where is Love? In Hiding. In Being. Nature Loves to Hide Itself Like Woman Loves to Hide Itself like Being likes to Hide Itself. Being-in-Loving is Being-in-Hiding and It is In the Hiding that is the Loving in the Being Hiding as being-in-the-world is really being-hiding-in-the-world as well as a reeling-being-in-the-world as a reeling-love-in-the-world.

        When is Love? In silence where there is no language about only being about being-with-being being-without-language when and where nothing is said but being-in-bed body-with-body without language lingering for love as being-with-being begins when and where language is left behind when being is silent with-being-in-bed-with-being when and where we know there and then that language said nothing after all for our dasein of being in love with being-withing.

        Where do We find the Loving? Where We find the Being. But Where do we find the Being? Where We find the Loving. But this Where is not the There where the They are Where the Abeings are as the They and the Abeings are not the There for the They and the Abeings do not Exist as being-there as love-being-there. We find the Loving hardly Here at all.

        When do I become Being? Through Loving - through Being-Loved - through Loving-Being: but today They cannot come to Being to Loving to Existing: for I only ever come to Exist through Love - I only ever come to Exist through Loving Being and Being Loved: - You Exist for I Love You - I Exist for You Love Me. Love is Being There bringing Being to Exist.

        You are only with-the-there when you are with-the-love that is being-there but most men do not want to be-there with love-there so are not there at all and most men are not-there at all as most-men cannot come to love-there to become being-there and you are only ever there when you are with-love-there or you are love-there-with-being-there only love brings being-there to-there.

        Love is so Essential because Language is so Inessential because Love communicates without Language and Language cannot communicate Anything at all that is the Nothing of the All whilst Love communicates Everything at all as the Nothing of the All for Love is the Language of Being by being able to communicate without Language being-there.

        Loving makes Language disappear just as Loving makes Being disappear just as Loving makes the World disappear for Love is Disappearing. 

        Love has Nothing to Say so Love needs no Language for what would Love Say that Love could not Show for Being shows Love saying Nothing.

        What is Love for? Love is for Being. What is Being for? Being is for Death. Loving is Dying for Being so Being can come to Love the Time to Die.

        I am Being for I am Loving for I Love therefore I am for I Love therefore I am Being and therefore I do not Think that I am for I Love that I am.

        I Exist as I Love I Existed as I was Loved and I can only Come to Exist if I Come to Love and be Loved as Love is the only way I Come to Exist.

        Not everyone Exists for Not everyone can say I Love You for I is being-there for You being-there for I can only Come to Exist by being for You.

        Being in Love is the Love of Being and the Being of Love without Identity for Being with Love and Love with Being there is no need for Identity. 

        The Lover as the Other is the Origin and Afterlife of Being and The Origin of Being is The Lover who Brings the Being to Life then to the Afterlife.

        Love begins Again after the Afterlife of Love for I Love all Again after-again After love-again comes Again in Love again but without Repetition.

        Love is the impossibility of Repetition for Love cannot be Repeated as Love originates being-original being-love originating from being-in-love.


        I loved you before I knew you like you loved me before you knew me as time knew we were to be together in time for our-time of being in love.  



       Science wishes to know nothing of the Loving. We know it - the Loving - in that we wish to know nothing about it. Science wants to know nothing of the Loving. With a studied indifference science abandons Love as what 'there is not.' All the same - we shall try to ask about the Loving. What is the Loving? For thinking - which is always essentially thinking about something, must act in a way contrary to its own essence when it thinks of the Loving. We assert that the Loving is more original than the 'not' and negation. Where shall we seek the Loving? Where will we find the Loving? In Being. Being reveals the Loving. We 'Lover' in Being. More precisely - Being leaves us Loving because it induces the slipping away of beings as a whole. That Being reveals the Loving man himself immediately demonstrates when Love has dissolved. Indeed: the Loving itself - as such - was there. The Loving reveals itself in and through being. Da-sein means: being held out into the Loving. Holding itself out into the Loving - Dasein is in each case already beyond being as a whole. Without the original revelation of the Loving - no beinghood and no lovedom. Loving is being-together-nesting which is the being-withing with the being-thereing where being is nesting within the thereing there.

        Where is the there when loving is leaving being there? How do we think about the not there? How do we think about the not there when the not there never left there even when dying there? You are not here anymore you are here more: by not being here anymore you are back here even more: being cannot die and the there keeps the being still there even when the body is not with the there anymore being is still there and even much more so. To think about the not there is to love the-there-not-there-being-there. To Think is to With the There: Thinking is Thereing: being-thereing with being with being back thinking together again as one but one without the body there thinking-there there thinking being thinking there being-thinking free from our being-embodied. 

        Beckett's: 'I can't go on, I'll go on' is exactly echoes: 'you are not here, you are here': this is not a contradiction: being-dead is always being-there: still: there: the body-departing is not being-departing but being-remaining without one being em-bodied just em-thered as being actually is: there-being without a body there: there-being is without a body: being is thereing-being with being with or without the body: one has to be open out to and attuned with the being-dead as the being there: the those-ones without bodies back-there having never ever left the-there anyway just bodiless but not beingless: being-bodiless is being-in-itself for the-there for the-thereing of being-there without a body there: to think-there is to be beyond the body there for thinking needs no body to begin with as thinking being thereing orbits outside the body-there that is never quite there-enough like the being and the there are always being-there there or not there always-there: even the those there with their bodies-there do not necessarily have being-there thus having a body is not necessarily having a being as such if at all: embodiment is not necessarily embeingment: the body is not even empirical evidence of being for being for the body is the burka that covers over our being.

        Science settles Things - Love unsettles Science - Science is unsettled by Love for what would Science do with Love? For what would Science get out of Love? For Science is unsettled by Love like Science is unsettled by Being and Science simply cannot cope with Love let alone with Being which has no receiving-perceiving-meaning to serve Science so science severs Being so Science severs Love so Science settles-to-suffer so Science suffers-to-settle.

        Science is Suffering since science suffers lack of love for science is seeking through scientific suffering the lost love of that being not know of that being not shown of that-there that is not-there for science as yet: the love-out-there as the being-out-there that can never be known to science so science suffers for lack-of-love for lack-of-being for science is always already alien-to-being-out-there alien-to-love-out-there alien-to-time-out-there which is why science suffers so through the lack-of-love through the lack-of-being through the lack-of-time. Science has no time-for-love like science has no time-for-being since science has no time-for-time since science still knows nothing at all of time as the time-being as the being-time since science still severs sein from time beheading being from time-being-there as the time-there-being that is being-there that is love-there that is time-there. 




                                                                                                                                        Wepwawet-Anubis Self-Portrait A.V.E  Dec. 2008



        Science still sees time as alien to being and not belonging-together so science can never know time since science can never know being for if there were no being there would be no time but science still does know this since science can never see being belonging together to time since science can never see being belonging together to love so science still does not see that there is no time without being that there is no time without love so science is absolutely alien to time.

        Science still seeks to measure man to measure time but time cannot be measured being cannot be measured love cannot be measured and only what is not measurable is real and only nothing is measurable for nothing is the measure of being and time without the measure of man for the measure of time as the measure of being is infinitely beyond the measure of man infinitely beyond the measure of math that cannot come to measure the nothing there. 

        Science has no Time for Love since Science has no Time for Being since Science has no Times at all and Science still cannot tell the Time and when the Time Comes there will be no Time for Science left to Come to Time since Science is always out of Time with Being and Time since there is no Being for Time for Science since there is no Time for Being for Science as such so Science can never Tell the Being of Time or Time of Being since Science has no Time for Being.

        As Adorno said: saying 'Art - it's so aesthetic' is both as serious and silly as saying: 'Science - it's so empirical' - yet today Science has become the Aesthetics of Technology and now Science is Pure Subjectivity through the Will to Technology - whereas Art has become Pure Objectivity through the Will to Being.  Science no longer deals with Reality but fetishises Technology for Technology blinds Science to what is Real because the Technology has taken over our ability to Interpret what we Imagine to be-there (as in the case of virtual-virology where non-visual 'indirect' and 'surrogate markers' are abused for the arbitrary 'measuring' the imaginary and virtual 'HIV' which was never-there to begin with).

        Art presents Reality because Art is Being - Science represents Reality because Science is Technology:  So: 'Science - it's so subjective.' For the Technology is the Subjectivity of Science and Scientists are all so seduced by the Technology that in turn interprets-them and interpellates-them as abeings becoming slaves to science as a will to technology. So: 'Art - it's so objective.' For Art is the Objectivity of Being and artists as alienists abort seductive Subjectivity having no need for the Spell of Technology to tell them what is there for Art presents the There-is of the Being-there as the Love-there as the Nothing-there that science-cannot-see that technology-cannot-touch.

        Our Biology cannot cope with Being-Dead as a Life-after</