An Astrological Thought on Man and Woman: Gravity Re-Evaluated

But then that's what I mean.

I'm flattered and agree that my task is the same. But I have nothing but sneer about how and why he went about it.

Closeness to the absolute is precicely the denial of genealogy. He presumes a starting point, even if that starting point is the flux or whatever.

Nietzsche never ever started from, only reached for. And only wrote what he grasped. Which is what is terrifying about him that disallows any "thinker" from reading him honestly: what was he reaching for that he never wrote down?

Anyway, I agree, will to power is the gift for humanity. And people like Nietzsche never gift anything if they aren't expecting some hefty riches in return.

Lol I like that, Heidegger's book had no ending, Nietzsche's books had no beginning.

They did have endings, like battles end. Blood all over and a victorious glow.

And anyway, unlike Heidegger, I will throw away the whole task for the chance at hosting the first real parties.

I consider all the phenomenologists to be irrelevant, the proper inertia of the world that warriors do not acknowledge gagging in reflex but managing not to puke. Maluma sort of broke free in that proud Picassean obscurity of clarity. Was that his name? Anyway, only he eventually proudly stood up to his fascist masters.

S'why I like Baudrillard. Knowing himself in an irrelevant reaction, he grasped past it and gave some actual schematics.

Derrida is the mirror opposite of Baudrillard. Just a stupid old fuck writting irrelevant shit. Il n'y a pas d'hors text. I actually have more respect for Lacan. Even though I am still convinced psychologists are the standard bearers of nihilism, having taken over from the Christian clergy.

Freud was different. He studied man as an animal, so blocking nihilism. He was actual, or at least an actual opening for philosophy. Not one body grasped this.

But he is too much of a dissector for a Nietzschean like me.

In this Thalo-scientific scheme I am beginning to discern, probably Freud is the only recoverable original thinker since the pre-idealists.

His tentativeness is preagnant as shit.

Lacan in his purile immitation spoke about "what is my discovery" picking out one of his silly contraptions from the others probably at random because he at least realized that in all Freud's work, his discovery was the subconscious. Then Jung, nazi fuck that he is, thought he could skip the hard work.

Cronenberg by the way has a fantastic Freud movie.

The organizational side of Freud, so foreign to us thinking enthusiasts.

Wow lol calm in Mercury is dangerous as shit.

Well there you go. Some insight into PZR's travels.

Yeah Lacan allowed the subconscious to trump strict form and yet used forms to hallucinate with. I think he did a great job at it, he is far more telling about the way the mind winds into itself as the world than Huxley is - because he includes perversity.

"mid-14c., "wicked," from Old French pervers "unnatural, degenerate; perverse, contrary" (12c.) and directly from Latin perversus "turned away, contrary, askew,"

How it turns isn't clean, and in that dirt he ploughs.

Yes, Baudrillard has juice on him and Derrida is a coquettish lantern pole.

Retrogrades are not so bad when you work them.
I like this one.

Good analyses overall.

Heidegger starts from Nietzsches love of Parmenides and Heraclitus, the concept of φύσις, the emerging nature of forms, nature. Plate fucked that up. Form was already an issue, as were all sorts of ideas, but Plate thought that to be a form is to be an ideal.

The ideal is however the vitality of the form, and it stands against a raging ocean of war, flames lap at the feet of the ideal, keep its toes warm.

The sea of fire is the home of the spirit, I am a fire shark.

Pezer wrote:

And anyway, unlike Heidegger, I will throw away the whole task for the chance at hosting the first real parties.

Thats what im counting on.
But they're the same thing.
I mean, dwelling is partying.
Or no other dwelling will do to truly build something.

Build that party.

I still want my yoga annex hiphop place to experiment on mankind. The best way to reveal his/her wax-likeness -
amid al the oily weakness, the will can betray much of itself.

Right, you like Laycan.

Well whatever. If Robert De Niro can hate Trump, you can like Lacaine.

I think he focussed Freud to explain the US quite well.

But thanks, and lol.

I don't know what to do anymore. You like all these weak thinkers. I think because you enjoy the hardness they evoke. To them its a mask and shield, to you it's dinner.

You like the hardness of rocks. The indisputable existence of them. You are bored by histories or potencials. The Aryan archetype. The only manifestation of it I can stand, maybe not coincidentally the only one capable of making music I can aspire to be a part of, a muse and frontman of. And then at the point which is the whole point, the skepticness of the rock toward the meat and the skepticness of the meat toward the rock relent and make the most powerful techno party I have ever seen.

Some shit like that.

Some shit like that.

I don't fucking now. You said it well with the objective subjective thread.

Where we can see eachother as exact equals, there we are the Twin Towers. I propose it as a kind of secondary esoteric name.