"I am  not   what    I     am"

---And that was the last thing that she ever said to him.

If you didn't know: We stand behind the advice we give and guarantee the product we sell. ((We stand behind it because it's big enough to block us from your slings and arrows of outrageous pricing policies.))

Give children your vote. You don't need it anymore. Policing the Polis. Give children the vote, they don't care, such genuine apathy. Sparkling like a shiny silver box lost in the mud.


"I am that I am"

Q: Why don't you hate humanity?
A: Because my hate isn't infinite and there are so many people to hate, it's hard to work up much of anything to assault a phantom. Wouldn't you much rather cover and uncover, strophe and anti-strophe locally? Less efficient? No, I don't think, so?
This writeup is not finished until it reaches or exceeds 40,000 characters. No sleep til X. This is the blue period.

Here is the part where it is punitive.

Here is the part where we forget that life is a light hearted happiness, full of light-hearts and light harts (the animal this time, though the light-hearts are, in some sense, animals, or at least animalistic). These are the darkest days of our life, these are the darkest days of the lightest hearts, we are so heavy we float away underneath this pale cloud of fire. Ringed 'round with messiahs so thick we can't breath. And all we want to do is breath, air that we didn't make, air that isn't choked with the poison of a thousand undulating ribbons of poison. The thing we forgot was what everyone else remembered: we never left ourselves, nothing happened back then, we always were what we thought we had escaped.


Kill all kings, and what do you get?

2 dead kings, 6 more murderers. A guilty conscience, a bushel of corn, fields untilled and set on fire with a sigh and a whistle, a how-do-you-do and a self-immolated wreath of love.


Plotinus Oner: I was thinking about doing a course on the dialogues of Plato in the classics dept.
Giordano Bruno: Yeah. Good for you. Pal.Idon’t find Plato interesting; I like the presocratic guys better. Heraclitus is dope.
Plotinus Oner: Well,Ilike Aristotle better than Plato, and Plotinus better than Aristotle. The West Wing is sooooo crappy.
Giordano Bruno: Duh.
Plotinus Oner: I was just saying, I just get struck by how shitty it is.
Giordano Bruno: Yeah, it is actually strikingly terrible.
Plotinus Oner: I want to deconstruct it in a seminar.
Giordano Bruno: It’s surprising how much good press it gets. Seriously. Re: it’s tarded.
Plotinus Oner: That's the point... they love it because it shows the pres(ident) as human and flawed, which relieves the real president of having to show himself that way

This will be the title:

"We're all trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

noonelivesherenoonelivesherenoonelivesherenooneliveshe renoon elives hereno oneliv eshere * noonel iveshe renoon elives hereno oneliv eshere noonel iveshe renoon elives hereno * oneliv eshere noonel iveshe renoon elives hereno onelivesherenoonelivesherenoonelivesherenooneliveshere

It's all true, every last drop of it.

First Movement ((_sforzanda_)): No one lives where we dare to look, they don't live, they scuffle along, dust eating their heels, salt water killing everything it touches. Life and death blurred into one inalienable destructive tool. We didn't make it, and we don't know how to use it. Less a tool, more a vehicle, a machine, a snare, an invisible vise closing in, crushing-weeping our best intentions.
Second Movement ((_mezzo piano_)): Life is a black liquid. Seeping into our groundwater while we sleep. We own this land, and it's killing us. It's an ocean that empties onto a vast plain. It's a duststorm pushed out to sea, it's our shoes filled with loess and a boiling, aimless rage.
Third (Final) Movement ((_anti-climactic_)): Living in a world where everything you think of is already about to be thought... It's just possible that this world is beautfiully falsified before our very eyes. Our eyes don't bleed anymore, we've overcome our agoraphobia, where have we led ourselves? This cool stream, that languidness of air, the fluid semiotic approach? Twice born, twice shy. Children of the wind? Why bother, we're a vast emptiness written on and erased, written on in lemon juice, smoke signalled and train tracked, criss crossed with our own beautiful deserts. It's not poisonous, it's not objective, it's not simplistic, the desert is fractal, varied, random, opaque, clear, vast, minute. There are enough empty halos and enough ignorant bliss. You forgot what it meant to cross a river.


Our little efforts seem to have amounted to something.

How nice for us, really.


Giordano Bruno: Hahahaha. I want to make a bunch of super long writeups.
Plotinus Oner: Like obscenely long writeups that'll just piss people off?
Giordano Bruno: Well, they’ll piss people off by their length because they are entirely incoherent.
Plotinus Oner: hahaha. I love it.
Giordano Bruno: but I can’t think of anything. I have 12000 characters
Plotinus Oner: What's the limit again?
Giordano Bruno: I don’t know. So lets talk about something good that I can steal and cut and paste for noding…

This is the last paean from a soulless tyrant. It's the fighting back of a husk, ravaged by a hungry mob. It's nihilistic, an empty Buddhism, a meditation on what it means to have become empty. Not empty of thought or emotion or aim.

A stuttering.
A facade of cleverness.
A sheen of falters.

1. The first attempt at a lasting legacy begins with becoming quotable. To further my chances of leaving a weighty Nachlass, here is my succinct dismissal of Western culture since approximately 1848...

"Wit has become wisdom"

It's not that I'm clever, really, it's that I'm trying to be clever. Who knows which is worse. Well, I probably do, but why should I spoil the ending?

I will thou!

It's not a vengeful god, it's not a happy or loving god, it's a god that makes fun of you. It's the dandy's god. It doesn't like your clothes, it makes fun of your hair style. You silly bastards. So very silly.


Giordano Bruno: She teaches that existenz class right?
Plotinus Oner: Don't front
Giordano Bruno: That’s funny.
Plotinus Oner: Yep. She only teaches like one course
Giordano Bruno: They are existentialist lesbians together
Plotinus Oner: hahahaha. Name makes a good existentialist lesbian
Giordano Bruno: Yes, he does. I’ve never had a class with himn. Hymn.
Plotinus Oner: He's so weak and ineffectual.
Giordano Bruno: Hym=existential lesbian spelling.
Plotinus Oner: hahahaha.
Giordano Bruno: It’s true. Existentialism is guay.
Plotinus Oner: (girl you know it's) Nietzsche is the consummate existentialist
Ten thousand seriousnesses steering our course. Kings, O Kings! Wander with us, nomads, fisherfolk, scoundrels and all. Wander with us, please Kings do. We know not what you have done, our silly play has just begun, give me life, give me death. An empty soul, a place to rest.


Plotinus Oner: Maybe.
Giordano Bruno: Oh come on!
Plotinus Oner: But what about his Appollonian/Dionysian shit? That's quasi-metaphysical. It's not a REAL metaphysics but you know he skirts it.
Giordano Bruno: Yeah, I agree. But when I think of existenz, I think of Sartre and I know Nietzsche would hate Sartre. I think appolo/dion is more religiousy.
Plotinus Oner: Yeah, but there is a metaphysics to that. That's something underneath and he describes it like it's really there. Whereas Sartre is cocknballz.
Giordano Bruno: Well yeah, obviously, but I don’t think its as clear cut as exist/essence. I don’t think he’s that categorical. He doesn’t favour just the Dionysian side either.
Plotinus Oner: No...you're right.
Giordano Bruno: Look at me talking like I know something about Nietzsche, when in fact I do not.

Redirected responses.

Maroon vs. Exile.
Remembering members.
Sectarian. Here we go, dismembered writing, dislocated from its source.

I had no part in the writing of this:
When you ask 'am i pretty connected to my writing?,' the truth is: NO. I don't want to own it. But it also makes me sad to see people give insults where insults are not due. It is not personal. But it still makes me sad. Make sense?
I am serious, but only about e2 insofar as it recapitulates larger social problems as a whole. Living in the USA I am always very aware of the grave political problems we all face today, of our nameless & silent complicity in a 'machinery' of violence, of submission, of power (but unjust, wrong, (there is no word but imagine it!)).

Capitalist Hegemonics: Fast of Feet Raramuri

The bullshit attitude on here, the belief that there is a distinction between poetry and philosophy, the desire for expertise without research, the stable hierarchies (above all, these hierarchies) recapitulate the social problems of a capitalistic democracy. Insofar as there is this hierarchy, i can barely participate in e2, and then only for ....NAMES OF PEOPLE...
If you would like to call these thoughts 'serious', I would not argue. However, if I am serious it is only because I am very afraid of what we are doing to the poor, to the third world, to the silent, to the unspoken, just by breathing.

ood loss
e blood loss
ive blood loss
massive blood loss
   massive blood loss
     massive blood loss
             massive blood loss
                massive blood loss
                      massive blood loss
                           massive blood loss
                                   massive blood loss
                                          massive blood loss
                                                     massive blood loss
                                                                        massive blood loss
                                                                         massive blood loss
                                                                               massive blood loss
                                                                                     massive blood loss
                                                                                         massive blood loss
                                                                                              massive blood loss

it's the end of the ends
and no one told you
  • 1: This 'articulation' (more aptly titled a 'bemuddling') is not a collapsible ladder. I'm not getting at anything, the movement from here to there and there to here, this wobbling, that teetering insomnia of hand movements... none of it gets anywhere, this response won't end and it won't respond, really. Nothing will be settled, this isn't a dry lakebed. It's a river (my popular image, stole-grafted from Michel Serres, from Heraclitus, from the rivers of the Earth, my fascination with a delta, the idea of emptying into, of blurred lines, eroding banks, turbulent flows, ordered liquids, falling, moving, swallowing, sexual metaphors, more commas....) that doesn't flow downward or upward. Basically: no telos, no eschatological predictions for you. It's a philosophy of the magician's wrist, a twist here, a taut little pull on the eyes of the onlooker. That's misleading, because this isn't misleading. We're not distracting you while I do something else. The something else is the distraction. Unlike jderrida, esteemed colleague, beleaguered everythingian, and seemingly nice chap, I think cynicism can be precisely what he thinks it isn't. Though not precisely...

  • 5

      Plotinus Oner: But by positing these things he's actually saying that essence precedes existence. If you read human, all too human or something like that he totally comes off that way.
        Giordano Bruno: !!! So you think he is a Platonist then! haha!!
          Plotinus Oner: Dude, I've read more of him than you have.
            Giordano Bruno: Haha obviously poorly.
              Plotinus Oner: Pssht. You're saying what I've read and understood doesn't account for more than your uneducated opinion of him?
                Giordano Bruno: So instead of an inverted Platonist (existentialist), now you are saying he is a Platonist? That’s funny. Nah, I’m just boggled. I thought you were saying the opposite.
                  Plotinus Oner: I'm not saying that he's a Platonist, but he does posit the psychology of nature as being something that's sort of a given in humans. That's beneath everything else.
                    Giordano Bruno: ...I don’t think so. I don’t think he says that.
                      Plotinus Oner: Show me why you think that.
                        Giordano Bruno: What about all that future man shit ...?
                          Plotinus Oner: That's a cultivation. The future man controls his Dionysian animal side with the restraint of the Appollonian.
                            Giordano Bruno: So you think he thinks it is a cultivation of an essence rather than ... whatever I think it is?


Giordano Bruno: Like "man-ness" is the ur-grund for uberman-ness?
Plotinus Oner: It's a balance. Yeah, I think that's about right.
Giordano Bruno: Really...I don’t think its that sort of relationship at all.
Plotinus Oner: Well it's more complex than that.
Giordano Bruno: Yeah, exactly. So...?
Plotinus Oner: You can cultivate yourself individually, that's not bringing out your essence.
Giordano Bruno: What is essential? I mean what is the essence there?
Plotinus Oner: But the development of man as such... pleasure pursuit, pain avoidance: that's the essence.
Giordano Bruno: Well, the will to power I guess would be the essence.
Plotinus Oner: Yeah, that's it.
Giordano Bruno: But do you think that it strictly "precedes" the life that you lead (existence)? I don’t think it’s that way in Nietzsche at all.
Plotinus Oner: The will to power meaning the affirmation of your project over anything that might get in its way
  • 2: It can't really be a tackling in the sense of a final getting over of, being cynical isn't going to 'end' pain or suffering in that sense..if indeed that is the sense to be gotten from jderrida's wording: "it (cynicism)doesn't tackle pain and suffering..." It can tackle them in a more literal sense: it can push them down one time, but watch them get right back up.

  • 3: Cynicism as a tactic of evasion. By being cynical we play the game of avoidance. You neither commit to a thing nor commit to its 'opposite'. You neither love nor hate. Cynicism is not open derision. Beneath the obvious (sedimentary metaphors...why?) layer, the sarcastic, maybe derisive, layer of cynicism, there may be a therapeutic core? Evade, never really strike. Touched by the point of the sword, the cynic never strikes. What good is sincerity? Sincerity is painful, and brutal. Who is more sincere than the one who, in the light of day, kills his enemy in good conscience? Certainly not a cynic. The cynic is the dandy, the fool, the empty set. A cynic is a springboard, a sponge, a mirror, a denatured version of its target. What is the cynic if not humourous? Ten thousand seriousnesses haven't gotten us very far.

  • 4: On the vast, airy heights. Of language and seriousness. In all seriousness, this gesture of repetition/citation (directed at you jderrida, recalling the whole corpus (corpse) of a book we've both known, seriously, and in jest, one which you have 'written') is precisely a cynical gesture. Cynical because I neither agree nor disagree with what I cite, an aside, a-side, besides the point perhaps? Well... no one knows the cynic. Tell me: must all literaure be therapy? Of course not. Isn't there a place for the humourous? The detached? Must we be engaged at every instant, with every passionate moment of our passionate lives? Of course not.

  • "This is what Ender's Game means to me: Children cannot cope with the expectations of others." -Gartogg in a writeup on Ender's Game"

  • 5: I'm not passionate about passion, in the same way that I'm not (terribly, with terror) serious about seriousness. I can't stomach a steady diet of sincerity. Cynicism has it's place. You may think it is poison, to some it may be medicine... you know the drill, linguistic absurdities and all.

  • 6: An empty engagement. Clash of the writin's.

  • 7: I win!
  • Notes:  a) The Terror of the line. (1--->7)
            b) I love debate.
            c) My cynicism.
            d) Engagement vs. Attachment, Detachment vs. Category.

    On the Uselessness of Academia


    My experience, is that you do not know.

    This music.

    Trees: Nietzsche + Jesus = Arborial Lust.

    Georg Hegel + C.S. Peirce = 6


    Giordano Bruno: There are aspects of both (existence and essence). I don’t think its one or the other.
    Plotinus Oner: No, I think it strictly precedes the human species.
    Giordano Bruno: I don’t think so because it works in existing peoples' lives and through them.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, of course.
    Giordano Bruno: It’s not like Plato where the forms exist without us ...
    Plotinus Oner: People are predicated by the human species. Or of, whatever. I don't know how to phrase that predication shit.
    Giordano Bruno: Well, explain it.
    Plotinus Oner: Well, from what I've read of Nietzsche, I think that he thinks it's a fundamental thing for people to pursue their own project, that's the way it is. We're just cultivated animals. So therefore, that's a part of being human.
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah I guess that makes sense. So I guess you’re right.
    Plotinus Oner: Yes, I am.

    Giordano Bruno: He's anti-existentialist. I don’t think it’s that simple for some reason. I think it’s more complicated than we get.
    Plotinus Oner: No..... he's all for making yourself happy, but he's not throwing away all the givens like existentialism says. He's saying that we misidentify what it is to be human. And that's the cause of a lot of problems in our society and in ourselves.
    Giordano Bruno: Well...I think the whole uber mensch thing would pose a problem for our little opposition here.
    Plotinus Oner: And what do you see the ubermensch as being? Haha you should node this conversation!
    Giordano Bruno: I’m gonna. It’s gonna be cut and pasted fo sheez. Well, I see it as radically different from regular mensch... for some reason that seems like it should be problematic for this debate.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, but regular people adhere (in N's view) to a certain type of morality and activity.


    Giordano Bruno: Explain further the connection.
    Plotinus Oner: the Ubermensche is the opposite. Not without boundaries, but of the opposite type of virtues, or opposite to what "virtues" are conceived of as.
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah.
    Plotinus Oner: See, to be an existentialist can be the same as living with no standards.... but Nietzsche DEMANDS excellence. Sure, you can take an existentialist stance and still end up doing shit the way Nietzsche thinks would be good, but you might not.
    Giordano Bruno: So you see Nietzsche as telling us to get back to what we're REALLY about, instead of going past what we're doing now?
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, exactly. That's why he's into that genealogy/archaeology shit
    Giordano Bruno: So rather than a transcendence the ubermensch is a return.
    Plotinus Oner: Origins…
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah. That makes sense. I hate it…
    Plotinus Oner: .Yeah, it's noble virtues and that's sort of platonic. You can't escape it, my man.
    Giordano Bruno: Well I like it, I just don’t like the weiner origins of it.
    Plotinus Oner: BWAHAHAHAAH.
    Giordano Bruno: Actually I always found ubermensch annoying. But I still like Zarathustra. Laying it out like we just did makes it seem too easy and structured.
    Plotinus Oner: Well we're laying it out like a couple of undergrads would, duh.
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah, and scholars. Scholars are wang, probably.
    Plotinus Oner: Some of them aren't. It's okay to find patterns and order, dude.
    Giordano Bruno: It’s like making Wittgenstein systematic. Yeah, I guess. I think you lose a lot of Nietzsche and people like that when you systematize them. Seriously.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, that's true.
    Giordano Bruno: I think that’s the problem with certain readings. That’s why Derrida and other people are interesting. They’re at least trying to be less violent about it. You know what I mean? It seems so skeletal

    The Ponderous Weight of Sleeping Too Late
    Darkened by his phobia of rings.

    Everyone's collapsible ladder. Make it fall on your head. Begin here.

    Written on the body.

    We've begun an age where writing is pain, and bodies are machines. The machination of the body, and the corporealisation of the machine, intwertwining, nesting, overloaded instincts and poisoned gear boxes.

    "We're all trapped inside the belly of this horrible machine. And the machine is bleeding to death"

    Ballard crashes painfully aware of where he is
    When we move away from something...

    :::interdisciplinary seminar:::

    A renewed violence, a tirade against what it means to rest. Everything turbulent, beautifully massive, aggravated, homeorrhetic, devastatingly quiet, a calm, a violent seething, an underneath of heaviness, a darkened light, a wistful gesture, us writing to you, dancing together...looking for your heart, and finding only more of your body.

    Everywhere your body.


    Plotinus Oner: But for basic understanding it's good to find the skeleton, you can't just jump in face first and get it all.
    Giordano Bruno: I suppose, that’s a bad logic though. Think about it with the metaphor, look at it this way:
    Plotinus Oner: We need to learn Greek and shit and know classics to really get at what he's saying.
    Giordano Bruno: It’s like trying to understand human behavior based on looking at a human skeleton… in some ways. Re: Greek… not really. You can read Zarathustra without Greek. I think knowing German would be good for it though.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, but Zarathustra isn't the be all end all. Yeah, German too of course.
    Giordano Bruno: No No, but its the the best for understanding the ubermensch, I think.
    Plotinus Oner: German first and foremost of course, I should say
    Giordano Bruno: hahaha. Primarily, zee Germans.
    Plotinus Oner: But Nietzsche says that exegesis is necessary when reading his work. Otherwise, you're going to miss out.
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah exegesis doesn’t mean systematic reconstructions though man. That’s not the only way to be rigorous.
    Plotinus Oner: I know that, but he wants you to know where what he's saying came from.

    Between nine and ten there is an infinite of possible choices you might think. But I made this one, and it's the one that's to be stuck to. So stick.

    anthropod says: Your w/us are hard to read sometimes, but I liked how this one ends
    jderrida sez:

    I think you are right in suggesting that our positions differ because I am hopeful, and you aren't. Hope is something I can't argue for. But it is something literature/film/etc. can encourage. Don't you think?

    But academics are the teacher, which is the frontier of new thought, and the future. It takes time, of course. But look at what Foucault wrote in the 60's and Derrida too. Only now is popular culture beginning to adopt their thought, but they are loving it, they are sucking it up. People talk about power and deconstruction. They don't understand it all yet, but they are hungry for it.

    Don't you think Martin Luther King made a difference? In any event, when I was in the bathroom, I came to the conclusion that this isn't something that I can argue with you about. If it's a question of whether or not to be an optimist about the emancipatory prospects of literature, I can only say to you that I *must* believe in this, because if I didnt, then I would feel utterly defeated, and always already lost. It is one of the few things to believe in.

    ((P.S. you should make a node about this conversation.)) Gandhi is another good example. Of course he and Martin Luther King were more influential as orators than as writers, but I do believe that writing helped influence them. Rorty always uses Uncle Tom's Cabin as an example of literature doing good work.


    Giordano Bruno: Oh you were still talking about the Greek thing.
    Plotinus Oner: So in that sense it has to be systematic.
    Giordano Bruno: What do you mean? I don’t get it.
    Plotinus Oner: Nietzsche was a scholar, dude! He knew what he was doing.
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah, I know, I’m just saying that I don’t think picking apart his writing into a system does it justice.
    Plotinus Oner: Well, he wants you to go to the right passage he took the reference from, and just understand.
    Giordano Bruno: You don’t think Nietzsche was ANTI-scholar? Oh man. Look at what he says about ‘mediocre’ people like Chuck Darwin! Fact- collectors and stuff.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, but as a philologist, didn't he collect facts?
    Giordano Bruno: I think he hated the academics
    Plotinus Oner: You can do more than just the basics with what you have.
    Giordano Bruno: I think he was anti-the way philology went too.
    Plotinus Oner: He hated the academics, but you can't deny he did a lot of academic work.
    Giordano Bruno: Look at the birth of tragedy…like TWO footnotes.
    Plotinus Oner: Yeah, but can't you be an against the grain scholar? He didn't just pull all that out of his ass
    Giordano Bruno: Yeah, but I’m saying: it doesn’t mean he endorsed the kind of systematisation you are talking about (necessarily). No No, he came from that tradition, but I think he rejected it. You know more about it than I do.
    Plotinus Oner: I'm not talking about systematization, I'm just talking about understanding where he got his stuff from. Like his origins.
    Giordano Bruno: Well I don’t get what we were arguing about then, haha.
    Plotinus Oner: We're arguing because I think you can do that in an orderly way and you don't.
    Giordano Bruno: No, I don’t think it has to be disorderly, I just think its really hard to "reconstruct" some sort of rational system from Nietzsche's writing, and that at the very least it isn’t the only way to do it

    So many things to hate, so much time, overlapping and falling all over yourself. "How ludicrous. Don't you know how ridiculous you look? Shameful really." --- That British over-correctness.


    Michel Serres:
    "Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine..."-- Thus flows classical linear time. But Appolinaire, who had never ever navigated, at least on fresh water, hadn't studied the Seine enough. He hadn't noticed the counter-currents or the turbulences. Yes, time flows like the Seine, if one observes it well. All the water that passes beneath the Mirabeau Bridge will not necessarily flow out into the English Channel; many little trickles turn back toward charenton or upstream... It's not always laminar. The usual theory supposes time to be always and everywhere laminar. With geometrically rigid and measurable distances-- at least constant. Someday it will be said that that is eternity! It is neither true nor possible. No, time flows in a turbulent and chaotic manner; it percolates. All of our difficulties with the theory of history come from the fact that we think of time in this inadequate and naive way."

    It goes like this:
                                  7 7
    The End                       999                               Of Time

    It takes dedication.... That is which the prophet...

    Listening to, and typing with.
    Typing is not writing, it's below outside and beyond.
    It's a writing from the frog-hollow.
    Line 413: a nymph came pirouetting
    In the draft there is the lighter and more musical:
    413 A nymphet pirouetted

    What are graduates doing?

    1. Why even bother?
    2. Why not bother?
    The nihilist's predicament.

    ""Come on, this is your job. You say you write stories. Write me a story""

    Let us imagine the following case. I want to keep a diary about the recurrence of a certain sensation. To this end I associate it with the sign "S" and write this sign in a calendar for every day on which I have the sensation.----I will remark first of all that a definition of the sign cannot be formulated.--But still I can give myself a kind of ostensive definition.--How? Can I point to the sensation? Not in the ordinary sense. But I speak, or write the sign down, and at the same time I concentrate my attention on the sensation--and so, as it were, point to it inwardly.--But what is this ceremony for? for that is all it seems to be! A definition surely serves to establish the meaning of a sign and the sensation.--But "I impress it on myself" can only mean: this process brings it about that I remember the connexion right in the future. But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, section 258)

    You can trust me.

    You can trust me to kill.

    Near Matches

    chihuahua grub said: time kills and we kill time. is this so new to you?

    Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.