Jump to content

a river in water

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About a river in water

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

579 profile views
  1. k above post is redundant, and also this and sorry for not actually responding at all to the question - but why limit yourself per author? i think that really is a mistake, the limit should be on the authors, otherwise you will spend - i would think?? - 95-99% trying to get a grip on the context, where as if you read one author the amount of time you need to spent drowning in context drops with each new book
  2. i think that the concept - maybe its like new concept - of needing to be versed in philosophy/crit/psych/semio - this kind of list, is some sort of mistake. i have the impression that to understand what the fuck any single philosopher is talking about requires about as much effort as learning a new language - but of course if you know the philosophers that that philosopher was into then it's much less (like learning italian for a spanish person, czech / slovak, w/e, but honestly i think it might be easier to learn to speak fluent chinese than fully understand husserl). like since i was 18 i've been reading/failing to read kierkegaard, levinas, heidegger, and like, i don't think i've got very far with any of them, i think it will be at least 2-3 more years before i understand totality and infinity (levinas) which is what im trying to understand, i definitely don't understand being and time (heidegger) in anything more than an extremely basic sense, i like kierkegaard a lot but i can't remember a single thing he said - wait not sure what my point is. only that i think best way is just to radically limit yourself to 1,2,3 names for like a 5 year period (as philosophers go, other fields are a bit diff, but dunno i'd just take on one field tbh
  3. hm but id be happy to be wrong but i can't see a way of this, it's like checkmate: if we don't have access to the real, it doesn't make sense to use it as a descriptive category (since we don't know / can't know what / if it is); if we do have access to the real, then we are real, so may as well not even use the word. like the real is a HUMAN category, if ever there was one dont worry if u r without time inclination to discourse on the real that's even better
  4. im pretty sure no one can or has ever translated anything that was in their head into anything that was not in their head the criteria by which what is real can be measured is by what - maximially - appears to be real (things outside the head) so those things are therefore real
  5. i dont have a phone do bots need phones
  6. my attempt to write bad american-style poetry about issues The male prostitute was going To the left of the screen though not Hoping to walk off it wholly Into the ether (where I am). He was Speaking Polish, that being The language which he knew best And therefore warmed him On the cold nights and killed him On the warm ones. He had been Doing this since He started: time was like that now, so incredibly circular And rotating so fast That it would cut a dick clean off If it ever came to that. It probably Won’t though, thought the other man, in German (the results of economic equality are overwhelmingly sad), standing Off stage left and looking at the sky Like he always did, savouring What had happened, reducing it Softly to nature. then normal poetry which i probably posted already or might as well have done In someone else’s how (d major) Slightly to the left of okay But isn’t that The boy you weren’t ever Going to talk about again? Then – I think It was then – the way Things had been started to otherwise Themselves: new shapes, covert Obsolescences you wouldn’t want to But kept being Caught dead with. The ocean I’m afraid I don’t believe a word of this I’m afraid that if I did It still wouldn’t approach truth Not even a fitting strangeness I’m Then the ocean really did We take matters like this very seriously Then the ocean really for the last time If we let you off, what about all the others Rain, a drooping magnitude, an insular spectacularism, bereft of rainbows, and, or and/or light, never more brusque, more occasional that this, sinning its way home, into your breathing and off Your name approaches itself If I told a cliff to jump Over you Would anything Your name in huge letters but where? The waves fuck majestically, the garden Of no one contracts, but only slightly The police officers can’t stop dancing this is probably your chance But look You didn’t take it And the ocean cools into a glacier The whale you were looking for Is frozen meat Nothingness Licks your ear Hello, Sailor
  7. god i love birds cant even begin, the amount of times an (uncaged) birds has saved from the very depths of myself is practically continuous
  8. i just imagine that dogs suffer more than birds. with birds there are some limits but i think a dog can suffer infinitely / totally. maybe a bird can too i have no idea, people shouldn't go anywhere near birds anyway cuz dunno why would u put a bird in a cage ffs
  9. i learned all this on a farm. a bird in a cage the size of a bird is in a far better psychological situation than any extant domestic dog
  10. like the invention of language was crime enough and then this
  11. there's no better evidence for the total emptiness of all humans that they found some way to associate the word domestic with the word dog
  • Create New...