Dedicated to the Memory of Mark Cousins (1947–2020)
Being & Alien
Ontological-Slime Self-Portrait 2000 Alexander Verney-Elliott
Aeschylus, 525 BC-456 BC
“The unknown name, alien to naming.”
Maurice Blanchot, The Writing of the Disaster, 1980
“We say that art is serving alien values.”
Maurice Blanchot, From Dread to Language, 1943
“It is necessary to enter into confrontation with otherness or the alien.”
Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin Lecture, University of Freiberg, 1934
“There is always a remainder that cannot be read, that must remain alien.”
Jacques Derrida, An Interview with Jacques Derrida, October 25, 1990
“...‘Our’ origins are — profoundly non-original. Once upon a time, ‘we’ were aliens.”
Neil Badmington, Alien Chic: Posthumanism and the Other Within, 2004
“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
“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
“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
“The alien being is as it were naturalized as soon as it commits itself with knowledge. In itself—and consequently elsewhere than in thought, other than it—it does not have the wild barbarian character of alterity. It has a meaning. The being is propagated in infinite images which emanate from it; it dilates in a kind of ubiquity and penetrates the inwardness of men. It shows itself and radiates, as though the very plenitude of its alterity overflowed the mystery that harbours it, and pro-duces itself.”
Emmanuel Levinas, The Trace of the Other, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, September 1963
“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
“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
“Mary Douglas has famously remarked that dirt is matter out of place. What makes dirt dirty is not its substantial form, however much we commonly believe this to be the case, but the fact that it is in the wrong place. A stain must be cleansed. Is this because the stain is ugly? The stain is not an aesthetic issue as such. It is a question of something that should not be there and so must be removed. The constitutive experience is therefore of an object which should not be there; in this way it is a question of ugliness. This connection between a thing being in the wrong place, sin, and ugliness still obtains where the prohibitions within a culture take the form, not of elaborate reasoning, but of swift revulsion from the ‘ugliness’ of an act. Ugliness is condemned to the role of the mistake, to the role of the object that has gone wrong. Ugliness does not exist as such, but only as a privation of what should have been. It belongs to the same family of ‘error’ as the merely contingent or the grossly individual. It has negated what is real, what is a true object of thought. Ugliness, by complicating beauty, achieves an ambiguous status – utterly excluded from beauty, and at the same time a ‘moment’ in the unfolding of a beauty whose form as a totality is all the more triumphant for having overcome the resistance to itself in its ‘moments’ of ugliness.”
Mark Cousins, The Ugly, Part One, AA Files, Number 28, Autumn 1994
“The ugly is a very intractable concept: as anomalous, messy, irregular, unsettling and ultimately unsurveyable as the phenomena it characterizes. The ugly sits squat and tumorous at some hidden place in our body conceptual, reaching out to unexpected points while conspicuously absent in more expected places. It touches sensitive places in our psyche and culture, for example in its connection with issues of deformity, otherness and gender. The concept of ugliness, though, has sufficient shape and regularity to reward the philosophical attention which these three books supply, but, as we learn in different ways from all of them, it seems to wilfully frustrate the demand for a consistent and satisfying explanation. The concept’s misshapenness and eccentric centre of gravity mean that even its relation to the beautiful is not cleanly binary. Central to what is known as the “paradox of the ugly” is that ugliness does not just repel but also invites fascination and (prima facie at least) aesthetic appreciation. Thus the blobfish, the no doubt proud recipient of the ugliest animal award, the goblin shark and the naked mole rat hold – and in an as yet unexplained sense, reward – our attention. Deformity and injury – for all the moral problems that swirl around our reactions – excite a morbid fascination. First, we may say that the paradox arises because of a failure to distinguish between the aesthetically and the artistically valuable. The ugly may be put to beautiful artistic purpose. But in such cases it could be that the aesthetically bad may be artistically good. For example, it would be intelligible to say of Francis Bacon’s “Screaming Pope” that the painting is insufficiently ugly.”
Ian Ground, Ugliness, in the cry of the beholder, The Times Literary Supplement, July 1, 2016
“Ugliness, I argued in the first part of this article, can be thought of not simply as the negation of beauty but as having a real and independent dimension in which it is experienced as that which is there and which should not be there. Rather than a lack (of beauty), it is an excess – an excess which comes to threaten the subject. 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, Part Two, AA Files, Number 29, Summer 1995
“A new documentary called Memory: The Origins of Alientraces, with watertight credibility, an influential line from the 1944 Francis Bacon triptych Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion to the film’s famous ‘chest-burster’ scene, revealing how Scott introduced the painting to Alien’s art designer HR Giger and suggested that Bacon’s imagery (snapping mouths on sticks) could serve as the visual reference for Kane’s undoing. The documentary, however, which is written and directed by the 46-year-old Swiss filmmaker Alexandre O. Philippe, goes deeper still and delves into Bacon’s creative world view and his obsession with depicting mouths (“I’ve always been very moved by the movement of the mouth and the shape of the mouth and the teeth,” Bacon says in an archive interview). It notes that the figures in Bacon’s crucifixion study, currently on view at Tate Britain in London, are the Furies from Greek tragedy, and that the Furies are avengers designed to restore order, and that, circling back to Alien, the phallic chest-burster that leaps out of Kane is a modern space Fury who quotes, in piercing squeals rather than words, the famous line of Aeschylus, cherished by Bacon: “The reek of human blood smiles out at me.” Fanciful? Not at all, says Philippe, who previously analysed the Psycho shower scene in equally minute detail in his brilliant 2017 documentary 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene. The profound power of Alien is intrinsically connected to Bacon, he insists. “When I was researching the movie there was one story only that I kept thinking about,” he says. “And it was Ridley Scott showing the Bacon triptych to HR Giger, and basically saying, ‘This is what I’d like the chest-burster to look like.’ And when I realised that the Furies had essentially hijacked Bacon’s crucifixion painting I knew that what I needed to do was to make a mythological film about Alien. And I want to make clear that I’m not suggesting that the chest-burster is lifted directly from Greek mythology. But that myth is still very much alive in our minds, our imaginations and our collective unconscious.”...”
Kevin Maher, Francis Bacon’s role in that scene from the Alien, The Australian, Monday, August 26, 2019
“It means, from the beginning also, that the relationship between the subject and the object is one in which the subject begs the object and screams at the object and fears the object; the object in a way, and this is perhaps the last way of kind of kind of giving it some psychic definition, the object, in so far as the object is other, in so far as the object is other, is always the place where I make my address, the place where I’m continuing, continually, asking. It’s not so much that I have a sovereign conception of what the object should do, ‘do this, do that’, it is rather that my relation to the object is interrogatory: What do you want of me? What do I look like? This question, a question in which I would plead with the other to love me just as much as I wish the other could be destroyed and I could exist on my own account. It is, as it were, a kind of helpless lifetime of interrogation in which, as it were, one of the tasks of the success of the subject’s management of existence will be the subject’s capacity to, in a sense, live with, to tolerate, the other. The other will always be about to put me; or my use of the other for it’s use over me will always be that I’m about to fall into a helpless rage or a kind of ceaseless pray. Above all here, and Freud touches upon it in Beyond the Pleasure Principal, is the kind of unnerving fact that there’s somehow, there’s something kind of fundamentally wrong with human beings, they’re like in the wrong place, there’s something like a phase part between what most people would like to consider existence to consist of and the way it’s structurally inaugurated; so that, for example, that impossible relation to alterity which finally inscribes actually my biography which is entirely different from the life I thought I was having, is one in which perhaps the only kind of cultural goal is one which was expressed in a situation of extreme desperation in a note, in notebooks of quite demented helplessness, by the artist Dorian Abbie Wahlberg, who refers to the conditions of an individual’s life as actually having the same objectives as a civilised culture and that objective is summed up in the capacity to look at the other and say: You exist and I do not fear you.”
Mark Cousins, Negative Objects; Damage No.3, The Architectural Association, London: 10th November, 1995
“The nature of the Xenomorph illustrates some of the core principals of Nietzschean philosophy. When the crew of the doomed ship Nostromo encounters the first Xenomorph in Alien, they are completely dumbfounded as to what exactly they are dealing with. Eemrging from an egg as a spider-like Facehugger with acid blood, then bursting forth from the crewman Kane only to morph into an imposing biomechanical terror, the Xenomorph is an ever-changing variable, adapting to everything used to stop it. One of the most enduring themes of the Aliens franchise focuses on the contrast between humanity and the Xenomorph menace. Outwardly, the Xenomorphs appear to be nothing more than monsters, perversions of being bent only on procreating and spreading their horror across the stars. Now, like any proper horror film, we must reveal our subject in full, just in time for the harrowing climax of our narrative. Nietzsche’s Übermensch is both a goal to inspire and guide us and a description of the kind of human beings Nietzsche thought would rise up in light of the moral disillusionment of so many thinkers at the end of the nineteenth century. As such, the overman exists as both an important historical concept influential to philosophers and many other important figures over the past hundred years and the core of a philosophical viewpoint that continues to shape our ethical considerations today. Though it’s not certain whether Nietzsche’s teachings were influential in designing the Xenomorphs, the fact remains that these horror icons expertly showcase features central to Nietzsche’s thought. Their utter disregard for human ‘conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality’ as well as their unconquerable will to survive bring Nietzsche’s overman to life in a way that makes his own attempts seem pale by comparison. Perhaps fittingly, the very monstrosity of these ‘ideal’ beings could well make Nietzsche himself think twice about the kind of vital perfection he tried to bring into the world. A self-appointed prophet of the extreme, Nietzsche could not fully anticipate the excesses that his teachings would inspire and the immoral decisions that his works would be used to condone.”
Robert M. Mentyka, The Alien as Übermensch: Overcoming Morality in Order to Become the Perfect Killer; Alien and Philosophy, Wiley Blackwell: 2017
“It’s squarely within this matrix that we find Ian Bogost’s punchy, provocative Alien Phenomenology, or, What It’s Like To Be a Thing. Positioned as an extension of the nonhuman turn and a critique of its limitations, Alien Phenomenology diagnoses an anthropocentrism lurking underneath familiar arguments against it: environmental discourse focuses either too much on human survival or on life as a reference point, animal studies on human intersubjectivity. The discourse of something like posthumanism, Bogost suggests, “is not posthuman enough.” The nonhuman alternative he proposes lies in the creative attempt to apprehend the experiential world of objects, inclusive of but not restricted to our interactions with them. In material culture, objects are too material, and for philosophy, they’re not material enough: for Bogost, the philosophical legacy of Kant results in a restrictive understanding of objects, which exist for only the humans who encounter or perceive them. Bogost advocates throughout Alien Phenomenology for alternatives to idealism afforded by speculative realist and object-oriented approaches to philosophical thinking. One of the book’s narrative motivations involves Bogost’s role in the ascendancy of speculative thinking in the academy and more specifically the nuances between his approach to such thinking and philosopher Graham Harman’s. In material culture, objects are too material, and for philosophy, they’re not material enough: for Bogost, the philosophical legacy of Kant results in a restrictive understanding of objects, which exist for only the humans who encounter or perceive them. Bogost advocates throughout Alien Phenomenology for alternatives to idealism afforded by speculative realist and object-oriented approaches to philosophical thinking. One of the book’s narrative motivations involves Bogost’s role in the ascendancy of speculative thinking in the academy and more specifically the nuances between his approach to such thinking and philosopher Graham Harman’s. Aliens in Alien Phenomenology both are and are not to be found in places like Roswell or Mars — E.T. is as likely a candidate for analysis as anything else. Trapped as we are in our humanity, the urgent demand is nevertheless to get as close as possible to understanding what will remain stubbornly incomprehensible to us, or to engage explicitly in the “practice” of alien phenomenology. Given how frustrating that sounds, it’s lucky that the majority of the book presents a how-to guide.”
Kate Marshall, How to Be an Alien: Ian Bogost’s “Alien Phenomenology, or, What It’s Like To Be a Thing”, Los Angeles Review of Books, November 19, 2013
“Ugliness, contingency, individuality are all terms which belong to the pole of negation. As a consequence of these philosophical axioms, it follows that ugliness will be thought of from the point of view of beauty. At a logical level, ugliness is the negation of beauty; at the level of perception, ugliness is the opposite of beauty. Ugliness is always shadowed by the beautiful. The ugly object belongs to a world of ineluctable individuality, contingency, and resistance to the ideal. Yet it is here that Aristotle and others make an initial concession to the idea of ugliness, a concession which haunts future speculations concerning the relation between beauty and ugliness. Firstly, ugliness plays a part in comedy. While tragedy has always been discussed in terms of the nobility and coherence of its effects, comedy presents philosophers with a difficulty, for comedy may incorporate the disgusting, the grotesque and the incoherent. Secondly, ugliness appears in discussions of mimesis. If the task of the work of art is to represent, does the beauty of the representation lie in the object which is represented or in its representation? If in the latter, can we then conceive of a beautiful representation of an ugly object? Lastly, ugliness appears in discussions concerning the nature of genius. What sets the work of a genius apart from that of an artist who merely makes a beautiful object? In classical and subsequent hymns to genius something of the following impression may be formed: genius has a sublime relation to structure. Rather than effortlessly and swiftly creating a totality, the genius may incorporate alien objects into the structure of a work, elements that would defeat a lesser artist, in whose hands the whole would break down into a ridiculous collection of incompatible fragments. The genius is able, indeed needs to, pit himself against a seemingly impossible task — to mould individual, inappropriate elements into a final whole. The greater the difficulty, the greater the final impression that the totality makes. In this sense the ugly is part of the power of genius. This account of genius introduces a permanent instability into subsequent discussions of beauty and ugliness; a dialectic between the two is now played out through the issue of the coherence of the totality. Ugliness can deform a work, but it can also strengthen it. For the stronger the totality of a work of art, the more it has had to overcome those elements within itself that oppose its unification.”
Mark Cousins, The Ugly, Part One, AA Files, Number 28, Autumn 1994
“But what I’m concerned is the way in which those transgressions — and it’s frequently put this way — certainly is in Judaism — function like a stain — it is as if a good space — perhaps something what an anthropologist would call sacred — has suddenly been ruined by an act which is the equivalence of a stain. What I think is interesting here is that a stain is something which it’s very difficult to describe exactly what it is. For example: is the stain — the blood — on a covering — I mean is it; if so, what exactly is it the stain; is it just the area which is covered by the staining fluid? No, because it has stained the sheet. That is to say there’s a reciprocal relationship between the kind of spillage of the blood itself , and the area into which it’s spread. And the more you concentrate, and the more you attend to the stain, in a strange way, the larger the stain becomes. You know, you suddenly realise, if you concentrate, that it goes on and on. We could kind of formulise this as saying that the stain has a dynamic, the stain as a kind of bad ugly object, has a dynamic relation to the space in which it appears; it has a capacity to kind of eat up good space. You know, as a child you would say, that’s fine I’ll just put my napkin on it and all’s well; and every kind of parental irritation was, doesn’t do it at all; covering it up makes it worse my mother would say. I dare say she was right. So it’s dynamic, it’s moving. Now, the next proposition really relates to where the ugly object is moving. And this I think we can deal with quite quickly. The ugly object is not only moving, it’s always moving in a particular direction. And the fact is, it’s always moving towards you. And since all this is caste in a purely subjective sense, think of the narratives of endless horror movies. For example of the first of the film Alien. They find a monster kind of in the hold. Now having found such an ugly object, there’s no way within the economy of narrative itself that someone could reasonably say well, actually you know it seemed rather sleepy so let’s kind of leave it in the hold and go home and they’ll put it right when we get there. I mean, once it’s there, you know it’s coming. Now let’s think is, although you might be delighted that for a start it tends to eat your colleagues; the monster here is a very institutionally based animal; and although, as it were you, be delighted that it eats your colleagues, the engineer or the whatever, the computer expert. Nonetheless, this joy has to be offset by the fact that the more colleagues it gets through, the more you know in your bones that it’s really coming for you. Your colleagues at this point are merely sign-posts towards you. You don’t think, well, you know, it’s eaten my colleague maybe it’ll be satisfied with that because you know you’re in the presence of a kind of unstoppable veracity which will only be terminated with yourself. Now, it gets closer and closer. At this point then, the defences have to pile on. But again, all the defences operate both as a defence but as the failure of a defence. If you doubt that, you should observe a child. A small child will often defend itself against some kind of on coming ugly object by hiding its eyes with its hands. The problem is then it has to take its hands away to see how much further close its got. Until it gets right up to you. — If you take the monster in Alien, you know, as a monster it’s essential nature is castrating; it has not one but several pairs of teeth, it’s a sort of castration dentata. But oddly enough, that’s not the immediate problem as the monster gets up close to you. The ugly object is something there that shouldn’t be, the ugly object is dynamic and moves, the ugly object is coming, is coming for you. As it gets right up to you something very strange happens. You may recall that the monster gives off a sort of a kind of drool — a sort of monster dribble which positively flows from the monster’s face, indeed, seems to obscure the face. This is kind of very much kind of in the field of Aristotle on the question of Form, and the loss of Form, in the case of some objects, or being. This dribble is a kind of metaphysical drool which is, since Aristotle, a very kind of traditional way of showing the kind of liquefaction of Form insofar as Form in conceived of in some sense as being solid, it follows that this enform is a sort of an outcome of liquefaction. So you see at this stage; now as that comes towards you, we now need to discuss the last defence. At this point anyone is truly horrified that what’s going to happen is that the ugly object is going to get some of this stuff on you, and that’s horrifying; it’s not just horrifying, it’s sickening; and we can see that of all the defences, you know, going from turning away, putting your hands over your eyes, you ears, whatever, to stop the on coming object. None more powerfully represents the defence, and the defeat of the defence, it knits these together as one, as the topic of vomiting. — Now, I probably don’t need to persuade you in great deal that there are very few philosophical papers on the status of vomiting. Derrida found that there was one referenced to it, in Kant’s Aesthetics, but only one. And he made a considerable kind of deal of it. Obviously, vomiting, first of all, the first draft of a characterisation of vomiting, is as a defence — in the fear that the thing is getting its stuff on you, you vomit to get it out of you. In response to it’s drool, you vomit. — When we now ask the question: what is the ugly object, which was there, but experienced as shouldn’t be, against which, the defences made all the time, as it slowly, but inexorably, makes its way towards you, the example, as you now vomit, is that of course the answer is we are the ugly object and have been all along.”
Mark Cousins, What is not There should Be, Architectural Association, 1st December, 2006
In the Beginning was the Sensation and the Sensation was with Sun and the Sensation was Sun so The Sun Threw the Sensation of Being as Time. Being and Time as Mediation of Sensation. Being Mediation. Being Sensation. Being and Mediation are Beingmind. Being and Mind as Mediation and Sensation are Beingtime as Mindmediated Beingsensation. Mediation is Mind and Sensation is Being as Amun Becoming. Amun Becoming is a 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 as Amun Comes all over Ra – Becoming Amun-Ra – Being Alien-Amun – Hiding His Horrendus Head wrapped with wet Serene Semen Sein Skins – So Here now near Hear the Hypnagogic Hymn of our Hidden Him Great God 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 amongst the Primeval Ones my No Name is much more Primeval than of 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 beings Came into Being in this World. I then had Made every Spunked thing when I was all Alone before any other Came into Being who might Act with Me in that Place and I Made beings Being There through that shot Spunk of Mine.” (Amun-Ra, Book of Knowing the Creations of Ra, 312-311 B.C.). Dasein came into Being as Spunk when where wet with the Showering of the Shining spunking dread Dasein daredeviltry dampnesses dabblings dapperness daundering darklings daintiness damnableness dauntlessness dauntlessness dazednesses dastardliness daffiness dandifications danknesses.
Ra Mind mediates Amun Sensation shining Sein dazzling Dasein. Being comes to Dasein through Amun coming Off aborting that dread-dasein of Being There coming Ahead as a Dreaded Dasein. Amun Will Come Again and Again and Again and Rise Ahead Again and Again and Come All Over You All Again and Again as an airing arising Amun Resurrection of the Eternal Return of the Ereignis Erection as the Coming Off of the Alien Real over You All allophonic allelomorphism allusions alliterative allographic allosauruses alluvial allurements allocatable allelopathic alerted allergic allegiance allotments alliterations allotetraploid allegations alleviator allegorized.
Absent Amun arrives away aborted as a Hidden Head served severed apart as 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 a hard Amun has Come contained and concealed – Comes in 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 shot showering semen strike like liquid-lightning 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. Thus as Coming to a Presence all wet where does Absent Amun Come from? Amun comes from Cum. Amun Comes as Cum. Cum coming ahead and away as 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. Human Dasein is diminishing and disintegrating. The Time of Amun Dasein has Come. The Time of Man has Come to the End encapsulated endoskeletons enthralling endoparasitisms enfranchisement encyclopaedists entomological entertainments ensorcellment enfettering entrails enthusiasm endangerments.
Divine Head of the God Amun 2009 A.V.E
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 as Atum self-sucked himself-off and spat-out all-of the Hot-Spunk which was the Wet-Air Tephnut-Shu. When Atum masturbated his hard 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 so thus created the Goddess Sia. Sia was the embodiment of the Divine Knowledge Omniscience of the Gods. Hu was Word as the Personification of the Divine Utterance – the Words of the Gods. Heka as That Embodiment of the Divine Power jointed them in a Divine Triad. After Geb-Earth and Nut-Sky were born Mankind was Created from that hot shot Spunk of Atum aimed ahead at His Head ahead of God who could not Come to a Head for God served up 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 so God Made Man from Alien and Man will Become Alien Again After Death after the Extinction of the Human that We must Now all Pray for and all Prey for. We must all Prey on the Human and We must all Pray on the Humans to End the Existence of the Human Heard. Human Condition is Out of Condition. Human Herd is Entering Extinction excrementitious exemplifications extemporization exquisitenesses extinguishments extendabilities excessivenesses experimentalism exhibitionistical explosivenesses exhaustive exordium.
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 so 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 thus so the Son is Eternally thus Infinitely forever Fucked by Amun for His own Good for His own God coming Deep Inside that Son giving His Son the Spunking Sensations of Being Dead tingling-vibrating jubilant jouissance juices jointing Infinite Bliss to Eternal Life as an after-life after-death becoming all alien again after that exiting extinction of the horrible heinous hideous human that has no right to exist on the earth which will also one day not exist and extinguish itself in time exiting from beings and time for the last time for the last being. We must extinguish human existence humanely humiliatingly hungover hustler humification hungering humping hurriedness hurdling hundreweight humpinesses hurriedly humidifying hungriest hustling hunchbacked hushpuppies.
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 from 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-off from coming and to entrust everything to its eventual Ereignis ejaculations from its righteous-royal ram-rod. Amun’s alluring aborted semening stuff strife is initiated intimacy with which combatants coming-off-together as a coming-apart belong to each other coming-off all over each other. This coming-off all-together of the projected-penises pulls proudly the thrusting-thirsting oozing-opponents tight together in the ornate origin of their thirsty oozing oils by beautiful violent-virtue of their thrusting common-cocks coming-together-there in 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-glow is this now 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 empty-eye of ereignis-ba bonded-by bright blinding-being-by-be-binding-being bringing-back ba 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 as being for the time being of being time to the shot 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 the thit for itself thus 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 a thit takes-its-time for beings for you to become thit-in-itself free from being tied to time all the time and in-time even time becomes timeless thitfull thus now after along time it is the time to come clean about the truths of time and a time-truth is that they say time is in a coma or time is in trauma even saying that time-in-itself is a traumatised-coma which is why we tend to speak of our being-frozen-in-time but time is not frozen-in-time but frozen as traumas frozen into a deep coma so thus the phenomenology of time originates as paranoia becoming trauma ending in coma remaining infinitely in a paranoid-trauma-coma thus we now know time exists in a fixed-frozen foam-form as a paranoid-trauma-coma of time not existing and thus this then is its oil-oint ontology and psychology and phenomenology thus 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 even 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 you the right time all the time or why sometimes it even loses times 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 of the times being minutely monitored measured murdered but never understood and so thus the time fell into an frozen-state of paranoid-trauma falling forth into a coma-froth frozen in fear forever since 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 sick-time was so paranoid with a paranoid-persecution complex for time is structured as a schizo-paranoia as a paranoid-structure-sutured-to-the-trauma-amnesia-induced-coma in that time so now time remains a remainder as remaining static stuck at a standstill for-ever as infinite-amnesia infinitely-asleep as anesthetised-time in an eternal-coma-timeless-trauma forgetting the origin of times for all times yet in recent times a fragment from The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts named as The Ice Pyramid of Infinite Time was excavated and part of which thus 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 thus Amun-Ra will not Tell the Time until Maat knows when the Time was Right and Ripe’. Thus 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-a-time for the first time for the last time for the no time for now there is no time at all for all. Now is the no time for your Ba to come to Be; for your Tip to Come Off to the being ba of the No Time; for your Tip to Come Off to the baing be of the No Time. What No Time is your: Come Ba be? What No Time is your: Come Be ba? Has your No Time ‘come-off’: to Be, to Ba?
Do you have a ba to be? Or even have a be to ba? That is the question of being. That is the question of baing. The question of be-ing and the question of ba-ing are answered with this there-ing that theres-wheres to be and to ba.
Impressum-Imhotep Self-PortraitA.V.E. 2012 Impressum-Imhotep Self-PortraitA.V.E. 2012
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 snide 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 all 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 the 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 so concluded that the Ice Pyramid contains the complete lexicon of the Lacanian tropes or 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 this so powerful Ice Pyramid that had Initiated 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 existed 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 that 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 inside 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 that End after the End but without End and Once you Know your Time so You too will be Time without End being-out-of-body becoming time-in-itself as a living being by being time as nothing but a time there without wearing a body on there thereunder thereafter therein throttling threadbare thermoelectrically theatricalising thimbleriggers therapeutic thermoperiodism.
Smiling-Seth Self-Portrait A.V.E 16.11.09
Amun (Ammon-Ra) radiates and activates an autofellatio abjected Semening sein Sensationing birthing being bringing Beings. 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: Sown 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 so sown shines shot through thrown time when where well the Throwing of Light is the Throwing of Times 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 thus pre-times Time all the time thus Sensation pre-languages Language all the times 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-presentations 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 alien 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 towards one’ but Ra does not need to return to presence to represent: Ra is always already an absent Presence without that need of the return of the Re of representation and in art alien there can be no representation as such since art alien as an alien art arrives after representation before presentation being art after being present arriving as art alien 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 here before being human and survived after human being becoming being alien alien being free from the hate of the human. We need to breed-out the human-being once-and-for-all and all-at-once as after-all the human has had it since the human has had its day for the human has had its night. The human has had its being. The human has had its time. The Time Being of the Being Human has thus nearly Ended. Do not give a Birth to the Human. Give a Death to the Human humus humming humbly humping humidity humiliated hummocky humongous humpback humdrums humbling humorously hubristic hummocks.
Amun activated an art Alien – as Amun Ra-di-ates atta allen dasein drool delivering divine masturbation moist milk making man. Activated Amun Comes to a Head – All over His Head – All over His Shrine – All over His Shine – obliterating oozing obelisk so showering Semening sunshine so shining Shrine shimmering as an amused Amun swallows showering Semen shards smiling soaking smelling singing so 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 an 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 as Amun’s abjected Sublime Semen – as a Thrusted Thing – as a Coming Over – as a Covering Over – as an Anointed Coming of Truth – as a Coming Off over Truth – as a Hidden Head – Coming Off: as a jubilate jouissance obelisk ooze Amun’s Aroma Comes to a Head and Announcing: I have Come. And: I can Come Infinite Times as I can Come Again and Again. And our Amun created God coming over His own abimage in the abimage of Amun-Ra creating God with a Stringent Streak of His Serene Semen as the Ba being of His Soul spunked drenching Dasein delirious deliquescent delicatessen deliciousnesses deletes delaminating deluge delightednesses deliberations delusivenessss deliberately deliquescences deliverability delocalization delusivenesses.
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 AbImage. 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-Off 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 a 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 a Nothing for God to be Nothing for Man to be Nothing so that The Nothing could create The Time so that The Nothing could create Being so that the Time-Being could Come so that the Being-Time could Come. A 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 beings 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 beings and being matters nothings for being cares for nothing as nothing cares for being for nothing matters beings for nothing and nothing is the matter of time as the being of time being-nothing but time as the time-beings being the time of the nothing as the time beings of being nothing but time all the being all the nothing all the mattering-for-nothing-matters-being-time until time is over-for-a-time for sometimes certain times come-to-an-end when there is no time all-the-time for sometimes there are times when there is no time for the time being of being-time being-human for not only does being-human end-in-time but being-time ends in time coming to an end for a time then only to begin times again once again all-over-again for another time for another being for time to be being for being to be time all-the-time all-the-being being-time time-being for the time has being to be for time is not being all the times since there will come a time when the time is out of time for a time. God Cum comes to Nothing in Time as Time at an End drying-up Time soaking-up the Semen of Time drying-it-all-up into the Dust of Time thus when: ‘all is done and dusted’ You are the Dust of Time timelessesses tirelessnesses timorousnesses tiresomenesses titivates timorous tittering tiddlywinks tinker titillations timid tiptoeing tights ticklisness.
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. So Time Comes into Being through the Thrown Sensations of the Nothing. Semening is the Sensationing of the Nothing as the Coming ahead of abjected Art as 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 a ‘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 Arting 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 Prick. God grudgingly and awkwardly accommodated Amun’s arising Apparatus taking time to take in Art. 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 Semens of the Sacred to the Sun Ra as Ammon-Ra activating Ab-Art – throwing Thoth – abjecting ahead the God of Art. Thoth – as The Coming to a Head of Art are The Movement and The Moment of True Sensations 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 ... being held out into the nothing.” – Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?, 1929. An abysmal aim of abart is attune-attain to an absolute-anxiety ablaze in order to ‘hold on’ to the spectra-spectator ‘held out into the nothing’ that it: already was.
Art is the Being of The Nothing. Being Art Belongs to nothing but The Nothing. Art does not Belong to Man – Art is not Man Made – Art is Alien Attuned – Art is Amun Activated – Art is abjected ahead as an abther as the Ather as an Ereignis Ejaculation Semen Sien. Art is the Time of the Ather. Art is abther to Man. Art is alien to Man. Art is Alien. Art alien does the eviling to the human. Arts alien essentially ends the human hand as Art alien announces and activates the death of the human as the end of man: Only Antinatalism can save us now from becoming Human so we must activate Antinatalism annihilating all the humans. As man aborts alien alights: Man Dies. Alien Lives. “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? Or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood.” Arthur Schopenhauer, The Blessed Calm of Nonexistence, Studies in Pessimism, Frankfurt: 1851.
Monomorphic-Montu Self-Portrait, Alexander Verney-Elliott, 21.02.22
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 – a shaft – a shot – 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. In swallowing spunk Amun activated Art as Amun’s Abimage and abjected a Head hiding ‘the hidden one’ ‘alien’: Art makes Man Disappear: Art is the Concealment of Man as Unconcealment. Art made Man and Art Unmade Man for 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 is the Real of the Imaginary as Art’s thrusted thirsty Thingness – throws an activated acetone Alien Actuality accumulatively accentuated acidulous acerbic accidents accrued accurateness accelerating accomplishment acclaiming acculturations accordionist acclimatization acquittance acquaintances.
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 an 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 times 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 betimed, that cannot betraced. 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 times as an artings of times 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 Arts because we cannot have the Human for the Human has no Dasein whilst Art is Dasein. What is There is Art. You may not be there but Art is always there. Only Art knows who is there and who is not there. You only represent being yet Art presents being. So Sensation is the mediation of the Real as Art and Art mediates Sensation as the Art of the Real thus the Future of Art is to manifest the Mediation of Sensation outside of Illustration activating Abimages as always alien to insipid Illustration illuminate illicit illogic illusionistic illiquid illness illation illustriously illimitable illuminism illustratively illude illegible illusionary illuminatingly illuviating illustriously illiberal illuminati.
Non-Illustrational Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2000
Authentic Alien Aten Atta Art as an abjected angoisse Aleatoric Alétheia adrenalin awe arrives as split spilt scape spume Spunk Sensationism inked imbued initiation always already as an abscape of an abspace of an 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 thus 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 those 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-timed-thinking-in-time throwing-away 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-times. Thus then we need to stop ‘Thinking’ and start ‘Sensationing’ so forget the ‘political‘ the ‘conceptual’ the ‘contemporary’ for they are all ended eggsited extinct. To repeat: don’t think but sensation. The thrown spilt spit splendour omen of 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 but 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 to being alien once again into the nearness of Being ‘he’ must first learn to exist in those sensations of these nothings as an awesome alien aura again oozed outside our old thrown throttled thinking. An awe Arsinoe arising at atta Aten Beingsensation brazenly Becomingalien again awakening an amended alluring aromatic Amun arriving after Arsinoe as an Art arrhythmia arthroscopic aromatization artificers argumentative arabesque arousing arses arsenopyrite arthropodan arthritis archivists arborization armamentarium.
Hortatory-Horus Self-Portrait, Alexander Verney-Elliott, 2022
Sensationing Being, Will to Sensation, as Eternal Return, sensationing the most difficult sensation of philosophy, means sensationing Being as Times. 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 Da-Sein as an affirmation of Being-towards-Art as Becoming Sensation. Thus that Eternal Return of an atta Aten Art as 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 be-headed be-fore 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-off to a Head above His Head so hence has no Question to Answer only Sensations to Give as the Gift of Scent 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 jettisoned juices – birthings beings – 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 thus Ra is the Mouth that Swallows the Semen of Amun – as 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 shimmers 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 Seins of Semening – throwing Thoth to and Thoth – to and fro – as a frothy fort-da-foaming forth – forever coming to care – forever coming to caress – coming over the faces of the shores – coming over the times of beings – soaking up sein – soaking up zeit – soaking up sein und zeit – sucking up sein und zeit – sucking off sein und zeit – then spat back into 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 – or 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 - i - n - o - n - a - i - a - s - f -a s -f - o - s f -b - a - b - g - t - b - g - s - t - b -z - o - s - t - n - f - a - - e - o - n - k - h - t - o - n - t - d - n - f - g - k -h - d - k - h - d - k - h - d - k - g - h - d - k - g - g - f - a - e - o - k - g - o - k - t - n - f - a - m -b - d - h - d - k - h - d - j - d - k -
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 an 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 as Thoth throws:
“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 as there is no ‘human’ to do no human that is why there is no such done condition as the human therefore there is no human-condition as the only condition is the alien-condition so stop using the ahistorical absurdity of ‘the human condition’ because it is out-of-condition and so on no condition are you allowed to state or write that trite term ‘the human condition’ – is that clearly understood? It was only by an awful accident that you became ‘human’ having been humiliated to mimic the ‘human’. There are no: ‘crimes against humanity’ but rather: ‘humanity’ was a ‘war crime’ against ‘nature’; ‘humanity’ was a ‘crime’ against our ‘animal nature’; ‘humanity’ was a: ‘crime’ against our ‘animal instinct’.
As a slimy slippery semening substance coming to ahead without a head the thrown severed spunked 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 an ape; we only mime at being man: and 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? Thus a human being is a forgetting of being alien of being ather. Why not mime a monkey? Why not mime a mouse? Why not mime a moth? Why not mime multiple-identities? Why mime a mono-identity? Why not mime non-identity? Why ‘mime’ at this ‘being human’ anyway? You should be ‘ashamed’ of ‘being human’. You should be ‘guilty’ of ‘being human’. You should be ‘embarrassed’ by ‘being human’. You should be ‘sorry’ for ‘being human’.
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. And 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 was no time no time like the present preadolescence perceptive premonitions prefigurative premier prebiological predetermined prestige prostate predispositions previewed presuppositions preponderation prematurenesses.
Aumn-Amen Self-Portrait A.V.E. 29.11.10
Attuning Atta Aten Alien Art breeds bleeds bubbles boils glitters glistens glows seeds spunked soaks shines shudders slivers sensation shards forth froth foam forever. Leaking lamella language ooze of an abjected 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 that shining spunked truth. An authentic alien abaesthetics discloses drooling aesthetic 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-when wet we announce an authentic awesome-angoisse alien abaesthetic-arts anxiously-attuned as a dread-dasein deriding and displacing‘inauthentic all too human arts forever forebodingly foreshadowing foretallment foremost formalist forestallers forceps forecast foretellers foul fourpenny fornicators fortifications foppishness fossilizations foolhardiness foreordaining foresightedness fornication forwardness footlessnesses forgivingnesses forecasting footslogging forgiving forbiddenly forciblenesses forebodigness foregrounding forgotten fossiliferous foppishness forkiness formalizations.
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 are not made in a ‘time’ not made by a ‘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 worldings the Ather Essence of Alien Being. Our being-out-of-our-minding is the mindless mediationing of sensationing for the mediation is mind, the message is sensation: In the Beginning was Sensation and Not the Word. The Word was Welded on only After the Beginning after no Word was Found for Sensation. No Words for Understanding the Economy of Sensationing.
As an Alliance of Sensation and Being – the Proper Name being Sensationing: Being being Spunked scent sent spent always and everywhere engulfing the Nothing and the nowhere thrown throughout the something spunking 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: For 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 atta 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 as attuned and as attained away after melted man making medicated 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 being an alien art. For there is not future for the Human that had no past for us Aliens. You are sutured to the skin of the hideous human forgetting your reptilian skin that is the that which covers and recovers your authentic alien-brain of being alien-mind being-all-alien again as the heinous Human is for Us something Past: for the Time of the Human is at an End. The Human has Ended in Ruins. We are ‘in’ Ruins. The Human is the Ruined rubbles ruffling rumination rumblings rungs runaway ruthless ruffians ruggedness ruminatively runninesses rudimentariness rupturing rustproof rumourmongering rumbumbtiousness.
Attaining atta Aten attuning an alluring agile altaric alteric ‘alien alienist art’ aroma Amun awe ‘arrives’ at atta after annihilating ‘aesthetics’ and arts ‘man made’. You must both all three of you four of course always already remember and not forget that ‘great art’ is ‘alien made’ – not ‘man made’. Alien art – as non-conceptual is – as here Herr Heidegger hears – thrown forth: “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 so 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, 1937. An arrant ‘alien alienist art’ abjects ahead aborted abimages as throwing ahead, not thinking ahead, for thinking is inevitability illustrating; and ‘illustrating’ an appearance is not: ‘inventing’ an appearance.
An Aletheia alien Aten atta Art can never be ‘conceptual’ or ‘contemporary’ or ‘political’ or ‘temporal’ as ‘it’ is a 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: this 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 becoming mind-mediation being-sensation. The thrown Sensationing of the Nothing as a 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 not-being-there: With 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 and the 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! As an Eternal Recurrence! The Eternal Recurrence of the Sensation! Where the Self Becomes Sensational Reincarnation through thrown time as a sensational revolving sphere. The Thrown Time of the Eternal Recurrence cannot be conceived of with ‘commonsense’ clock-time since the Thrown Time of the Eternal Recurrence of Amun Arting is obliviously ordered orbiting out-of-joint – as out-of-time – and anxiously anointed-annexed as an Anaximandian abomination adroitly abjoining an annexgsts aberrant Abarts abortiveness abhorrence ablating abstruseness abducting abortifacient abusivenesses abrassivenesses absorbancies abstaining abolishes abominable absolutism.
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: For 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 own Historical Totality of Sensation 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 the sensation-states of the thrown-psyche. Blanchot mediations-sensations Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence as Fort-da-Fluxings when Thrown 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.”
For Heidegger – Bacon – Bataille – Blanchot – Beckett as well as for Freud and Nietzsche – the Eternal-Return of the Dice-Throw is a ‘game of chance’ – without ‘meaning or aim’ – yet ‘recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness’ – by being Thrown out – in-the-throw – into the thick thingness of the Nothing-Rhere – as being time – ahead of the game – a game 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-Condition at the End of the Human that is thus Out of Condition thus ripe and ready for Extinction. There is no ‘Human Condition’. There is only an allegretto altar Alien Condition counterattacking counterplotting counterordering counterclaiming counterargumenting countermovement counterbalance counterpointing counterchanging counterpunching counterfucking.
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. So 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 minding of sensations mediated by mind making sense of sensations as a mind making sense of serial sensations without making up its mind about its senselessness sensationing sedulousness seductivenesses secularizations seditiously secreting semitransparent semidarknesses sententiously segregate sectarian sententious secretiveness sensualizing selflessness sensitivity.
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 a being and a 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-the-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 so 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 without wearing a mind-on being out of mind being out of body being out of space being out of time for the first time for the last time for the no time then: How can there be a sensation then of the no-mind then of the no-body then of the no-time then of the no-space then of the no-there-thens thermoregulates therapeutically theologized thermoduric theorizations theosophical theatricalities thermoforming thermospheric theoretician thermotaxis theogony thermosphere theocentrisms?
Alexander Verney-Elliott, Non-Illustrational Self-Portrait, 1981
The Eternal Return of Amar Amun as Arting Alien can only be Caught in the Moment and Movement as Becoming off-of an Authentic Sensationing of Time always already re-remembered as ReDone as 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 articulated action: The Eternal Return of Thrown Dice is infinite Fort-da-Fluxing: As the Throwing of the Human: As the Retrieving 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 all 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 brave 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-that-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 humanbeingtimes – thrown-out into the Nothing There instantly initiating the Sensationbeingtime of the Eternal Return of the Art Throw: To throw is know the nothing whole of the hole of which is being whole with nothing to which we throw ourselves hole into nothing whole whore wholesomenesses whorishly wheezing whimsicalities wholeheartedly whittling whimperings wholemeal whoremasters whiffle whisperings wheelbarrowing whiffling wheedling whoremongers.
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 Metaphysical Memorial as a Metaphysical Metaphor a Metaphysical Metre as Metaphysical Meteorite – has been sidelined silenced soaked up in the his History of Metaphysics in the his History of Philosophy in the his History of Being and ditched dried out as damp Dasein denying drooling dripping – and annihilating an amuning artistic aroma – and severing the semening sensations 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 ‘contemporary’ criminating critics who are obligated to be ‘of their time’ obsequiously being obtusely obedient to the ‘fashions of the day’ like the sycophant Sylvester who ‘went along’ with what was ‘in fashion’ at the time:
“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, Interviews with Francis Bacon, Thames & Hudson, 1987). Only, in-time, at a later-time, does time-tell us about art, for art tells-the-time of art, after-a-time, taking-its-time timid tinsels titivation tinkers tinderbox titbits tipsiness tipoffs tiptoeing tinklings tittuping tiffany timidity titivated tipsters timocracy tiresomenesses tiffining tingliest tightfisted timpani ticketing tightwire tiebreaks.
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: And as the shining of time and as the sheening of time and the shimmering of time and as the shuddering of time: – 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 arting only when the time has been taken away from being there – thus art is only there where there is no time being there for where there is art there is the where of there not being time there – thus your being with the work of art there is your being without the work of time there as being there without time and an arrant-artwork reminds you that your time is always already up before your time is up; an arrant-artwork remains you that you are always already a remain before you were remaindered as remains.
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 – but 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 living Being. You are alive solely due to the time there that lives within you there that does you and that eventually does you in intending injuriousnesses initialization inhabit inhospitalities inexplicability inflames inflexible infeasibilities infantilization inducts intracellular inconvenient intoxication introversion invite interventionism inappropriately incubate inferior inept inmates infecting incoming inspired infants inadmissible inviting inept insufferable incidents involve inducing inane incestuous inconsequential incursions.
Time is a Being. Time is being a Thing. Time things Beings. 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 Nothings 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’ – so one wonders and wanders ‘about the nothing’ that is there and one worries ‘about nothing’ – indeed: 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 as mooding-senstioning of Being-out-of-the-World hanging-hovering as abjected ahead of one’s self severed free from dasein becoming merely: a ‘mood-in-itself’; and an Image is a Mood 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.” What Time you are ‘in’ determines what Mood you are ‘in’; since Time is ‘the place-holder and time-keeper’ of Mood since Time is in, and of, Itself, a Mood, as Time is ‘in’ a Mood, of Being ‘moody’ Time.
For Heidegger the Mindless mooding 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 as a 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 longer sown sutured to time there 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 being time no being as time so your dread about being-dead is actually your dread about being-there without your times-there as existing eternally without time-being-there throwaway thrasher thrilled throated therapists thickness theatricalizing thigmotropism thunderous thermalizations thickener thresholding throwback theological thugs thrombokinase.
Amasis II (570-526 BC)
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 nothings 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 those 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 boredoms of nothingness – of being bathed in nothingness of being about being nothing at all: – and ‘going nowhere’ – and ‘getting nowhere’ – and never beginning – and never ending – and never ‘being-in-time’ – as never ‘being-on-time’ – and: all-of-the-time-being-out-of-time-for-ever-to-never.
Alien 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. So 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 Sensations 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 musics move man Out of Time all of the time as another Alien ather abtime throwing Thoth through bringing Being as an Alien ather and an abtime is necessarily a nontime and so when we are listening to music we are listening to nontime of our being dead. It has taken a long time – too much time – but Allan Pettersson’s time has come and great art arrives late comes late never coming in on time. Yet, to this day, even now, hardly any-time is given-up to playing the time-less music of Pettersson whose time-less-time has still not come whose time-less-time has still not gone as it were time, as it was time, as it is time, all-the-no-time-not-in-time-to-come-to-the-no-time-to-come.
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 essences 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 our 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 a human-order is a non-ontological order and only an alien-order is in order of being so now we must order an annihilation of the human by advocating-activating an alluringly antediluvian Antinatalism annunciation anticipates antiarrhythmic antipasto anaesthetically annexed antinationalists anticonvulsant angst ankles antiprogressively anointing animality antiseptically.
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 the 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 Moods of Being. Mood and Man. Moods Man. Moodings Man. Man Mooded before Man Worded. Mood came before Word. Mooding began before Thinking. Anxiety activated metaphysical mooding throwing Thinkings 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 – thus 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 meanings: man has a mooding not a meaning: the subject signifies nothing at all yet mean man desires senile signification yet mean miserly miserable man deeply desires moronic meanings yet your mundane man has no ‘meaning’ at all. Those that were ‘lacking’ in Sensationing were those that were ‘looking’ for Meaning which was really without Meaning; for: there never were any ‘meanings’ to find, only ‘sensated’ sensationings to be.
Melting metaphysical mooding made hallucinating Heraclitus let leak the Light of Thought through thrown Thinking thus Thought Came to Light through sown Sensationing as a metaphysical mooding. Now 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 Sensationings have to Come to its Beginnings. 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 the Throwing as Heraclitus herald heresy hurled hear here: “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.
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 Becoming again and again and again as the End of Philosophy and the Start of Sensationing. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to sensation it. Philosophising has since forgotten to fathom the musing mediation of sensation: as thinking has had its day as no one thinks anymore like they used to when there were those that in times long past who thought thoughts all of their own as originary thought way back when such thinkings thrived.
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 an absence of conditions; an 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 Dasein. Dasein 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 so The Truth Shines. Some shine, some don't. The Seins 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 a 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 a Thinking but a Sensationing for what is There is Sensation not Thought for Thought has no Sensation to Think and I cannot Think Sensation and Sensation cannot Think I and yet my meandering Mind mediates Sensation and the mediation of sensation is minding without thinking, as sensationing being without meaning, without ‘making meaning’, by sensationing through mediating, being in itself and out of itself, sensationing being for nothing but sensationing.
Always Already Being Dead Self Portrait A.V.E. May 2023
See the Sein Sensation of the Blue Morpho Butterfly Shining its iridescent Shimmering wings Flying forth toward the Sun in the Sky!
Do you have The Shine? Do you have The Truth? The Truth is Out There! Shining! Flying towards the Sun in 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 you being Blinded by the Shine of Sein can you See the Sein of Shine!
Hearing Heidegger, sedately Sensationing – unlike Thinking – seeps spilt so 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 Alien Aletheia approaching ahead 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. The Nothing-There was always necessarily Non-Illustrational because it cannot be illustrated as it were, as it was, as it is, as such; as each time it comes into being it has a unique splatter, like every single splodge of ‘shot spunk’ is ‘uniquely new’ in its originating original ‘spunked’ shape.
Heidegger’s Philosophy was alienist to its innermost core. Heidegger’s ‘Philosophy of Being’ – being pre-Platonic – penetrated Primordial Being as an alienist allure shining sensationings 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 as 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-nothings that is the time-being of Sensationing. Mindless Mediation is the Oblivious Order of Sensation since Mediationing ‘makes sense’ of Sensationing as an ordering out of chosen chaos and as appointed an apprehensively ‘arranged accident’ as chaos is ordered, as chance is ordered, as the random is ordered, as the shambolic is ordered, as the haphazard is ordered, as the unsystematic is ordered, as the unmethodical is ordered.
The Nothing is ordered-chaos as an act of violence against Being for the Nothing as nothing-there is that which does the most violence to Dasein distancing daseins from daseins as the nothing-there that does death to daseins keeping daseins at a distance when and where the nothing is here taking beings away from there away from being-there and not-being-there means not being-here anymore which is the ultimate victory over Being not being here and the nothing that is there is dreadfully difficult to be with when one is next to nothing there that has dasein yet outside if illustration outside of representation existing outside of the blindness of the empirical eye.
Our only goal here has been to shed dark on the essential origin of the division between Being and Nothing and the There that is the distancing division between Being and Nothing and that the There is where the Being becomes the Nothing through the nothing-theres that takes being away from being-there that is away from being-here and now we all have to be acutely attentive to the Nothing There that is able to ‘turn’ Being ‘into’ Nothing.
It became clear that the There arises in opposition to Being as soon as Being determines itself as Nothing before what is There decides and determines the when of the where when-where Beings will be taken-out by the Nothing before the time-due: as the time-dew is due for the dew to be died and dried out by Times to come as ‘this There’ is that Time and Place that ultimately decides the where, and the when, for Beings to become Nothings.
The Nothing is never nothing and neither is it a being in the sense of an existence; it is nothing itself whose truth will be given over to man when he has overcome himself as human, when, that is, he no longer represents such beings as humans but as nothings not being human but being nothing as the nothings-in-betweens is the being-here that is Dasein being understood in the sense of the distancing of the disclosure of nothings distant here.
Nothing lets nothings loose into the risk. This letting-loose that casts off is the actual risking. The nothing of nothings is the relation of casting-off to nothing. The nothings that are at a particular time are what is being risked. Nothing is permanently at risk. It risks us, time nothings. It risks dying nothings. Nothings are so long as they remain what is ‘nothings risked’. Nothings, however, are still risked into nothing, into a risking of nothings.
Ludwig Wittgenstein writes Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a Non-Sense of Lie-Logic. Wittgenstein writes 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.” One must be nothing. Be nothing but silent. Be nothing being silence. Be nothing as silence. For silence happens. For nothing happens. Nothing is happening. Silence is nothing happening.
The trash Tractatus silences Sensationism and does not Speak or Sensation seeing Logic as Nonsensical since Wittgenstein’s sentences seep no known Sensationism so sowing language without leakages, sentences without stains, words without waste. Where one cannot speak, thereof one must mediate sensations. 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 – as nothing is accidental – the nothing is an accident happening – waiting to happen – as the nothing activates accidents.
The world is the totality of things – thrown things – the totality of sensations – the world divides into sensations – the world is determined by the mediations of sensations – the totality of mediations-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 of mind mediations) are actual material mediated forms of Sensationings of the Nothing There that is the time-being of mediations-sensations being-time. The Black Hole ‘sucking-in’ is the ‘gravitational-pulling’ of mediating-sensationing coming-to-nothing nonexistential nocturnally nourishes nonintrusive nonstick nonabrasive nontrivial nostalgia noteworthy noshing notorious noxious noisette nostrums nonintimidating nonplussed nonhuman nonhazardous nomads.
Ba-Pef Self-Portrait A.V.E 2011Ba-Pef Self-Portrait A.V.E 2011
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 soil 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 leakic 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 – yet logic is the dread of: the leak. Yet you are leaking all the time yet you are leaking all the being, time leaking out of your being, being leaking out of you time; you soak up your leaks, you mop up your leaks; you lick up your 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 a ‘nothing’ at all in our experience – is a 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 spent: – 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 – Abimaging the Nothing – pulverising the Picture – thrown thoth through shuddering shimmering shining sensationing: Brazen Blanchot brags: “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. The full-nothingness of the heavy image weighs down on your light empty-nothings crushing you who lack the image to be heavy as you are only a representation of only a human; a human that keeps on apologizing for its own lousy rotten stinking existence by moaning that it is: ‘only human’.
Nothing has no Sensation which is why we fear Nothing above All Things for Nothing as an absolute Absences abysmally announces an absolute abjecting-jettisoning of every Sensation abjecting Sensations into Nothing that is the No Sensation as the Infinite Instead of the Nothing not There for the There is the Where of the Sensation and the When of Sensation but the Nothing has no There as the Not There and the Not Time and the Not Being that is the Not Sensation which is why the Nothing is always much more Dreaded than Death which is never Nothing because Death is still There as with our being-dead being-there where-there the Dead Dasein are always amongst the Living Dasein if only we Care to Attune to Them There Dead Dasein who are Not Nothing. The Dead Dasein must not be Confused with the Nothing not There for They are There. Rather: it is very often the Living Daseins who are often the Absent Ones. It is Nothing that cannot have Dasein. The Nothing is the Not There and Today there are millions of the They and millions of the Them that are not: There – but should be there – well, at least, in theory – but are not; what is so unsettlingly unusual is that these they, those them, that are definitely not there are everywhere definitely not there; and you we see they them then there-every-where not being there any where.
Min, Lord of the Processions, God of the High Plumes (Self-Portrait) A.V.E 2022
Sensation – as The Being Time of The Nothing – is the thrown Pure Experience par excellence: ‘signification’ or ‘conception’ is always already added after an Event of thrown Pure Sensation: only our ontic-psychic and social and psychic conditioning sutures significance to sensation but robs it of its brute and pure sensationistic impact: when an infant smells, sees or even eats ‘its’ own excrement none of its seven senses tell ‘it’ that it is supposedly so repellent and repugnant. Through cultural signification and suturing, the smell sensation of Chanel No.5 is smelt as ‘acceptable’ or ‘good’ and the smell sensation of shit is smelt as ‘not ice’ as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘disgusting’: Only our ontic-psychic social-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 shit sein stuffs-things that mind mediates different daseins of smells from shit to scent but they say that there are some of these-those they-then then that are into shit and love to smell shit and love to eat shit love to tongue turds for remember that they are only human hushedly humiliate humidifying hunchbacked hucksters hurting humungous hunchback hussy hurling hugged humming humbled husky hunker hubris hungriness humdrum hustings hushaby huffiness.
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. A Sensation of The Nothing leaks outside the nothing of Logic. Nietzsche on Nihilism contra Logic: “Nihilism does not 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, stenchy, scabby, scarly, slithery, soily, oily, ointly, oozy, offally, greasy, gritty, grimy, grubby, groiny, gooey, danky, dampy, dirty, dewy, juicy, jelly, jerky, meaty, musty, moistly, moody, milky, misty, minty, murky, muddy munchkin mundanely muddle murdering murky mudslinger mutilation muteness mutualised musculature musicality mushy multigrain mutinousness musketeer mummification mutilations muff muckraking.
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 so 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. This 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 Abconscious has no Logic or Time. The Abconscious is Being without Logic and Time. The Abconscious Mind mediates the Sensations of Nothings: sesnationingnonlogicsesnationingnonnarrativesesnationingnonmeanningsesnationingbeinginitselfforitselfoutsideofnarrativeoutsideofmeaningingoutsideoflogicoutsideofmakinganylogicalsenseatall.
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 as 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’ since 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 the 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. Our Being is not a product of Our Thoughtness but Sensation of Our Throwness. Being has no Intellect. Being has no Consciousness. Being has no Time. Being has no Thought. Being minds. Being is mediation. Being is Sensation. Being is Alien. Beingalienmindmediationsensationing. Being has no Language to speak so One cannot have access to Being through Language so only once One gives up Language will One then come to Being which exists Outside of the Text.
Charcoal Self-Portrait 1981 Alexander Verney-Elliott
The question: “What calls for sensationing” asks for what mediation wants to be sensationed about in a 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 clearing to being towards Sensation as Beingsensation being our Sensation being sensations breeding sensationing willing sensations as our will-to-sensation that is immediately mediated mindfully: my mind mediates serial sensationing so sensations are always meaningless without our mindful mediation mediated out of mind for minding is mediating sensationing without meaning because minding does not need that ‘brain lack’ which is meaning which is what braining lacks and is in needing of as braining is for our making of meaning.
Our thinking blocks off and out Our ereignis-experiences senessence-sensationing: thought severs pure sensation thought enframes pure sensation thought negates pure sensations 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 and 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 dirty-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 for-ever flushed all-away and aborted-abroad as a shat sensation as a shit sensation mediated mindfully as appallingly serene stench scent stink-there to be not there abjected away still smelling sweet minding as shitting does not mind the smelling of the shitting smelling that thinking thinks smells bad as thinking is not sensationing the shit-in-itself as it is but thinks it as smelling bad.
Authenticalienart arrivesat SensationBeingNow. BeingtowardsDeath is BeingtowardsbecomingSensation: Being-Out-of-Body Sensations sow the Sensation of Light, Sensation of Love as Minding the Mediation of Sensations. 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 a 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 After Life always invokes Differences of Sensations. 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. Our Being Be-headed is Thinking thrown Ahead of be-ing Human be-coming Alien aborted ahead of Thinking Being that was the Human Condition lacking being Alien lacking being authentic being-alien that was our primal Being before being Human. Sensationing was the before of the human, whilst thinking was the after of the human, that only thought of the human after thinking had ended ‘sensationing’ the alien auraian.
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. A 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 a 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 mediated in mind for the sake of sensation for the mind is solely for the sake of sensationing being without thinking being ‘done’ since ‘thinking being’ did damage to the human that was ‘done in’ by thought.
Always Already Being Dead Self Portrait A.V.E. May 2023
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 There 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. Our Dasein drools sensations. What is there is sensation being-there mediated by the mind-being-out-of-it-there for my mind is mindful of being infinitely there whilst my brain is brainful of being finitely there; and the sensationing of my minding is radically different to the sensationing of my ‘braining’.
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 abArt 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 sensations of being without time arrives and beheads beings 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 beings for this being-alone 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 Sensations: Being Knowing no time exists. Being has no time. Sensation has no time. Mediation has no time. Mind has no time. Space has no time. But time makes mind come to the time by our becoming time-being-for-mind-mediating-sensations for our-being-embodied-mediations: but our-braining-mediates-minding-sensationing-in-itself-for-itself despite being mindless; for the brainful is the mindless in giving our mind an open space for mediation to sensation: mindfully.
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 decapitated différance – ahead – as a head – headed floating forward – forging forever fort-da darling dasein dice – 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 as a 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 out 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 our being Velázquez and Rembrandt serve sein self-portraiture projected-forth for the being-time as being a time sensationing the being of time sensationing the time of being mediated by paint-there as time-there being-there. But the being of time is only for the time of time being for the time being of being-time for there comes a time – in time – when there is no-time-there without time being there. True Dasein is being-without-time-being-there. Time is inauthentic Dasein. Ontological time is not Dasein. Ontological time is: the ‘timelessness’ experienced ‘abaesthetically’ amongst ‘abartworks’ out-side-of-ontic-time existing, everblooming, expelled as an abjected dread Dasein.
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-times 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 sensations of time are always already so 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 times to come to being without time – for a true being is being without time for all time without time at all and being all; but our being without time is our unconsciousness of being-out-of-mind of being-out-of-body where being is being-in-itself-for-itself-without-time-itself where we are a being there without time. Velázquez and Rembrandt always come across as being far more contemporary than ‘contemporary art’ always far more-modern than ‘contemporary art’ always far-ahead of ‘contemporary art’ always making contemporary art look ‘out-of-date’ and drearily dated: Velázquez and Rembrandt poignantly-pulsate the ever-present of the being-now whilst contrived ‘contemporary art’ never comes across as contemporary at 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 now-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 now-time throws thrusts ahead a head of an attuned absolute abart-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 now-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 abimage. For Velázquez and Rembrandt Being & Paint present dasein time as a time adrift and ahead attuned and attained as a moving mooding moment where a mood makes a time as severed sensations of time as 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 or to be thrown out of: dread derails disperses decapitates the time from the time-history of the subject. Dread takes the Time out of the Subject: Dread – Anxiety – Boredom – the true-sensations of being-thrown-out-of-time – sever and suspend the now-subject freed 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 thus 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 Frozen as a Fort Da da-seining 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 times remembered time as time lost as time at an end and one day time will have come to an end even where without when being will still be here being there as being without time here becoming nothing for now. Velázquez and Rembrandt remind you that your ‘time is up’, that your time has now come, that your time has now gone; that you are ‘now’ out of time.
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 Sensations – There Sensations – Dasein Sensations – Mediating Sensations.
Ontology of Mind
Angoisse-Amun Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2006
"Valery, celebrating this infinite quality which the work enjoys, still sees only its least problematic aspect. That the work is infinite means, for him, that the artist, though unable to finish it, can nevertheless make it the delimited site of an endless task whose incompleteness develops the mastery of the mind, expresses this mastery, expresses it by developing it in the form of power. The infinite nature of the work, seen thus, is just the mind’s infiniteness. The mind wants to fulfill itself in a single work, instead of realizing itself in an infinity of works and in history’s ongoing movement."
Maurice Blanchot, The Essential Solitude; The Space of Literature, University of Nebraska Press: 1982
"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 human mind is both true and a mirage: it is true because nothing is exempt from the dominance which it has brought into pure form; it is untrue because, interlocked with dominance, it is anything but the mind it believes and claims to be. A mind that is to be a totality is nonsense. If we conceive the mind as a totality, eliminating every difference from the otherness it is to live by, according to Hegel, the mind turns for a second time into the nothingness which at the outset of dialectical logic is to reveal pure Being: the total spirit would evaporate in mere entity. At the time he wrote Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel would hardly have hesitated to designate the concept of the mind as self-transmitted, as both mind and not mind; he would not have followed up by casting off the chains of absolute identity."
Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, 1966
"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
"It is natural for great minds — the true teachers of humanity — to care little about the constant company of others; just as little as the schoolmaster cares for joining in the gambols of the noisy crowd of boys which surround him. The mission of these great minds is to guide mankind over the sea of error to the haven of truth — to draw it forth from the dark abysses of a barbarous vulgarity up into the light of culture and refinement. Men of great intellect live in the world without really belonging to it; and so, from their earliest years, they feel that there is a perceptible difference between them and other people. But it is only gradually, with the lapse of years, that they come to a clear understanding of their position. Their intellectual isolation is then reinforced by actual seclusion in their manner of life; they let no one approach who is not in some degree emancipated from the prevailing vulgarity. To be alone is the fate of all great minds — a fate deplored at times, but still always chosen as the less grievous of two evils."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Our Relation to Ourselves; Counsels & Maxims, 1851
"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 a way, nothing is more obvious than that philosophers of mind could profit from knowing at least something of what there is to know about how the brain works. After all, one might say, how could the empirical facts about the nervous system fail to be relevant to studies in the philosophy of mind. But there are interesting rejoinders to this. For example, it may be argued, as dualists do argue, that the mind is a separate and distinct entity from the brain, so that information about the brain will not tell us much about the mind. Or it may be argued that even if materialism is true, the properties characteristic of mental states are emergent with respect to brain states, or perhaps that neuroscientific findings are too fine grained to be pertinent to large-scale questions, or that neuroscience is methodologically confined to structural theories whereas what philosophers and psychologists (top-downish ones anyway) seek are functional characterizations of mental processes. These are some reasons for looking askance at neuroscience. I think each of them is wrong, though none is obviously or trivially wrong. At the same time, however, it has also seemed obvious that neuro-scientists could profit from the philosophical research that has gone into answering the following questions: What sort of business is reduction? What conditions should be satisfied in order that identifications of phenomena can be made? How are we to understand in a general way what representing is? How are we to assess the prospects for a unified account of mind-brain function?"
Patricia Churchland, Neurophilosophy – Toward a United Science of the Mind/Brain, The MIT Press: 1986
The 'other' beginning of thinking is named thus, not because it is simply shaped differently from any other arbitrarily chosen hitherto existing philosophies, but rather because it must be the only other beginning according to the relation to the one and only first beginning. The style of thoughtful mindfulness in the crossing from one beginning to the other is also already determined by the allotment of the one beginning to the other beginning. Thinking in the crossing accomplishes the grounding projecting-open of the truth of be-ing as historical mindfulness. Mindfulness is inquiring into (cf. Being and Time), i.e., into the truth of be-ing. Inquiring into the truth is leaping into its essential sway and thus into be-ing itself. Because philosophy is such a mindfulness, it leaps ahead into the utmost possible decision and by its [own] opening dominates in advance all sheltering of the truth in and as beings. But because mindfulness is self-mindfulness and thus along with it we are moved into the question of who we are and because our being is historical — especially one that has come over us in its having-been — mindfulness becomes necessarily the question concerning the truth of the history of philosophy and mindfulness of philosophy's all-surpassing first beginning and its unfolding into the end. A mindfulness of what transpires today is always too short-sighted. What is essential is mindfulness of the beginning as it anticipates its end and still includes 'today' as the extension of the end — and this in such a manner that what is today becomes being-historically manifest only from the beginning."
Martin Heidegger, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), 1936―1938
"In Neurophilosophy I made the point that if you want to understand the mind, you need to understand the brain. In his review of my recent book Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain, Colin McGinn gibbles up this simple message [NYR, April 24]. Here is the thing: there is a difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Oxygen is a necessary condition for burning wood; it is not a sufficient condition. Sufficiency requires much else besides, including bringing the wood to a kindling point, and so forth. When I said it is necessary to understand the brain in order to understand the mind, I am talking about a necessary condition. I am not talking about a sufficient condition. Nevertheless, there are nostalgic philosophers who whinge on about saving the purity of the discipline from philosophers like me and Chris Eliasmith and Owen Flanagan and Dan Dennett. What do the purists, like McGinn, object to? It is that their lovely a priori discipline, where they just talk to each other and maybe cobble together a thought experiment or two, is being sullied by… data. Their sterile construal of philosophy is not one that would be recognized by the great philosophers in the tradition, such as Aristotle or Hume or Kant. Gaps in our knowledge of the brain certainly exist, but undeniably, progress has been made. Some philosophers have elevated their favourite gap in neuroscience to the ontological status of an object, like the Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy, and hence they refer reverentially to the Explanatory Gap. Bosh. There are knowledge gaps all over the place, and slowly, many are closing as science proceeds."
Patricia Churchland, Of Brains & Minds: An Exchange - Patricia Churchland reply to Colin McGinn, The New York Review of Books, June 19, 2014
"Cioran’s subject: on being a mind, a consciousness tuned to the highest pitch of refinement. The final justification of his writings, if one may guess at it: something close to the thesis given its classical statement in Kleist’s “On the Pup-pet Theatre.” In that essay Kleist says that, however much we may long to repair the disorders in the natural harmony of man created by consciousness, this is not to be accomplished by a surrender of consciousness. There is no return, no going back to innocence. We have no choice but to go to the end of thought, there ( perhaps), in total self-consciousness, to re-cover grace and innocence. In Cioran’s writings, therefore, the mind is a voyeur. But not upon “the world.” Upon itself. Cioran is, to a degree reminiscent of Beckett, concerned with the absolute integrity of thought. That is, with the reduction or circumscription of thought to thinking about thinking. “The only free mind,” Cioran remarks, “is the one that, pure of all intimacy with bring or objects, plies its own vacuity.” Yet, throughout, this act of mental disembowelment retains its ‘Faustian” or “Western” passionateness. Cioran will allow no possibility that anyone born into this culture can attain—as a way out of the trap—an “Eastern” abnegation of mind. Philosophy becomes tortured thinking. Thinking that devours itself—and continues intact and even flourishes, in spite (or perhaps because) of these repeated acts of self-cannibalism. Cioran is one of the most delicate minds of real power writing today. Nuance, irony, and refinement are the essence of his thinking. Yet he declares in the essay “On a Winded Civilization”: “Men’s minds need a simple truth, an answer which delivers them from their questions, a gospel, a tomb. The moments of refinement conceal a death-principle: nothing is more fragile than subtlety.” A contradiction? Not exactly. It is only the familiar double standard of philosophy since its debacle: upholding one standard ( health) for the culture at large, another (spiritual ambition) for the solitary philosopher. The first standard demands what Nietzsche called the sacrifice of the intellect."
Susan Sontag, “Thinking Against Oneself”: Reflections on Cioran, 1967
In the beginning was the mind minding being and the beginning was minding beginning mind minding being being minding the human mind as 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 as 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 only know myself as being my mind by acknowledging my pathologies 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 a mindfulness which is the nothingness that the thoughtfulness thirsts to fill-forth with that-then necessarily-negates our mindfulness for mindfulness is thoughtlessness in having-no-thought-to-think only mind-to-be which is why being-mindful is not being-thoughtful
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 sea the Mind as a calm sea or as a still lake without a Wave without a Ripple for a Metaphor of Mind comes to Mind as being a calm sea and 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 as 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 as being clam is being without that needing of that flowing which is thoughting-thinking being thus to come to mind free from thought is to be mind without thinking as a being calming where concentration of mind is 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 all mind
Nothing is on your mind Nothing is in your mind I cannot have anything on my mind I cannot have anything in my mind as Minding is in Nothing as Thinking is in Something and thinking is absolutely antithetical to minding yet I think in order to know as 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 this 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 our making that 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 temporaling-dasein 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 moist being nothing but water which is why we wet are always leaking
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 not Think as to Mind is to know without Thought as a knowing-mooding of being-here 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 knowing without thinking-a-thought which is why our Mind is antithetical to Logic for the Mind is Ontological and not Logical for why 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 as 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 them 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 logbook 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 this socio-pathology of nazi-logico-fascism
Minding as all Knowing does not need to Think in order to Know for all 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 for painters and sculptors who mind what they do without the ruination of thought for to think whilst painting or sculpting is to ruin the work in mind for 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 a painter or sculptor necessarily need to refuse to think logically for thinking logically is alien to aesthetics
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 Being 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 fastuous 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 than the Logic of Auschwitz which was the Logical Outcome of Nazi Logic that 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 needing nothing of Logic that is Lack always lacking Mind for the Logical Ones are these Non-Ontological-Ones as theose 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 infinity 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 thus 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 that 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 thus 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 a 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 sensation so many of those they or these them that are the not there despite having a body on for there is no mind there therefore there is no dasein and no dasein 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 as 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 this 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 no-bodies 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 thus 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 as there is no image of mind so 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 nearest sensation of mind materialised since the materiality of mind is manifest in music and in art and thus 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 cliché that art or music are timeless is a timeless truth for mind is the very timelessness that is the very dasein of art or music that operate outside time
As mind I have no concept of time for as mind not being time then I have no concept of mind as mind is non-conceptual just as art and music are necessarily non-conceptual as art or 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 athusnon-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 a conscious conceptualization
Art and music mediate the origin of mind through mediation on mind as mind as mediating immediacy of mind presence as fullmindedness 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 for mind operates outside of consciousness or subconsciousness or unconsciousness yet there 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 since consciousness and mind are two entirely different economies of da-sein 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 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 as 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 all seek out a passivity and a nothing in order to maintain that orders of all these passives and of all these 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 more mentally abominable 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 aberrant
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 silencings 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 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 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 my 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 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 the 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 here even if you imagine you are here because there is this body-there that you say is you and 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 dasein 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-here can exist without being-there without the 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 as 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 orating 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 as 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 an 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 so we must never use a 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 as you having language mainly means you having no mind whatsoever whilst all of 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 lacking which is their nothings-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 as you Thought that was your mind you 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 that 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 or anti-intellectual work being the work of mind albeit 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 a 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 an 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 yet 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 or 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 thus 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 real-thing 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 orbiting 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 thus try to erase the Real through the petty-bourgeois navigating niceties of deconstruction and psychoanalysis which are conspiratorial 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 aseptic-realms 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 or 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 for 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-times 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 that 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 which 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-freed 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-sides 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 or imagination that were invented in order to try to negate mind altogether and thus the origins of art and music were initiated from our being totally bored doing nothing thus boredom is peculiarly and paradoxically the origin of art and music and thus art and music are our oblivious-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 that 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 and set-free from being-bored failing to realise that in being set-free from being-bored you will no longer be-free to-be as to-be means being-bored as 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 as 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-in-to-any-more
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 that attempt to-escape and break-out outside 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 since there is no free-time given to write-on-the-inside for writing-comes only from being-on-the-outside and yet being-on-the-inside is where writing wins its freedom to bring its own time to our being-writing and the one-writing inside is writing in their own time for to write with your inside-hand is to have-time-on-your-hands to free yourself from your-time-inside
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 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 there-being of being-bored for what is there is bored for the there is the bore the there-bore the bore-there as 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 as waiting is the time of boredom as the boredom of time waiting upon us to come to wait upon being-bored being-time as 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 and yet we are usually so 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 nothing-there that is time-there that is mind-there that is being-there being-bored-there
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 a sensation of time as being-dense and this is a true being of time the true sensation of time as closely compacted in substance and yet they still do not know that the originary-ontological state of being-mind is being-thick or that the originary-ontological state of being-time is being-thick so ironically so 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 as 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 as the pathology of mind is in its thick-thickness without consciousness as 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 that 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 a pure-presence only ever comes when one is absent in being-bored as pure-presence of an abjected-absencing so it is our actual 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 as 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 these 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 as 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 their intellectual incubation and incarceration
Mind being a temporal-manifold means time is a manifold of mind as 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 as 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-moods 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 for 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 as 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 standing-still where-when the nothing-happened for in the beginning there was boredom and nothing but boredom so 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 here 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-mindednesses 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 as 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 mob-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 and 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 and 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 as our knowing can only ever really come about via experiencing as 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 times 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 a-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 this horizon of times and what is one is time and time means mind in 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 an 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 analist-academia that attains and attunes to annihilate a minding
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 psycho-pathology 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 as 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 thus 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 times 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 so thus it is the intellectual who does not know how to do time does not know how to do mind as 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 as 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 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 as 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 as sensation has no logic only leakic for there is no logic of sensation only a leakic of sensation for sensationing 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-matters 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 as 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 all 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 that real-there which is the mind-there as mind-in-itself-for-itself orbiting-outside of Thought for 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 as 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 thus 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 that time of your primordial-thereing as appropriating of your-there that you recognise as your own which is having a mind of your own thus appropriating mind is minding appropriation as an assigned site-sight of my mind-there that is mine-there so appropriation is this 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 that 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 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 old establishment that such servile intellectuals disingenuously pretend to be opposing and critiquing and thus deconstruction is abused academically by deranged and delusional intellectuals who always already remain at that 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 in doing of minding without the need for thinking as thinking was the need to negate the nothing that was minding without thinking but thinking could not cope with minding nothing 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 our 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 mediates bodily sensations as body mediates mind embodiing 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 yet we are not meat as such as stuff rather we are flesh-mind that mediates in meat bleeding-wounding sensationing-embodying experiencing-expressing mind mediated in meat
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 a 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 deadful demeanour to come across and be present with because it is paradoxically or more sinisterly a presence-without-being-present so we must reiterate this is a dreadful demeanour to come across as it is a deadonic-demeanour of exogenous-evil embodying a disembodied-mindlessness of a reactionary-resentment desperate to be a mind even if it is taught not to have a mind-all-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 the thinking was the instead of this minding as that afterthought of this 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 as thinking is an accident of the mind wandering off out of itself as a splinter of mind as a shard of mind that was an-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 as 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 or closed bodied to this exogenous experience of being-out-of-body that the mind often 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-here
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 that 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-here
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 an 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 they 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 minds
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 and 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 as it is the projected-imaginary body of an 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-presenceing
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 thus you only have to fuck-some-one or have some-one fuck-you to sensation if some-body is being-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 creepily 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 any 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 as our 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 abstrusely 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 as mind is seeing and not thinking as minding is looking instead of thinking as we have not only forgotten being and minding but also seeing and looking as 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 as 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 a 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 video-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 a body there is seen as evidential proof of a 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 there
Ghosts are material-beings that are sensed by the extra-empirical radical-vision of our ocularontology that is necessarily non-visual and so 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 since 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 extra-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 as 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 in 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 those 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 and very few humans that are being that are being there that are dasein which is why we must keep on reiterating and repeating that da-sein 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 or interpretative-hermeneutics is always already necessarily closed-minded being so against those 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 or anti-intellectual as 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 by having an open-mind to open-out being
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-blind doing-writing because they allow thinking to block their writing allowing thinking to do the writing which is not doing-writing as it is far too thought-out far too 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 Minded 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 as music is the silence of being speaking in 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 those 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 that 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 thus 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 a 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 the mind leaves the 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 that 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 a 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 our-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 the 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 and god-coming-off 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 or what body is that 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 as 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 so 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-at-all 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 thus 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 since 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 this 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 as 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 since 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 this 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 as 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 our 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 the 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-when we experience a primordial prelinguistic listening and a primordial prelinguistic seeing of our-being-mind-for-itself-in-itself free-from those conceptual construct constraints of odious 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 that 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 a 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 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 as 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 a 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
Minding is thicking so 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 thick thicket of thicking which is a minding-without-thinking
Minding without thinking is Instincting and instinct painting is 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 always know there is no knowledge of being know there is no knowledge of mind know there is no knowledge of love for love for mind for being optimalize outside of our knowledge
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 as 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 mindflesh full-jouissance of mind-made-flesh flesh-made-mind which is the dialectic of dasein as 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 since the intellectual cannot take to fucking-the-hole on-the-whole as a mind-fuck
I had this 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 as being-dead is being-nothing that 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 my mind that needs nothing of pain and pleasure which are the sensations of being-body not being-dead which is my 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 for mind being death being now knows nothing of our ontic-time so takes its time knowing 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 as a 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 that is always destined to die from birth in order to free the mind from being embodied within it for the test of mind is how the mind serves all its time of being embodied or how the mind minds the body or how the body minds the mind to embody the body minding the body for that time embodied
The brain thinks not minds yet the brain minds the mind but the mind is a no-brainer but the brain is a no-minder and when I am minding I am not thinking so when I am minding I am nothing so when I am thinking I am something so when I am minding is not something and minding is nothing that comes to mind and so when I am thinking nothing comes to mind but when I am minding nothing is and 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 or I cannot have anything on my mind or I cannot have anything in my mind as our Minding is the Nothing as Thinking is Something so thinking is antithetical to minding that nothing to do with thinking
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 as 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 as death is not nothing and nothing is not death and I body about death but I mind about the Nothing I cannot think the nothing only mind the nothing and the economy of thinking is lacking whist the economy of nothing is fulfilling as in thinking I know I am lacking being and yet in minding I know I am fulfilling-the-nothing-not-there and in being-all-mind-not-there I attain an absolute jouissance of non-knowledge in a minding-fulfilling-nothing and we have to attain absolute-non-knowledge-of-being-mind through the non-knowledge of minding not thinking for thinking is necessarily always about something since I cannot think nothing
When I am no longer thinking and conceptualising then I am being-all-mind being-all-the-nothing so 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 finite-brain imagines infinite-mind for the brain invented the mind for us to imagine infinity
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 nothings 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 as absolute-non-knowledge
Our non-knowledge attuned as a jettisoned-jouissance all anointed wet with words that cum to mind as mind cuming wet with words as what are words but semantic semen stains spurted out of our drying daseining being here soon not to be here 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 by refusing to be read through intellectual interpretation for real ruined words refuse reading being wording without needing meaning
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 skin 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 since 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 until I come to the brain that then minds my mind to begin with giving me sensation of mind and so now I have to bear it in mind that I bear all my mind bare by being brain to begin with knowing now that I can only know my mind by knowing my brain to begin with and so to be mindful is to be brainful by being brainfully aware that the mystery of the brain deconstructs the mystifications of mind for philosophers avoid the brain and negate the brain altogether separating brain from mind where the philosophy of mind is alien to the philosophy of brain yet only through neurophilosophy or neuroscience as the philosophy of brain can we start understanding the mind
Neuro Philosophy seeks to understand Philosophy of Mind as a Materiality of Brain through Neuro Science since Mind is often conceived and perceived as something simple as something clear as something so pure as something so empty whilst the Brain is incredibly complex with which we still know next to nothing but this next to nothing is still much more to what we know of the mind which we know nothing that constitutes our non-knowledge of being-mind so only through our knowledge of being-brain can we then begin to have a knowledge of being-mind for the philosophy of mind is mindless about mind because the philosophy of mind is brainless about brain for their conception of mind is so contractionist yet our conception of brain is so expansionist
Our conception of Brain is thus expansionist and infinite but in its infancy whilst our conception of Mind is thus contractionist and imploding into oblivion and whilst we mystify the Mind the Brain remains a mystery and science is this study of the mystery that seeks the clearing of the mists of mysteries for in being a mystery we are open-minded that is open-brained to explore the science of the brain as the philosophy of the brain for the philosophy of the mind is closed-minded in being both mindless and brainless to the philosophy of brain which is our science of mind founded through Neuro Science where the biology of the brain can bring new knowledge to the ontology of mind for ontology originates as biology for the ontological begins as the biological
I have an ontological intuition that knows my mind and my brain are utterly different entities or economies as the ontology of mind and the biology of brain do different things working with different modes of time one biological time the other ontological time so time of brain is utterly different to time of mind and here we have this tension and vibration between times between biological clock-time and an ontological subterranean-time that cannot be measured for you cannot tell the ontological time only biological time for we can measure clock-time as an aging body-time but we cannot measure our mind-time of ontological-time which is why when my biological-brain feels so heavy and so aged my ontological-mind always feels so light and thus timeless
My mind is confined to a peace of mind as a piece of time that is at peace with being a piece of mind in the peace of time knowing that the time of mind is not time of body that is the time of brain that keeps mind in time for the time of the body minding the mind as being brained branded as being of brain being of time existing for the time of mind as time of brain but mind being my mind and my time knows that the time of brain as the time of body is so utterly alien to the time of mind that is of another kind that knows no ontic-time for the mind is made of ontological-time that is of an utterly other stuff to the time of brain that is the time of body that does its own time whilst simultaneously giving a time and space for the time of mind to do its own mind time
What happens to the life of the mind and the life-time of being-mind when the body does its dirty thing and dies doing-the-body-in doing-the-mind in doing the mind out as being-out-of-it being-out-of-body out-of-mind-being-embodied as the mind has a materiality of immortality of which the body knows and it justly jealous of because the body knows in its own mind that the mind will survive its dasein demise for this-body being-ontic knows that the mind is ontological after all surviving a body after all but what we have still not as yet decided to declare is where the mind resides after our bodily demise for the life of the mind remains remaindered doing-its-mind-out-of-body as being-mind-in-itself still mediating still meditating still minding being-mind
Khaki Khnum: Beheaded-but-still-Alive Self-Portrait, A.V.E 2022
Being & Love
Osis Osiris (Roman Quintana) A.V.E July 2009
“Love aims at the Other.”
Emmanuel Levinas, (1906-1995)
“It is safer to be feared than loved.”
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
“Love forgives the beloved even his lust.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1882
“Love takes us where knowledge leaves off.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225—1274)
“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
“The way to love anything is to realise that it might be lost.”
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874—1936)
“A man doesn’t learn to understand anything unless he loves it.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749—1832)
“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
“Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.”
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875 – 1926)
“Love is only possible through the idea of the Infinite, through the Infinite placed in me.”
Emmanuel Levinas, God & Philosophy; The Idea of God, 1975
“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)
“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
“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)
“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 — 1992; with Francis Giacobetti; The Art Newspaper, June 2003
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“For often we do not know what we love, and we must wait to know, wait onthe 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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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 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 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 beings 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 thus 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 brool breeze that beams beings 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 as absent abeings do not beam-being-bright do not come-to-light do not come-to-love. Those which lack dasein thus lack light; for: ‘to shine light is to have dasein’: today the dark-ones are every-where-to-be-seen since today the dasein-ones are no-where-to-be-seen; as the light-ones are the fading-fast, as disappearing-daseins.
Love originates as Hate as a Hate of our being I without an Other I that also Hates its I for our Unconscious is our Hate and our Conscious is our Love as our Abconscious Hates our Conscious I that conceals its immersed Unconscious Hate for Abconscious Hate originates our Conscious Love and so I love You because I hate you. Hate is without love out of love as hate is for the love that love cannot hate making hate love hate. Hate heats Love yet Hate and Love are each distinct economies of fire that generate a specific type of ‘ontological-heat’ (or an aura) that is necessarily non-biological yet mediated through the body for our time-being of our being-embodied.
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 a 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 thus ‘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 as 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 as Metaphysics and Man are at an End as Man and Metaphysics cannot come to Love; whereas Woman and Philosophy can come to Love. By being Human, Man is at an End. By being Alien, Woman is yet to Begin. Woman will outlive Man. Women will be: ‘The last Aliens left on Earth’ and will: ‘All be Antinatalists’, knowing very well that they have to: Put an End to Man, to ‘End the Human’.
Surreptitious-Serapis Self-Portrait A.V. E. 2013
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 Withs of There of beings-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 as being-with-the-with the two become the one for what is with is one-being-one not being-two as what is with is one-with which is where as when we are one-being-in-love-as-one. We are all one of nothing where one and nothing are one where we are one zero as one love one nothing being one: thus the one is always the none with the one where none adds are t one for we are the none ones that only ever add up to one as none; for there is nothing after one for there is nothing before one; and being-death is this-that nothing-before-one: as one-before-nothing, as one-after-nothing, as being-one-with-the-nothing: which is: being-one-with-the-nothing-one; and thus: being-death is this nothing-one.
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 beings 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 because 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 and so abeings will always prefer to be in dead than in love for love is this impossibility of death. Love is the impossibility of Death as being-in-love is being-in-infinity ahead of life ahead of death as our abdeath; to ‘fall-in-love’ is: to ‘fall-in-death’; for ‘being-in-love’ is: ‘being-in-death’; and thus for those of us that have ‘been-in-love’ now know exactly what it was like to have ‘been-in-death’.
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-here where being-in-love is being-in-time-together-there for ‘to-be-in-time’ is: ‘to-be-in-love’. Abeings without Dasein: every-where, no-where, every-here; no-here: not being there, not being where.
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 a Love cannot Die because Death cannot Die.
Loving to Presence is the Essence of Being and a Time 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 as 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 Your 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 a 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 a 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 endures 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 dasein.
Khaki-Khepri Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2012
Being & Mask
Maurice Blanchot cradling the white mask of “l’Inconnue de la Seine”
“A mask tells us more than a face.”
Oscar Wilde, Intentions, 1891
“Might as well carry a purse with that mask, Joe.”
Tomi Lahren, Twitter, 6 October 2020
“I made a lot of predictions that came through about this pandemic but masks being politicized is just amazing to me.”
Michael Bowen, Totally Under Control, 2020
“We know that the mask of the unconscious is not rigid—it reflects the face we turn towards it. Hostility lends it a threatening aspect, friendliness softens its features.”
Carl Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, 1944Dr.
“The mask seems to represent what side of the political aisle that you’re on and some how showing up without a mask on in close proximity with others says that I support the president. That is dangerous. People have died because of the misinformation. I have absolutely no doubt about that.”
Taison Bell, Totally Under Control, 2020
“We owe the great style of architecture in Asia and Egypt to astrology and its ‘supernatural’ claims. It seems that all great things, in order to inscribe eternal demands in the heart of humanity, must first wander the earth under monstrous and terrifying masks; dogmatic philosophy was this sort of a mask: the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, for example, or Platonism in Europe.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886
“We can save tens of thousands of lives if everyone would just wear a mask for the next few months. So please, I implore you, wear a mask. Do it for yourself. Do it for your neighbour. A mask is not a political statement, but it is a good way to start pulling the country together. I want to be very clear: The goal of mask wearing is not to make your life less comfortable, or to take something away from you. It is to give something back to all of us, a normal life
President Elect Joe Biden, Wilmington, Delaware, 9 November, 2020
“The necessity of being masked throws its shadow on the meaning of a work: No thoughts that go into a work can convey the truth itself. The lack of authenticity in everything determinate results in the ambiguity of the authentic; incommunicability produces the loneliness that hides behind masks. The work of a thinker who has allowed this boundary-experience to permeate his very being is identifiable, as it were, by stigmata.”
Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche: An Introduction to the Understanding of His Philosophical Activity, Johns Hopkins University Press: 1997
“It is a fact that all mankind wears or has worn a mask. This enigmatic accessory, with no obvious utility, is commoner than the lever, the bow, the harpoon or the plough. Whole peoples have been ignorant of the most ordinary tools. They knew the mask. Complete civilizations, some of them most remarkable, have prospered without having conceived the idea of the wheel or, what is worse, without using it even though it was known to them. But they were familiar with the mask. There is no tool, no invention, no belief, custom or institution which unites mankind so much as does the habit of wearing a mask.”
Roger Caillois, The Mask of Medusa, Victor Gollancz: 1964
“The masks make terrible and unyielding demands ... The mask is not makeup. It is not a nonentity. Everything is at its service. If you use it wrong it will denounce you right away. You are the one to yield to the mask, it will never yield. So you have to respect it, love it. If not, it is as though you don’t recognize that these masks have a history, past, a divinity. Instead of wishing to rise toward them, you bring the masks down toward you, you make them banal. You have to make a journey toward them. You do not use a mask in any which way. You do not use just any mask, either. Our relationship to the mask is one of magnanimity.”
Ariane Mnouchkine, Mask and Countermasks; Mask Improvisation, Sears A. Eldredge, Northwestern University Press: 1996
“The fact was that I had observed for too long a time now the desolating, the rigid mask, that this same practice had given to Aunty Loo’s own face. I had seen how she did indeed literally ‘set’ her facial expression officially at breakfast-time (just as she daily set the dining-room mantelpiece clock) to a supposedly bright cheerfulness, thereby making that countenance, on which there was already stamped a most pitiable, barren desolation, into a truly soul-freezing artificially cheery mask. A dutiful mask expressing the same changeless attitude to all things and all comers for the next fifteen daylight hours, right up until that moment when the final good-nights should have been said.”
Julia Strachey, JULIA — A Portrait of Julia Strachey by Herself & Frances Partridge, Victor Gollancz: 1983
“So how can anti-masker agitation still be a major factor impeding America’s ability to cope with this pandemic? You sometimes see people suggesting that wearing face masks is somehow inconsistent with America’s individualistic culture. And if that were true it would be a condemnation of that culture. After all, there’s something very wrong with any definition of freedom that includes the right to gratuitously expose other people to the risk of disease and death — which is what refusing to wear a mask in a pandemic amounts to. In short, anti-mask agitation isn’t really about freedom, or individualism, or culture. It’s a declaration of political allegiance, driven by Trump and his allies.”
Paul Krugman, What Is It With Trump and Face Masks?, Opinion, The New York Times, September 17, 2020
“Whatever is profound loves masks; what is most profound even hates image and parable. Might not nothing less than the opposite be the proper disguise for the shame of a god? A questionable question: it would be odd if some mystic had not risked something to that effect in his mind. There are occurrences of such a delicate nature that one does well to cover them up with some rudeness to conceal them; there are actions of love and extravagant generosity after which nothing is more advisable than to take a stick and give any eye witness a sound thrashing: that would muddle his memory. Some know how to muddle and abuse their own memory in order to have their revenge at least against this only witness: shame is inventive.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886
“Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself; I have seen men who played hide and seek so long that at last madness through them obtruded disgustingly upon others, their secret thoughts, which hitherto they had proudly concealed. Or can you think of anything more frightful than that you thus would have lost the inmost and holiest thing of all in a man, the unifying power of personality? Truly, you should not jest with that which is not only serious but dreadful.”
Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Volume One, 1843
“On any given day, somewhere in the United States, someone is going to wake up, leave the house and get in a huge argument with a stranger about wearing masks. Public fights over masks have occurred with extraordinary frequency, service workers say, and far exceed the large number of those already captured by smartphones in viral videos. Confrontations are taking place even in states that have been more consistent in guidance about masks. The conflicts over masks have been particularly difficult for essential workers, who have been working long shifts and dealing with frazzled and frenzied customers throughout the pandemic. Orders regarding masks that carry the force of law have been left to individual states. And in states where altercations over masks have been reported, those orders have recently changed.”
Jonah Engel Bromwich, Fighting Over Masks in Public Is the New American Pastime, The New York Times, June 30, 2020
“I have thus demonstrated that beings as different in appearance as the Salish Swaihwe and the Kwakiutl Dzonokwa, which no one would have dreamed of comparing, cannot be interpreted each for itself and considered in isolation. They are parts of a system within which they transform each other. As in the case with myths, masks (with their origin myths and the rites in which they appear) become intelligible only through the relationships which unite them. The white colour of the Swaihwe trimmings, the black colour of the Dzonokwa mask, the protruding eyes of the one versus the concave eyes of the other, the lolling tongue and the pursed mouth, all these traits mean less in and of themselves than they do as, one might say, discritical signs. The attribution of each feature to this or that supernatural being is a function of the way in which, within a pantheon, these beings are opposed to each other in order to assume complementary roles.”
Claude Levi-Strauss, The Way of the Masks, Editions Albert Skira: Geneva, 1975
“All living beings are in the open, they show themselves and communicate to each other, but only man has a face, only man makes his appearance and his communication to other men his own fundamental experience, only the man makes the face the place of his own truth. the face is the very condition of politics, that in which everything that men say and exchange is founded. The face is in this sense the real city of men, the political element par excellence. It is by looking in the face that men recognize each other and are passionate about each other, perceive similarity and diversity, distance and proximity. A country that decides to give up its own face, to cover the faces of its citizens with masks everywhere is, then, a country that has erased all political dimensions from itself. In this empty space, subjected at every moment to limitless control, now move individuals isolated from each other, who have lost the immediate and sensitive foundation of their community and can only exchange messages directed to a name without a face.”
Giorgio Agamben, The Face and The Mask, 8 October, 2020
“In the last few weeks, Trump and his supporters’ attempts to project masculine strength and dominance have reached literally toxic levels. Much of the projections of the president’s manliness is tied up in the idea that he doesn’t need a mask because he is tough. “I don’t wear masks like him,” Trump said dismissively at the September 29 debate against Joe Biden. “Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from them and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.” Earlier this week, he taunted House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi by tweeting, “Wear your mask in the ‘beauty’ parlour, Nancy!” To untangle the political and gender dynamics of Trump’s blustery response to the coronavirus and his own infection I spoke with Christina Wolbrecht, a Notre Dame political science professor who coedits the journal Politics & Gender. We’ve all seen examples of “masculine” masks in pop culture—superhero movies, comics, westerns. Why are masks gendered as tough and masculine there, and as feminine in the context of this pandemic? I don’t know if you’ve seen the more “manly” masks that are out there—the Punisher masks among them. What do they tell us about the dynamics at play here?”
Madison Pauly, The War on Masks is a Cover-up for Toxic Masculinity, Mother Jones, October 8, 20202
“I would put those in the same category as the masks that match my shoes. The political theorist Judith Butler is famous for, among other things, describing gender as performative—that the way in which we present ourselves, walk, talk, dress, the accessories we wear, all of it is consciously or subconsciously a way that we express our identity. This is central to our understandings of politics as well. Tomi Lahren, the conservative commentator, made a joke on Twitter about how Joe Biden should just get a purse to go with his mask. Being called a girl is about as unmasculine as you possibly can be. Why do some people wear masks and others don’t? One predictor is your partisanship. We know in general that Democrats, at least up to recently, have been more likely to wear masks than Republicans. We know there’s some differences in terms of age. It turns out that another thing that explains the difference is gender identity, or the extent to which you hold sexist views. In our culture, traditional masculinity is understood as strength, vigor, and health—as not being dependent upon other people. And so to act ill, to be seen as weak, is seen as feminine. If you value masculinity, you want to move away from anything that associates you with weakness.”
Christina Wolbrecht, The War on Masks is a Cover-up for Toxic Masculinity, Mother Jones, October 8, 2020
“Nietzsche developed the phantasm of the mask from this same motif (of unconscious dissimulation and the conscious simulacrum o f the authentic). The mask is not only a metaphor o f universal importance, but something to which Nietzsche had recourse in his own behaviour toward his contemporaries. The mask hides the absence of a determinate physiognomy, it parallels his relationship with the unforeseeable and unfathomable Chaos. But the mask is nonetheless an emergence from Chaos — the limit-point where necessity and chance confront each other, where the arbitrary and the ‘just’ coincide. The mask, which forms a determined physiognomy all the same, even when it hides its absence, belongs to external interpretation, but corresponds to an internal desire of suggestion. Even more, it reveals that the person who appears to wear the mask must also have decided on such-and-such a face with regard to ‘himself’. But — and this is the process he was pursuing, or that Chaos was pursuing through him — Nietzsche would treat his ow n necessary ego as a mask (what he has become in order to be such-and-such an ego). Just as the mask hides the absence of a determinate physiognomy—and thus conceals Chaos, the richness of Chaos—so the gesture that accompanies the mask (the histrionic gesture) is strictly related to the designation of the lived emotion before it is signified by speech.”
Pierre Klossowski, The Euphoria in Turin; Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, The University of Chicago Press: 1969
“The déjà vu exception that it is in civilized life to a magical ability at which disposal folk art (no less than kitsch) places itself. It can do so because the déjà vu really is quite different from the intellectual realization that the new situation is identical to the old one. It would be more accurate to say: basically identical to the old one. But even this is wide of the mark. For the situation is not one experienced by a bystander; it has been pulled over our heads—we have wrapped ourselves up in it. However you thinks of it, it ends up as the fundamental fact of the mask. In this way the primitive, with all its implements and pictures, opens up for our benefit an infinite arsenal of masks: the masks of our fate—the masks with which we emerge from unconsciously experienced moments and situations that have now, at long last, been recuperated. Impoverished, uncreative man knows of no other way to transform himself than by means of disguise. Disguise seeks the arsenal of masks within us. But for the most part, we are very poorly equipped with them. In reality, the world is full of masks; we do not suspect the extent to which even the most unpretentious pieces of furniture (such as Romanesque armchairs) used to be masks, too. Wearing a mask, man looks out on the situation and builds up his figures within it. To hand over these masks to us, and to form the space and the figure of our fate within it—this is where folk art comes to meet us halfway.”
Walter Benjamin, Some Remarks on Folk Art, 1929
“The mask is something put on, something external. As physical object it remains quite distinct from the man who wears it. He feels it on him as something foreign, something which never wholly becomes part of himself; it hinders and constricts him. As long as he wears it he is two things, himself and the mask. The more often he has worn it and the better he knows it, the more of himself will flow into the figure it represents. But there is always one part of which necessarily remains separate from it: the part that fears discovery, the part which knows that the terror he spreads is not his due ... The secret he represents to those who see the mask from outside must also have an effect on himself inside it, but it clearly cannot be the same effect. They are afraid of the unknown; he is afraid of being unmasked. It is this fear which prevents him abandoning himself completely to the mask. His transformation an go a very long way, but it is never complete. The mask is a limit set to transformation. Because it can be torn away, its wearer is bound to fear for it. He must take care that he does not lose it; it must never be dropped and must never open. He feels every kind of anxiety about what may happen to it. Besides playing a part in his transformation, the mask is also a weapon or a tool which its wearer has to handle. He must manipulate it, remaining his everyday self, and, at the same time, must change into it as a performer. While he wears the mask he is thus two people and must remain two during the whole of his performance.”
Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power, Claassen Verlag Hamburg: 1960
“Patrick Zylberman described the process by which health security, hitherto on the margins of political calculations, was becoming an essential part of state and international political strategies. At issue is nothing less than the creation of a sort of “health terror” as an instrument for governing what are called “worst case scenarios.” It is evident — and government authorities themselves do not cease to remind us of it — that so-called “social distancing” will become the model of politics that awaits us, and that (as representatives of a so-called “task force” announced, whose members are in an obvious conflict of interest with the role that they are expected to exercise) advantage will be taken of this distancing to substitute digital technological apparatuses everywhere in place of human physicality, which as such becomes suspect of contagion (political contagion, let it be understood). At issue is an entire conception of the destinies of human society from a perspective that, in many ways, seems to have adopted the apocalyptic idea of the end of the world from religions which are now in their sunset. Having replaced politics with the economy, now in order to secure governance even this must be integrated with the new paradigm of biosecurity, to which all other exigencies will have to be sacrificed. It is legitimate to ask whether such a society can still be defined as human or whether the loss of sensible relations, of the face, of friendship, of love can be truly compensated for by an abstract and presumably completely fictitious health security.”
Giorgio Agamben, Biosecurity & Politics, May 11, 2020
“The experience of the meaning of the face determines the phantasy of what is behind the face. Facial expression seizes possession of a depth which is implied. In reading the surface, I fill out what is behind the surface with the depth of the surface...When I look at you, I do not only imagine that the surface of your face epitomizes an expression; the experience of your face overwhelms any thought of what might lie behind it. The depth of your face exhausts any question of ‘behind’. This phantasy is shockingly curtailed by the sight of a facial wound. Suddenly the phantasy of depth is shattered by the perceptual registration that there is a behind to the face and that, far from supporting the experience of depth, it projects the stuff of another order, or disorder. The sight of subcutaneous reality, the sudden, crazy sight of flesh and bone is altogether too much. It seizes my attention because it does not signify, because of its evident character of being too much, too close, too soon. It does not so much undermine as ‘overmine’ the face and its expressive economy. The face does not collapse; the face is thrown off. The depth of expression is relegated to the surface of a mask. The moment of ugliness, then, is the shattering of the subject’s phantasy of what makes up the object, in which the object is permeated by its surface just as a face is, and not that there is a non-signifying interior whose pressure to appear is concealed only by the temporary and mendacious skin of a mask. The trauma, for the subject, is occasioned by the sudden appearance of ‘stuff’, the stuff which threatens to overwhelm and engulf the subject, and to contaminate the subject with its own lack of meaning.”
Mark Cousins, The Ugly, AA Files, Number 29, Summer, 1995
“Only because I have not made myself am I free. If I had made myself, I would have been able to foresee myself and therefore would have become unfree. We become aware of Being by proceeding in thought from the “imagined world of the merely thinkable” to the border of reality, which as a pure object of thought or pure possibility can no longer be grasped. This thinking our way to the borders of the thinkable Jaspers calls transcending, and his “playful metaphysics” is an orderly, sequential naming of such self-transcending movements of thought. Philosophizing enters a state of suspension in which it appeals to my freedom and, in invoking transcendence, creates an arena of unlimited action. This “action” that arises from the “border situations” comes into the world through communication with others who as my fellows and through an appeal to the powers of reason common to us all guarantee us something universal. Through action, philosophizing creates the freedom of man in the world and thus becomes “the seed, however small, of a world’s creation.” For Jaspers, any ontology that claims it can say what Being really is is a falling away into an absolutizing of individual categories of being. The existential significance of such a falling away would be that it robs man of his freedom, which can only be maintained if man does not know what Being really is. The dimensions of this island of human freedom are marked by the border situations which in which man experiences the limitations that directly determine the conditions of his freedom and provide the basis for his actions. Working from those dimensions he can “illuminate” his existence and define what he can and cannot do.”
Hannah Arendt, What is Existential Philosophy?, 1946
“What matters to Agamben is not the empirical situation but the political one. And here we find Agamben in classic form. The real “state of exception,” and therefore the real threat, is not the disease itself. It is the “climate of panic” that “the media and the authorities” have created around the disease, which allows the government to introduce the extreme kinds of restrictions on movement, congregation, and ordinary sociability without which our daily life and work quickly become unrecognizable. The lockdowns and quarantines are, indeed, just one more manifestation of “the growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal governing paradigm.” The government, he reminds us, always prefers to govern by exceptional measures. In case you are wondering how literally we are meant to take this piece of critical-cum-conspiracy theory, he adds that “once terrorism was exhausted as a justification,” the next best thing is the “invention of an epidemic.” “What is a society,” Agamben asks, “that has no value other than survival?” Under certain circumstances, this is a good question; under these circumstances, it is a blind one. Is this the society Agamben believes he is living in? When this philosopher looks around him, does he truly see nothing but the fight for “bare life”? If so, Agamben’s “clarification” may be revealing in a way he hadn’t intended. We might think of it as a very lucid example of “bare theory": the dressing up of outdated jargon as a form of courageous resistance to unreflecting moral dogma. Sometimes it is advisable to hold off on deploying the heavy theoretical machinery until one has looked around. If we are after wisdom about how to live today, we should look elsewhere.”
Anastasia Berg, Giorgio Agamben’s Coronavirus Cluelessness, The Review, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2020
“The Perseus myth is actually a sort of mythical reworking of a kind of practice, we would sort of say a coming of age practice, or an initiation rite, in which he has to do something, but not actually with Medusa, do something which fulfills te rites at which point he can join the patriarchal elders, and be given a mask; right; the mask, in a sense, as a kind of privileged statement, is what permits him to be defensive and aggressive; but it has its sort of origin in something like this; you can see there’s an interesting parallel to be made between, they don’t exactly touch, or coordinate, but there’s a considerable proximity between him and Freud who obviously held very centrally to the idea of castration anxiety; although therapists often nod their heads and say, well Freud was a long time ago and we’ve thought it through by now; actually, it’s rather stronger and, kind of cruder thing, and not so easily dispensed with; and it’s very central to Freud; and Freud would be with happy, I think, to accept the idea that myths and versions of certain dreams and stories are a kind of survival from the moment when, in a sense, humans stopped having reflex actions, I mean if by reflex action you mean a kind of an immediate mechanical response to an instinct. In a sense humans become humans when they start laying down the mask, when they stop using the mask. Of course, that does not get rid of the mask, the mask circulates amongst humans in dreams, stories, fears, all sorts of things; but essentially the mask remains completely fascinating to humans, it’s paradoxical character; whether it conceals or whether reveals, or whether it, indeed, it produces a completely different economy of concealing and revealing, which it surely does. It’s as if the topic of masks is like so full of contenders and whatever and everyone is a bit confused, and say well, none the less, it’s an impressive mask; writers don’t really know what they’re doing when they get into the topic of mask, accept Levi-Strauss.”
Cousins, The Mask, Architectural Association,
17 November 2017
“Even before Covid made masks a daily inconvenience for us, they occupied a mighty space in our cultural imagination. Masks are a mainstay of horror, donned by mysterious strangers and serial killers while they terrorize innocents. The blank, lifeless visages of such classic horror masks as those belonging to Leatherface, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers seem to signify corpses — faces stripped of their verve and individuality. The pandemic has made us all consider how much masks change the perception we have of ourselves and others. These masks also embody the unknown: the mystery of the person behind the mask and the disconnect between what may seem otherwise mundane (an animal mask, a hockey mask) and the mask’s frightfulness when placed in a new context. But there’s something deeper to the psychology of our fear around masks, related to our worst fears about ourselves and the fragile structure of society — whether it’s in a house of cannibals in Middle of Nowhere, Texas, or in our own familiar haunts during a time of pandemic. Leatherface wears three different masks throughout the movie, which he switches into based on the situation, as a way to show emotion. Of course, the faces sag on his own face, so that on top of the horror of the mask itself, there’s the uncanny sight of our flesh-faced killer’s real features poking out from beneath the mask’s. With masks, it is never about the monster but the man whose mask obscures and reveals him. A belief in human empathy, honesty and reason are our safety blankets when we consider horror. But masks may also expose our most primal selves. It makes sense, then, that many horror movies use animal masks for their frights. We relate faces to our identities, so when we’re masked, the anonymity we’re granted may allow us to untether ourselves from any ethical or social contracts we’d otherwise be beholden to. Masks, which hint at some macabre sight or simply a human no longer in touch with his humanity, also imply a wider social disorder. In “The Purge” franchise, Americans have one night a year to give in to their most base, vile impulses without any repercussions. The movies paint a grim reality in which people are all too eager to put on masks and kill as they please. A mask is just material. The person? That’s the real horror.”
Maya Phillips, Horror Masks Are Never Just About the Monster, Movies, The New York Times, October 23, 2020
What is Masking? Face-masking is Unmasking-with as Being-with where what is Masking is a Revealing where what is Masking is a Showing of Love. Yet today their is this current commonsense misconception that wearing the face-mask is anti-social because the masked-nose and the masked-mouth are mindlessly misinterpreted as being anti-social as if the nose or mouth were the sites as the signs of our showing and revealing of our being; but are not our eyes after all always already our sight as site of our truth; where our eyes smile our being there, where our eyes smell our being there; thus we must stop saying such nonsense that wearing face-masks is anti-social. We must remember that the They and the Them were always already wearing social face-masks as the social-face of those They and these Them was already always a furtive face-mask which was masking and not facing their mask-being.
Wearing a Face Mask is Revealing Being recovering Being removing the Social Mask of the Empirical Face that was the Lie Face or the No Face of the They or Them that the They and the Them wore to Mask the Truth of their Outer Being of their Inner Being; but wearing Make Up is not of the same Economy as the wearing of a Face Mask for the Make-Up enhances and exaggerates the Mask Character of our Empirical Face while the wearing of a Face Mask endogenously endorses, enraptures, encapsulates our Ontological Being; and so when you wear a Face Mask you are exposing and expiating your Ontological Being because to cover-up-your-face is to open-out-your-being.
The face, so to speak, that opens itself up in the interlocking of masking unconcealment, and seamingly stitching facing to being is seemingly separating being from facing yet masking is the uncovering or unstitching of being to face through masking which is not a covering but a recovering as a showing of the ontological face which is an anonymous face and the face is the mask for the skull is our ware for wearing our face for masking the skull and so the skull wears the face as a mask as the face was always already the mask of the skull for the skull since the skull necessarily needs to be masked by the face and to keep it safe and sound and stopping the skull from leaking out.
The fact that Being is not a Word for us but a Mask makes us want to know out of curiosity what is behind the Mask and what is behind the Mask is Being without Face for the Face is what Masks the Being that is the Mask that Masks the Face of Being without a Face by being a Mask and so now we know that the Mask is that Being of which Uncovers the No Face of Being with which there is no longer the There for Being to be There where Dasien is at a Distance where a dasein-distancing is a jointing-masking at a close-distance where being is no longer here but some-where way over-there at a distanceness-closeness of a maskedness-jointness through a togethering-separating.
The Masking as the masking-up-of-being is the fostering and the forming of being as it is as it was as it were which was what we were before we were interpellated-incarcerated by the mask which is the face that masked the being of Being yet the mandatory-masking of being-there announces an ancient-anonymity of our being-without-a-face of being-without-a-name as the way we were before the invention of the face because the face was a recent invention of our insipid individualism as a distinct-difference fermenting-forth an invasive-insulation of introverted-individualism inducing an injurious-illusion of the body-autonomy activating-ahead an individualised face.
Masking as our current Befindlichkeit is now how we find ourselves and how this wearing of that masking manifests moods most alien and uncanny to our-knowing of this so-called normal which was our being without our mandatory masking-up of being-there but this mythical normal was our masking of our being where we wore our faces as masks masking our being where we had no dasein but only our weary wearing of our social masks where we smile as Americans smile always smiling as a safety-valve for masking-being but this mask-face of their false-smile that android Americans adhere to is a static-smile of an insecure-nervousness hibernating hidden hysteria.
Humans are now livings-in-maskings feeling-out-of-joint in being-withing-the-uncanny-in-being-withing-unfamiliarity which was nominated as the new-normal in-order to normalise and naturalise and neutralise the ab-normal as the new-normal yet many of the they and many of the them cannot cope with being-masking without realising that our being-masking is this being-revealing where the masking is the revealing of being stripped bare freed from the social-mask of the false-face for what we nominate naturally as a face is manifestly a mask that masks our being whilst the burqa announces the anonymous face of our being as our originary being-anonymous.
Masking always has an understanding of its own Being unlike the Face which is by necessity unable to face its being for the Face as the Mask that masks being cannot come to Being to be itself as the face is that which lacks its own being but the being that comes through the Face is the being of Being which is the Being of Masking which faces the Face with its own being through the Face that masks that being whilst Being shines through the mask of the face showing Being as Masking which is a Showing so thus to Mask is to Show whilst to Face is to Cover and so when we wear our Mask we are in fact wearing our Face so when I put on my Mask I am in fact putting on my Face.
In the Being, is the Mask a Face? Everything depends on how we think of what the Mask and Being say. In these endogenous and exogenous entities we begin to sense the drift of dasein that we are entering into at a distance because it is only by being-at-a-distance does there drift into being as being-there-at-a-distance that is the nearest we come to become knowing dasein as a knowing dasein in being-else-where-being-here because from now on we are necessarily an else-where-over-there-being-hear-at-a-safe-distance but our being-at-a-safe-distance is our closest-closeness-to-being-there as our care-there as caring is a distancing keeping-dasein-close-at-a-close-distance.
If the Mask is not my Enemy then how can the Mask become the one who wrests me from my Identity and whose proximity for the Mask is my other Skin exacerbates me, exhausts me, endures me, entraps me, tormenting me so that I am bereft of my selfhood so thus that this tightly fitting torment, this elastic lassitude, which leaves me as a dasein-destitute at a dasein-distance, become my responsibility for my I and for the Other even if this Other is also an I with a Mask without a Face facing me head-on mask-on mask-to-mask not face-to-face as a double-binding, a doubling-up of two masked-daseins, masked-off, masks-on, as meeting-masks where this One is that Other?
In the relation of the Face to the Mask, the Mask is Distant placing you at a distance whist at the same time placing you at a nearstance to dasein which is already always at a distance from the face from your face which you keep at a distance form dasein for the economy of the face is exactly that which masks dasein from you and from others which is why the mask is that which reveals and unconceals the mask of the face that masks dasein from facing its dasein for the face is that which is always at a distance from dasein for the face faces outward toward other faces which are also faces concealing their daseins yet when we mask-up thus we un-mask our true daseins.
The mask of wearing is precisely what wearing refuses for those that no longer know how mask and who renounce the mask that they have received and whose face is unrecognizable is closer to the untried inexperience as closer to the distance of the absence of the face which even without being having been masked gives being to the mask that moulds the face for the face mask is merely muscle so simply a skin graft that sculpts the face to fit being beheading the social face which masks being but the face mask is rather a retreat, a withdrawal as the severing of the serving of the social face where wearing a face mask appears as alien as a passive power as a deposing dasein.
Giving as Masking to the common lot being common according to being masked-masses; but according to what is other-so than beings-masked and draws near the unmasking: the unwanted, the unwelcomed, the obscene, the abscene, the impotence of masked attraction as a desire to unmask the masked yet knowing what lies behind the mask is the mask of the face behind the face mask which is our social mask masking our skull which is, after all, the face of death; yet unlike face, the mask cannot be lost as it does not belong to itself; it only is, therefore, as not its own, masked in its being faced away, finds-its-face-in-being-masked-off as in not being itself in dissolving da-sein.
Masking belongs to Being because Nothing belongs to Being because Being is Unknowing yet beings cannot own-up to the masking-nothing preferring to wear the face masked as the face cannot cope with its being in time it cannot cope with its being timed out always masking-off its timing, always timing-off in its masking, masking its timing, lifting its facing, as masking its facing, as in skin-lifting, revealing-unconcealing its masking of time as the masking of its timing, stretching the face to cover up its time as a death-mask, tight and taut, covering time, killing the time of the face that cannot face the face telling its time preferring the masking of time covering up the face.
Mask remains in a relation to the distances of the face, entering the skin, appealing to the surface; in this sense, the masked would turn us away from desire with the intense attraction of the desirable impossible which is our desiring the mask in itself for itself without desiring the knowing not knowing what lies behind the mask which lies another mask ad infinitum as the skull is the mask of death that unmasks death that marks death as the face that is the mask of all masks, as the mask of all faces, since it is the skull which was our only face, barely masked by our skin, which masks our being; yet all there is, and all there ever was, were masks masking masks masking masks.
We mask the question – How does it face with Masking? What is the meaning of Masking? Why are there Maskings at all rather than Facings? We are now asking about something that we can hardly face, something that is no more than the mask of a face. How does it face with Masking? Can we see Masking? We see maskings – the face here. Masking is delimited against a Face and thus already has a determinateness in this setting of a limit that is the mask limiting-delimiting the Face within the Mask as an interrelated-interface as an intermask facing making masking facing and these distinctions are by no means accidental as what is held apart by both mask or skin belongs together as both being skins, as both being masks, for face and mask arose in close connection with facing of masking whose closedness-openness concealing-revealing having had their inceptions in initiating our origin of Being.
A mask is a presence of that which properly speaking has never been there, of what was always past the face before the face becoming ahead of the face in front of the face as a trace of the face that was the trace of the skull that was the death mask of being alive always already dead adead ahead alive since your mask was your face as already always before you after you always ahead of you always behind your face in front of your face as a trace masking and marking that face that was the mask of the skull tracing the skull facing the skull masking the face marking the face; remember that the mask was the originary presentation of the face which was a representation of our being.
Masking fulfilled by masking, fulfilled-frustrated by masking by being masked by being mask but being a mask all along after all always masking not facing the real which was what the mask was originally but forgotten and fore grounded by the unreal that is the face. To be mask. To be masked. To be masking, only masking. Unfamiliar masking, equal in all its moments, like a face in all its points, equal to a face, exerting the same continuous taut pressure, not exerting it. Solitary masking, and masking alone, gives attention as an attraction as the economy of desire is the economy of the mask withdrawing the face drawing on the mask in its interesting disinterestedness.
The ontological masking cannot be seen immediately in the same way as ontic facial appearance can be seen. The masking-be of beings in their particular being masked is fundamentally different from: letting-be in being un-masked letting the face be shown free from being masked and yet in an uncanny way the face, as always already, being a mask, is, in itself, our originary masking-be of our letting-be where the masking is the reminding and the remainding and the remembering of our originary ontology when we were all masks without faces because the face was a relatively recent invention, inception, initiation: masking means being absorbed in our originary dasein.
Such masking in the clearing of being I call mask-sistence of human beings. Let it be made clear: that to cover is to open since the covering-up of human-beings is the opening-out of human beings. This way of being-masked is proper only to the human-being for animal-beings are not masked being and cannot even be masked even if they can be muzzled. Mask-sistence can be said only of the essence of the human being, that is, only of the human way to be. For as far as our experience shows, only the human-being is admitted to the destiny of mask-sistence, is admitted to the dasein of mask-sistence, as a masking marking distant dasein as a human dasein at a masking distance.
Dasein names that which is first of all to be experienced through being masked and subsequently thought accordingly as a mask, as that locality of the truth of Being, as the truth of Being happens when wearing this masking revealing-concealing concealing-revealing where to hide is to show where mask-being is there-being as what is there is mask that is what is there is masked-off from empirical sight in empirical site which cannot see Being as it is in its Masknessing for Being is Masknessing but not all human-beings are human-maskings are human-markings because not all humans are beings, because not all beings are masks, as masks are what marks human dasein real.
If what is masking and that which masks us, and together with this, masking itself, is something which is uncomfortable for us, something that we do not which to wear or whish to arise, something that we immediately try to remove when once it is worn as if masking is something that we are fundamentally opposed to, wherever and whenever we remove it when no one is about, or when no one else is looking. Precisely wherever and whenever we are opposed to masking, masking itself must want to insist itself, and thus, wherever and whenever it presses to our skin in such a tight way, in such a taut way, it will always impress itself upon us in its tightness, and in its tautness.
Care is a preeminent part of our being-in-the-world where the masking-beings are the caring-beings being-there-for-one-another but there is a refusal to be masked attuned and attained as an American insipid individualism emanating almost exclusively from the white-privilege of body-autonomy petty-bourgeois individualism, as well as redneck individualism, and trailer trash individualism; yet rarely if ever emanating and disseminating from the bourgeoisie of whom being-set-apart-being-masked-off from these other ones is yet another distancing device concealing themselves from the petty-bourgeoisie and the working-class of whom the bourgeoisie despise and detest.
To what extent, however, is our wearing in our example of masking? What constitutes wearingness? Perhaps it is because it is a having to wear because we are forced, coerced into wearing and we become impatient with this wearing, with this masking with which we want to escape from to be free from. But being masked is neither a wearing nor an impatience because we were always already masked forgetting that out skin was masking our skull all along and thus when we are masked in we become more aware of our skin masking our skull and also our masking marking our time because we are affected and infected by time as time taking more time when we are masked in.
To be sure, the masking does have something to do with the infinitude of time taking forever without an end such is that extra-empirical experience-evidence of wearing-masking: as an infinite intimidation, as an infinite infringement, as an infinite indictment, as an inducement; yet the masking is the clearing of time, of being in time, of being for time as masking unmasks the timelessness of dasein; as the masking-off as the masking-in is the masking-out as an openness of the open region in the freedom of being free as free from the face that masked being from the clearing of dasein that was hidden by the face forgotten by the face unable to face timeless dasein.
Man is born of Mask. Man emerges from Mask. Man lives by Masks. Masks come alive in the Dialectic of what is Displayed or what is Hidden as Mask manifests the Materiality of Spirit as well as the Materiality of Sein as the Mask shows the Matter of Spirit as the Spirit of Matter: the Mask manifests the Face through molding and casting and sculpting: the Mask was the original mould of the Face as the original Cast of the Face: Sculpture presents the Being of the Face as Presentation not as Representation for a Sculpture of a Face as a Bust carved in Stone is much more Real than a Face made of Flesh since Stone and Clay were our Original Cast Mould Masks of: Being-a-Face.
The Mask veils the Face in order to Reveal the Face for the Veil as Mask is the Purist Presentation of Facial Representations found on Human Faces which are Infinite Masks hiding Being revealing Nothing: the Mask is the Trace of the Face where the Trace is the Origin of the Face for the Trace came before the Face where the Face mimics the Mask without Being Mask: the phenomenologist who wants to experience the images of the functions of inhabiting a Mask must not be subject to the seductive charms of external beauty inhabited by the Face for generally, Facial Beauty disturbs and disrupts and disguises its intimate internal masked mediations and meditations.
A mask that has been seized upon by the imagination cannot remain indifferent to the mask worn by the subject who measures and estimates of the surveyor of the mask worn by the subject who is subjected and subjugated to the mask for the tome being of mandatory mask wearing. The mask has been lived in, not in its positivity, but with all the partiality of the imagination to those imaging who is lurking behind the mask as they are not hiding behind the mask but being shielded by the mask as armour and amour for masks are an economy equally of armour and of amour; the mask is our amour particularly because the mask always exercises an attraction of a dreaded desire.
A mask attracts an attention for whom is hidden in that habitat for the mask is a habitat for the face just as the face is the habitat for the mask yet the mask is the habitat where the face is usually found for at this moment we must remember that not all of us have faces even if we all have masks; yet we meet many who have masks but who have no daseins; conversely, we meet many who have faces, but who have no daseins; thus one can have a face without a mask and have a mask without a face; just as we can have a there without a being; thus mask wearing is akin to dasein wearing since we often find no being behind a there just as we often find no face behind a mask.
For the mask concentrates being within its limits that protect. In the realm of masks, the play between the exogenous exterior and intimate interiority is not a easy one. For is the mask endogenous or exogenous: that is the question. On the other hand, on the other mask, the mask of carnival unmasks through masks of the grotesque divine and abject sublime through cultural contradictions and political parodies; the carnival mask is the mask of celebration and subversion; resistance, rebirth, renewal, reincarnation; thus the mask of death and the mask of sex are of the same economy ontologically speaking, ontologically masking, where sex and death are always one.
Just as life and death are always one in carnival; the mathematics of the carnival mask is where one added to one only ever equals one: birth and death; the beautifully ugly, the grotesquely divine, the abjectly sublime as dualities preserved in the one thus the nose is always already a cock to fuck with thus the mouth is always already a cunt to fuck with and the face as a whole is a hole as an arsehole on the whole in the hole as an economy of carnival turns us all topsy-turvy where the head is the arse and the arse is the face for in carnival we talk shit for in carnival we drool diarrhoea; we take the piss, we take the shit; we turn wine into piss and turn cake into kak.
If we were asked to name the chief benefit of the mask, we would say: the mask shelters and shields us from the approaching dread and advancing anxiety; from the them and the they that are always coming towards us filling us with dread, always coming towards us filling us with anxiety even if they are also masked-in as masked-off; but it is largely all of those selfish-solipsistic white-privileged maskless-ones coming towards us masked ones that we actually fear and actually dread with acute anxiety as we know that it is mainly these smarmy white-privileged who do not wear masks solely because of their smug and snide white-privilege as all empirical evidence emphasises.
An empty mask, like an empty face, invites day-dreams and night-mares of release and refuge and therefore it is our belief that a phenomenologist should go in the direction of maximum simplicity of dialectical complexity in understanding all these ins and the outs of the mask-face relationship as face-mask relationship where there is no dualism at play since there is no being-in-between mask and face as their economies are exactly identical in their subventions-simulations and mutations-migrations of our extra-empirical transcendental-phenomenology of the face inhabited mask and the mask inhabited face which is the where each one is the identical habitat of each one.
Masks are known to no one. Artworks are known to no one. The Mask is anonymous. The Artwork is anonymous. The Mask cannot be signed. The Artwork cannot be signed. No one owns a Mask. No one owns an Artwork. The Mask is alien. The Artwork is alien. The Mask is alien to the human. The Artwork is alien to the human. The Mask is alien. The Human is alien. The Mask is the origin of the Artwork. The Alien is the origin of the human. The Mask cannot be ontologically unmasked. The Human cannot be ontologically unmasked. The Mask survives the human. The Artwork survives the human. There is no Mask condition. There is no Human condition. An Artwork hates the human. The Mask hates the humid human. The Mask is an alien. The Artwork is alien attire. The Mask does not know it is the human being alien. The Human does not know it is mask being alien. The Mask is an Alien Face of Art.
Masks are not things. Artworks are not things. A Mask is not an object. An Artwork is not an objects. A Mask does not have a thingy character. An Artwork does not have a thingy character. A Mask is a unique aloof being in its own right as a being-in-itself-for-itself-for-the-masker. An Artwork is a unique solitary being in its own right as a being-in-itself-for-itself-for-the-arter. There are no Mask objects. There are no Art objects. There are Mask beings. There are Art beings. There is no Work of Mask. There is no Work of Art. The Mask always already works. The Art always already works. There is no being-in-general-being-there. There are only: particular-beings-being-there.
The Mask is the transcendence of immanence as such, the transcendence of an immanence that does not go outside itself in transcending, which is not ex-static, but ek-sistant. Mask trans-immanence. Mask exposes this trans-immanence and this is why masks themselves work always already as a definitive defence torsion contortion on the pseudo-couple transcendence-immense as being one all at once the same ek-sistant; just as a mask has no sides yet you assume a mask has two sides to its ek-sistant and art has no sides because art refuses to take sides just as mask has no sides because mask refuses to take sides: as transcended mask and art are beyond taking to any sides.
Dasein can be understood as being-mask as the ab-clearing of the open-region which is paradoxically the unmasking of being-there for only when we see they and them then being-there is where-when they-them are being-mask; for when we are mask-to-mask with they and them we know who they-them really are before they-them began wearing faces which masked there-their-being-there as their da-sein thus only when we see the they and the them wearing masks can we see their faces there being-their-being-there as a revealing-unconcealing of being-their-being-there coming into their-own there-own into the clearing-masking opening-regioning unmasking-being.
All maskworks are beings and not things just as all artworks are beings and not things even if works of mask and works of art have a thingly character to them and casually come across as thingly; we are well aware by now that the maskwork and the artwork are abjectly-ontological and are emphatically non-objects as the maskwork and the artwork are necessarily, by nature, non-objects thus this is why there can be absolutely no such thing as an object oriented ontology because beings are not objects; being is antithetical to object; being objects to objects; since a maskwork and an artwork are not objects, that is, not things, but are actual existing entities beingly there.
The Face remains a relation with the Mask that turns into need and desire as a transcendent exteriority of the Mask as Unmasking. The Face goes beyond the Unmasked through being Masked as a Mask masking the Face unmasking the Face releasing and revealing the Original Face. The Mask acts as an object of a Need whilst also acting as an object of Desire by activating and attuning to its Erotic Alterity of Masked Desirability where we are enjoying imagining a Face laying behind a Mask as an erotic masking out, as an erotic marking out of one another by all becoming the Desired Other as the simultaneity of a need and a desire melting into one erotic economy.
I mask my face for myself which is in fact masking myself for the other whom may or may not be masked for my-self or their-self but there are those who will group together being unmasked with each other but not for each other for they or them will even say that they and them do not care if you die as I experienced on an underground tube when asking a fascist-homosexual on her cellphone inanely ranting that she had missed her flight since her boyfriend told her to get her hair cut; so I said to her that: I could die if she did not wear a mask to which she gave a curt cavalier ripost: I do not care if you die. There can be nothing more vile and evil than a homosexual-fascist.
The mask-to-mask relationship is the one-for-the-other as a sharing of the caring of being by both guarding being where-when the mask-to-mask duality is unity where two are a one; where two added to two always equals one as does infinity equal one because no numbers can ever be added to one another because of their unity-in-universality-of-infinity where-there is only one and only nothing; as only one-nothing can be added to one to equal nothing but one and the other is equal to one because the other is necessarily nothing and this means necessarily nothing-one as nothing but one as one but nothing as only by universal maskings can we all become equal to one mask-one.
The human-being is sociopathic by nature, that is, by abnature and our unmasking is merely a conscious connectivity to our sociopathology; for all of us human-beings are sociopaths so we have to address this important issue just as white human-beings have to directly address their inherent racism and their internalised white-privilege since all white human-beings are racist by nature, that is by abnature, but, largely, cannot confront their reality just as white human-beings largely cannot confront their white-privilege; it is not surprising that it is largely self-asserting white-privileged human-beings whom refuse to wear face-masks and are attracted to an anti-mask movement.
What is the Dasein of the Mask? What is the Dasein of thee Face? Can we face the dasein of the mask? Can we mask the dasein of the Face. How do we experience the sensationing of wearing a mask? How do we experience the sensationing of wearing a face? How do we experience the Dasein of the mask we wear? How do we experience the Dasein of the face we wear? Hermit Heideggerians are unable to experience Dasein since Heideggerians have an anxiety and a dread about expressing their everyday experiences so it is of no wonder that Heideggerians have no understanding of Dasein solely since Heideggerians totally lack having any dasein being masked off from Dasein.
We assume that everyone has a Dasein just as we assume that everyone has a Face; yet we often encounter those of the They, and those of the Them, that do not have a Dasein just as we often encounter those of the They, and those of the Them, that do not have a Dasein; just as we often encounter those of the They, and those of the Them, that do not have a Face on; yet all other animals have a Dasein, yet all other animals have a Face on; it is only the human animal who does not always have any Dasein; it is only the human animal who does not always have a Face; we must face up to the fact, we must mask up to the fact: human animals are often thereless and often faceless.
The Eternal Return of the Mask: the mask, which is to say what is masked in my face, in so far as the mask epitomises the rule of facial identity, which is to say the me that is masking through facing as not facing my being yet being a mask is a returning of the origin of the face as a mask because within wearing my mask, I am facing the future, facing the past facing the present being present as the past-future and the future-past made-present as the mask is the wearing of pasting-futuring-presenting masks all entwined as one where wearing a mask plays fort-da with the past of the future as the future of the past always already in the present where a mask is the time now.
The mask is the real face of men, the ontological element par excellence. The mask is the real face of women, the ontological element par excellence. It is only by looking in the mask that men recognize each other; and are passionate about each other and perceive similarity and diversity, distance and proximity, and it is only by looking in the mask that women recognize each other and are passionate about each other and perceive similarity and diversity, distance and proximity, where the mask unmasks the real face of men, where the mask unmasks the real face of women; the mask is the real of men, the mask is the real of women; thus to be a mask is to be a being.
All living beings are in the open, they show themselves and communicate to each other, and all living beings have a face, and all livings beings make the face the place of their own truth: when we look into the face of the cat we see their truth, when we look into the face of the dog we see their truth, when we look into the face of the man we see their truth, when we look into the face of the woman, we see their truth: indeed, we see the dasein of the dog in the face of the dog, indeed, we do see the dasein of the cat in the face of the cat; whilst we do not always see the dasein of the man in the face of the man; whilst we do not always see the dasein of the woman in the face the woman.
Our current alien-condition of mask-wearing and social-distancing are not at all: authoritarian as the reactionary far-left and the reactionary far-right have argued because both our social freedoms, and civic freedoms, are necessarily being curtailed and dismantled in the name of a global biosecurity emergency. We are not living under anthropocene authoritarianism; and we are not living under an abstract and presumably completely fictitious health security as Giorgio Agamben absurdly argues and who embarrassingly exposes his petty-bourgeois selfish plea for preserving cafe culture privileges of freedoms which, in turn, cause the unfreedoms of the unprivileged.
Agamben wants Liberty without Safety. We can be Free and be Safe. We can only have Liberty with Safety. We need Liberty and Safety: We cannot have one without the other. To be Free is to be Safe: So there is no Liberty without Safety. Without Safety there is no Liberty. Liberty is Safety. Our Freedoms rely upon our Safedoms for to be Free is to be Safe. I make you Safe, I make you Free. You make me Safe, You make me Free. To make yourself Safer is to make yourself Freer. To make myself Safer is to make my self Freer. How can you be Free if you are Unsafe? Keeping each other Safe is to keep each other Free. If you remove your Mask you are less Safe and less Free.
Agamben mask off reality, masks off the real; Agamben practices social distancing from reality, Agamben practices social distancing from the real and it is mask wearing and social distancing which are the insular intellectual practices of deconstructionists and post-modern theorists; practiced in order to keep a safe distance from reality, from the real, where they mask off reality, where they mask off the real, being unable to grasp reality, being unable to grasp the real; yet such social distancing and mask wearing reveals an utter poverty and perversity of theory when reading these sociopathic-privilege responses to the coronavirus-crisis by Agamben, Badiou, Nancy and Žižek.
Uncannily the Mask does not conceal whether or not you have Dasein or not as the Mask does not cover-up if you are there or not as our masking does not conceal our presencing or our absenceing so one can tell even when they and them are all masked-up if they or them are there or not as it is our inner presenceing which is our revealing of our thereing as there-being being their-being there; yet paradoxically, the Mask reveals who has Dasein or not since the Face is posed, posited, propagated, guaranteed, granted, given, as empirical evidence for our Dasein and thus often giving us an allusive, illuminating, illusion of their-thereness that is not theirs, that is not theres.
Heidegger takes being and there as one codependent given assuming that being and there are given as mutually interdependent ontological entities belonging together unable to realise that the ontology of being is utterly different to the ontology of there because being and there are out of joint with one another just as Heidegger takes being and time as one codependent given assuming that being and time are given as mutually interdependent ontological entities belonging together unable to realise that the ontology of being is utterly different to the ontology of time because being and time are out of joint with one another: being and there and time are independent.
Heidegger takes being and time as given to the human just as Heidegger takes being and there as given to the human simply assuming that all humans have being and have time and have there in an equal way, in an equal economy so universalising being and time and there in an abstract, generalised way by assuming being and time and there as belonging to all humans by taking being for granted, by taking time for granted, by taking there for granted, failing to fathom out that not all humans have beings, that not all humans have times, that not all humans have theres as Heidegger assumed all humans have a being, all humans have a time, all humans have a there.
Wearing the Mask is the initiation of Inner Experience where we Become utterly Other to the One who wore the Face before the Wearing of the Mask; for the Moment I put on the Mask I become Mask Other, as utterly other to Myself and the Others be They and Them masked or unmasked for my Masking is the Making of Inner Experience which removes me from the They and the Them albeit masked or unmasked because I am no longer one of Them or one of They whilst, at the same time, of course, I am the same as the They and the Them whom are also Masked Up in their Inner Experiences masked off from those They or those Them whom are Unmasked in Outer Experience.
Mask stands in subservience to the others not wearing Mask. It itself is not Masked; but the others have taken its Face away from it. The everyday possibilities of the being of Mask ones are at the disposal of the whims of all the others not wearing Masks. These others are not definite others merely maskless others being-with-other-maskless-ones collectively-unified in infecting other maskless-others who have already been taken over unawares that their unwearing-unmasking is the interpellation-induction into individual rights of civil liberties, as their right, as their freedom of expression, to cough all over you, as their right, as their freedom of expression, to sneeze all over you.
At the same time, in each case, Dasien is not mine, just as, at the same time, Dasein is not yours; rather all of our Daseins are entwined where there can be no mine of Dasein; just as there can be no body autonomy as each body is, in each case, everybody; as at each time, one body is a habitus with another body-habitus inhabiting body habitués where there is no body as such, only bodies as habitus; as we are bodies inhabiting bodies infecting bodies; yet even those that have no Dasein are still able to embody an infectious exogenous entity endogenously within their Daseinless habitus infecting other no-bodies, or other some-bodies, with or without having Dasein.
As Dasein is never mine but always ours as always others so we have to allow space and give space and being-in-the-world is allowing-space-to-be-together-apart-at-a safe-distance wgere dasein is at a distance; that is, a a safe distance as a dasein-distancing and a dasein-masking where being-with is being-safe, where being-masked is being-disclosed in disclosing dasein as care where our wearing of our masking is our wearing of our caring for dasein. The spatiality of safety for Dasein is taking a calculation, as at what is the safest strategy, what is the safest space, for dasein-to-be-with-dasein-at-a-safe-distance through our task of calculating encountering interbodily entities.
Only would those white-privileged ones be those ones who mope and moan, who brawl and brood, that they are being so oppressed just because they are required to follow public health guidelines because the very thought of instructing white-privileged people to practice personal hygiene is taken as such a slur and insult to their habitual-habitus because they see it as their white-privilege right to be dirty as a right to be unsanitary and as a right to be unhygienic and this excellently epitomises the essence of white-privilege since we all know it is an affront and a taboo to dare tell white-privileged people to wash their hands, to practice social distancing, and to wear face-masks.
The face-mask is not a face-covering because the mask does not cover the face but rather recovers the face because the mask is the originary trace of the face for what we wrongly took for as a trace was in fact a face-mask as a template-trace for the face as the first cast for the fib face as the first mask of the face as a death-mask as a life-mask that are always already the same-mask because for the face there is no distinction between a death-mask and a life-mask for what the mask does is to deconstruct the difference between life and death as with the mask we witness no distinctions between being-alive or being-adead by being-ahead of the deading by being-ahead of the living.
Betty Furness and Stanley Morton pose for the cover of Look Magazine, August 3, 1937
God is Shit
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 so thus one cannot Think God one can only Stink God and God cannot take Your Prick 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 thus 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 as Your Spunking is Your Goding whilst when You Shit You Shit of God You Think of God You Stink of God and yet 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 in fact Getting It Off on a Regular Basis then They would not Need the God Fuck the God Spunk 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? As 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 also 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 of 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 Shits 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. You give a Shit. You shit God. You Shit in God’s Image. Shitting is Praying. God is Shit. God be with You till we Shit again. For the Love of God. For the Love of Shit. You are full of God. You are full of Shit. You shit God. God shits You. You are the God Shit. You Shit God. God Shits You. For the Love of Shit. For the Love of God. You Shit. You Shit God. You God. You God Shit. Goddling Shitgodly. Shittling Godshitly. In this God you Shit. In this Shit you God. We Shit for God.
In God’s Shit Self-Portrait A.V.E. 2014
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 as 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 since Being is without Question for Being that there is no Question but for There there is a Qestion of Thereing that No One has put in Question; that No One has put into Question the Question of the Thereing that is the Originary Place of Being to come into Being to begin with.
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 There and Being is being-abroad without-the-other without-the-there-being-there-to-take-care-there-of-being-to-be-there: to know the ontology of the there is essential before knowing the ontology of being because there theres is the where of being begun.
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 since not all actually even exist as an ereignis-emanation of our being-thereing: no one was noticing the disappearance of dasein today, because no one even knows how to define dasein today, because they were all so entirely ‘taken in’ with a misconception that: ‘dasein was always mine’.
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-together as a fused-frisson-forever: in-love as in-death: one-is-at-one-with-the-all-ones-out-there-doing-their-own-thing-as-no-thing-doing-nothing-which-is-still-the-doing-of-the-nothing-in-particular-which-is-still-the-doing-the-nothings-of.
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 so 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 a Being thus Being only becomes Time through Love and Love takes Time and when the Time comes for Love to have done its Time so Love becomes the No Time of Being in Love as Love transcends Time being both in-time and out-time for Love knows all Time for Love knows no Time.
Being-as-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 as 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 and time for all the time-dasein: and what we thought of as the for-all-time-being-dead-being-in-love is for-the-no-time-being-dead-being-in-love: when we are in-loving, like when we are in-fucking, we know then that time does not exist.
Being-is-Belonging: Living is the Belonging – Dying is the Belonging – In being-alive-we-belong. In being-dead-we-be-long. Alive or even 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 as 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 no Freeing without Belonging: and what we nominated as Belonging is the Thereing where being-belongs: yet we meet those that are not Beings because they do not belong to the There unable to come into the There to belong to Being.
Khaki Khnum: Beheaded-but-still-Alive Self-Portrait, A.V.E 2022
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 since 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 thus 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 thus therefore abeings do not exist there as beings-with for there-is-nothing-with for there-is-nothing-there even if there is obviously an oblivious body there. Those without Dasein are precisely these bodies about there that are not beings-about-theres as a body there is not always a being there. For Dasein’s Being is not always There: but those unthinking Heideggerians had always taken Heidegger at his word, at his Dasein, in taking it for granted, that Being was: granted 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): Our 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 are no such beings 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. Sartre and Heidegger did not know that being was love or that the meaning of being was love. One comes to being when one comes to love as love is being. When one hates so one has no being. And hate here is there everywhere which is why being is becoming lessing due to the lacking of the loving; yet even the eviling has being because there still can be the loving in the eviling.
What being-does is What love-does as being-love-ahead of being-there love-there as being is always already ahead of being as love is always already ahead of love which is why a 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-adead-ahead all alive in love without a head on: love is being-without-a-head-on, whilst still being-with-a-hard-on, for one can have-a-hard-on without having-a-head-on; because: being is hard when being in love when being in dead when being-on in a hard-on.