Friday, 29 March 2013


We achieve prominence in the reduction of the spirit of the temporal, and thus pursue it as the collective temporally confined to exceed the other in favour of a heightened self, timed.

Is the image an imagination of the object internalised, or might it consist of the object inconsistent with the apparatus of extraction?

I am the humanism of intelligence, a methodical engager in the augmented attention to reality, the full engagement, the sole attention of the real in, the occupant of the intraducible concept of intelligent.

The object that has failed to engage the engaged is not a failed object. The only point of the object is to be pointed, nothing more.

Balance and symmetry are solely encountered through the procurement of the organicity they propose, by the belief in their existence, somewhere in the visible moment of their slight happening, then again vanished.



I – The aspect of the conquered which was, except conquered, acquired in the effort of the conquest; purchased element of the victory.

II – The feature of the acquired that supposes to the purchaser the element of conquest, whereupon victory is particular to the exchange on the behalf of he who has purchased.

Replying to Contradicting

The polymorphous extension of my self-generative speculations, applied to a plethora of instances to cogitate, insofar as such generated cogitation would be speculative, must not be resumed to an unstable equilibrium of imminent contradictions. I contend, instead, that the apparentness of any contradiction is but the item of a performance inhabiting the indefinable multitude of the instance, in itself and repeated around the successive appearance of its apparentness. Fundamentally, the contradictory is a symbol of the possible without the possibility of ever being, continued within the possibility of ever being: a symbolic performance organised through the fertility of an insecurable logos.

Action as Acting

The action talks of itself as the methodical move towards itself; in the act, there is not simply action, yet altogether the coordination it assumes proposed from the priority of its chosen exchange. More so, there is an unattainable coincidence with the intention as active, the one that does not happen and the other that is all for itself avoided in the choice of the action that therefore becomes phenomenal.

For the writer, as artist

Writing has, for itself, an acquitting volatility which is perennial in surmising an unadulterated growth, beneath the suspenseful desire of the writer, through his writings as recognition of himself. However, this growth is interrupted, ceased indefinitely, whence the written can no longer be instructed as a peremptory self-image of he who has written. It is not happiness through an achievement; it is, rather, the consequence of self as through the endeavour to write. Expression is absent, exploration is final. And never promptly a will to self-explore; exportation would be more conscious than this.

The technological pharm.

It is a connection, without symbols. The sign in effect is the signature of the non-symbolic production of the attachment. The attached are an absence of the very connection attaching. There are no visible links and the sign becomes, as well, invisible together with the connected. The latter having nothing in this state.

Where is the art of having been?

My death will reach me in woken hours, in the loss of some consciousness sometime before the charged surrender. And that loss, the sole virtue of my possessive angst, should happen at the excited tenet of some empty achievement. What had I lost then that had not meant my current expiration? Some remorse... Where remorse is the discovery of a disrespected autonomy forged in the zenith of the unwilling.

Offering as Self-gesture

Offering is a founding attribute of the will to emerge as the object of the offer. As the subject, the instrument of the donated is reforming the sense of the self retained unto a submission that is outside the desire in the submitted, a turning of the self-presence to a presentation of the self represented in an undefined instance of self without.

For Her,

There, in the instant, I am confronted by my full insignificance; not in what is represented, but in what I leave between it and myself; the appearance not-coming, the apparentness of the not-coming and the revelation of my self to my self. In the act, I cease before the denouement.

I can give you nothing when giving means an offering of something I should have.

“I saw your prompted arrival, prompted there, here, prepared to avoid something.”

My arrival became explicit in the curiosity. As for her coming, by then I shall have returned to our meeting, cognizant of the practical implicitness of my precocious re-existence – whence the first was unintentionally proper, and the second a reattempting effect of the previous prepulsivity – within that envied parenthesis of ineffable reciprocity.

She had the exhausted desperation of a motivated sub-culture, existing in the periphery of itself, in the periphery it creates through peripheral laterality, under the positivity of a replacement.

You are the disquieting articulation of my sincerest regret. This devolution of time into a fraction of what it had been afore my position disorganised. The disorganisation of my ideal after you is a redemption for the hearts tormented by a terror unsustainable, but what of I, who had a nature of perfecting sensibility ahead of my movement, what have I to elaborate from this lax time? A memory to imagine, a remorse to defy with fabricated causalities, a truth to disprove with obvious fallacies and a self incomplete to fulfil with empty hours of tangential despair. I saw something poetic and real, and I obstructed it with an unreal disability… there, in the margins of my greatest fortune, amongst the will of an undying romanticism, I chose the unappeasing lethargy of an apparent schizophrenia, retained in two attitudes, the prepared separation of desire from fear. In their cohabitation, I inhabited the stationary occupation of a visionary existence that must never actually exist, lest the art of life becomes an artistic representation of the unliveable for the discontinuous dichotomy of concurrent being and non-being; the thought in the unthinking.

When can I miss you and miss you without the interruption of noiseless activity? These questions I have posed are asked of this space between us, which I have fought to occupy with my divorcing writing, but the echo is too vast and I have now heard too much. Everything but the answer…

I have misplaced her complexion... it is hard to recall every detail of her docile face... But I have had my chances to make something happen. I want to think about her all the time, though sometimes I forget to and it makes me sad that I spent a few moments without her in my mind. It hurts, but it is a beautiful, caring, pain that, after all, never really hurt me, only reminded me of something I lost by not even trying.

The revolt: the room, she had the hold, and the holding was but the opportunity to say something. I said nothing, and there she stood, posed.

On the Indifferences of Object and Subject

A Man primordialized in the essence of his in-acted subjectivity. At this point he is neither subject nor object, but the collection of what defines these things, and brings them about into their cognized self-appearance (an appearance of the perceptive qualities under which they so ensue and become somewhere between what they are and their intuited being in the perceptional act of the individual, and, from this, the whole of their intuited form).

Existential fertilizers:

Be(in)g in

Be(in)g (in)


The subject is the context. Context means subjectivity.

The paradigm of truth is a diagrammatic self-proposition: proposing self, a self to accumulate in imitation, approximating.

The paradox is in the lack of contradiction within the swollen abstract.

I am the opportunity of language.

Somehow: similarity by distinction and distinction through lack of the similar between.

Corruption of the advertisement.

Emulation opposite self-acknowledgement of other distances of selfness.

It has been my limbic excuse, now excused by the exclusion of the possibility.

All inexactable philosophy is philosophy.

Progress is slow; my motivation is at its highest.

The writer’s signature, passions of the individual, described liminality, liminality inscribed by subscription to the unwell self.

Am I defining words or is the definition herein, an account of worded assumption, extracting reality from its aligned temper, and rehearsing under the medium of colloquial meaning, unrehearsed reference?

The only reason for reason to be is the implication of the latter upon the former whilst the latter in this relationship (now reversed in order, formerly the former) has only the former (become of the latter), is of it only, only with the atmosphere of its stimulation (now smashed into one, one full reason).

As deep constant, the real is an image of what could happen beyond the given to itself, as a supposed practice.

I have realised, my art precedes me in what it presents; my art is the transgenderisation of the significant to in and the insignificant to simply sin; it is the person in reverse whose representation is I, me present.

The difficulty with posing a question is a difficulty of unlearning how to speak.

I am a system of numerical inadequacies. Simultaneous disconjunction-ing of root principles.

Introducing the Concept of Reversion

The opposite of transitivity is not intransigence; it is a reversion that, in itself, is not reversed, but a continual and heteronomising incursion of the other. This is where the other is made: not in the distinction of self becoming less self; it is of a moment already non-self, disambiguated immediately and turned by turning away from the principle of the first turn which is thence returned to the opposition to the turned, and the effect of other is encountered within the turning to another, wholly posited in the same direction, the inalienable plain of the alienable: never direction as movement, but movement as irreversible construction. Destruction is not a reversal of the constructed: it is its very reversion.

An Amoral Ethics of Morality

The ethical is an umeditated means which mediates the suffrage of the individual situated in the course of his unmeditated directives.

Morality is a system of ethics countenanced with the veil of cognatic subjectivity.

Morality is a system of ethics structured into the cognitive commitment of a few, and apparent for the structural refutation of the rest.

Morality is a system of ethics which has become commonplace for the lack of perceivable lucidity in the alterity.

Verbalising my significance to the sign

I am an exiled adverb, a situational autonomy of syntax that may, in the fullness of the autonomous condition, be thus disaffected, for I am not simply a replaceable, banal, sign in the economy of the sentence – whilst this would not affect the whole in the slightest and one should by effect into it gain a sufficient passivity permissible… No, my placement is not a substitutable presence, or even an ignorable one; it is that my inclusion should signify the disruption of the original syntax and reform the whole meaning of the sentence as was. Ultimately, this adverb of me must become particular to a will to re-signify, if accepted, by the economical writer of the mentality.

There is no discourse

The book has started before itself, it is beyond the expectation of its convenient form; it is indeed a language, a concentrated rendition of the pronounceable, saying itself. All concepts employed are an employment of the exterior unto the interiorisation, a collapsing of the familiar to the immediately central and a reified suggestibility of the dispersedly suggestible comes out of a discourse that was solemnly the course of the outer – therefore, only inner.

Thursday, 28 March 2013

The Pre-communist Manifesto

- We strive by ideals alone and practice silence as a strident form of protest: existence alone, notoriety in this, will accommodate the power of our presence and become the foremost violent attitude/act – between these last two concepts, we presume to afford no actual distinction;

- The foremost violence, as prepared above, is a violent form of presented existence, in our attitude towards and conviction in it;

- The central occupation of our party is to co-exist with, though not be able within, the democratic rule of the current West, in its full heterodox self-contradictory rhetoric and activity;

- Further, we account for the amassment of the number: the more people, the greater symmetry in the effect of our existential motif. We co-operate under the image of this very cooperation ensuing as pure will to ensue sufficiently;

- Our objectives centre on the disturbance of all power that currently is, both obvious and inconspicuous, and on the promotion of the axiological prophecy of the power in numbers. It is not within our will to attain power, merely overshadow the consciences of those who retain it in possession, by the silent threat of just being, and fundamentally officiate the immaterial referendum of the equal people;

- This referendum will consist in the signature of the image, propagated in the signal it can portend over the participation, alone;

- Once more, the action subtending the pre-communist party is an inactive role of concessive reminiscence. Our object, constantly sought, is a non-existent numerical force that somehow comes to exist in the polar economy of political advantage;

- The party has no image, only the sound of undetermined policy and unpreoccupied orthodoxy. At best, the party is a pre-eminent perpetuation of demonstrations, that will not happen under the symptoms of actual, physical, protest;

- However, the latter principle of absent demonstration does not preclude the possibility of members partaking in other demonstrations of the public, whereof the knowledge of this membership may indeed be acknowledged, though not utilized in the rational commitment to these external vocal protestations;

- Finally, to accede to such membership, those interested must be interested in the interests of the cause, which are: full-consciousness of the party’s commitment to remain particular in the democratic order; full-understanding of the party’s silent media; full-commitment to the sole means of protest encouraged by the pre-communist party: mandatory proliferation;

- The pre-communist party is an act of pure will, potentiated in the method of its size, pluralized in the communal co-operation towards it. It is not a body politic, but a politics of bodies.

Friday, 21 December 2012

Extract from an Essay on the Absurd

“The absurd is/can be nothing more than the accident of realizing the position one has in a world that is already against one’s self before this self has/can have any real ability to be – much less become. Of course, this dimension of being is very particular to the accident: it is a sense for existence that impels one to strive within such a self-conscious state, and become the ideal, or recreate it, into the world where it is not yet. The absurd is nothing more than the enigma we cannot know, but altogether acknowledge as the void which separates our struggle from the intentions of an indifferent cosmology. As we confront its appearance (an appearance perfected out of a continual and contiguous practice, dissected between expectations that became frustrated, and a reason directed back into itself attempting to console the hopelessness felt, it happens out of the nothing returned from a carriage of dedication) we see it not as the truth untold, but as the revelation of our greatest illusion: the tangibility of meaning. It is this loss of an elusive understanding, a destruction of an involuntary faith in the something felt and the everything known… it is the second accident, after the first which prescribes us with the property of signification and the ideas of identification. This absurd is nothing short of a decomposition of that which, had we seen it before, would have disposed of our will to exist and given us the immediate sensation of an ever present death, imminently provincial. Now that we have lived the life of the ignorant, only now aware of the apparent lack in our inter-speculative truth (shared beliefs), the memory can but shame us into resisting the complete dismissal of our will, for we cannot desist entirely from the past imaginations of our own sense of being, and the identity we sought to pursue in the accord between our presence and that desire which inclined us into a future possibility. No, the will, although self-conscious of its disintegrating rationality, of its less than intuitive purpose, must see itself reconditioned rather than without place. The will must maintain itself and stare into the absence found, into the absurd encountered, and desperately seek to reduce the validity of meaning instead of regarding it with a higher estimation now that it has been declared “the shadow of Man’s emptiness within the world”. We must will ourselves into it all, and go back to whence we came as the individuals we are, as the people we were… all of this, without the desperation to be who we cannot become, and become who we cannot be.

“The absurd not only defies the sense of the world within us, it must casually dismiss the sensitive identity had of our own selves in the outer world. We do not just lose the typical in the void; more importantly, we know that we have lost the existential quality of individuality. This is not due to a nihilism that must reconvene us all, however. No, the sense of the absurd is actually what refrains our history from communing in a posterior anticipation of the nihilistic. By interlocking the vacuous in us, we contemplate only the division, never a newer truth – never a truth of no truths, solely the absence of truth in the autism we must come to revel in. Through this, the individual concerns himself with a sensational perspective: experience of the nothing. Importantly here, we must not assume this nothing to be the absolute of the outer; rather, it is only the developed causality between an intentional being and a disinterested externality, returned to him. Once he moves, the world does not react under the same pathology. The pathological beneath the experiential surface of the individual is, before his realization, an expectative source awaiting the world’s reaction to his wilful integration under the first condition he comprehends – ability to become. This ability is not a remarkable skill, solely an able-ness of the self to realize its self in the possible; possibly mutable under the desires of the pathology. The possibility could possibly change under the extremes of the pathological stubbornness. Nonetheless, this active pathology must subside in the “self-appearance” of the absurd (appearance of the absurd in the self of the individual), and the individual will have to distinguish himself now from the will he once exhibited and come to be in the experience of this abandonment. He abandons not himself, but a quality of his existence that guided him under the fiction of a sensitive world, or fictitiously made the world an appearance of a sensitive emollient.

“He must live as he always has, but in comprehension of the betrayal between two natures in which he has been implicit: his and that of the frigid independence beyond himself. This is accidental; all of it. The life of the living cannot be curtailed because of it, but it can be plausible to assume that the living in the life of those implicated between the divisive circumstances will be affected to a gravitational form of acceptance. They will accept the experience of the nothing as they remember the history of their graduated deceptions and fixated aspirations, and reveal themselves to themselves in the nudity of their self-realization (turning into) into the vacuity, also. They are a stringent part of the absence: they are the absence created. We are that absence. The experiences we have forever suffered attain the real form of their antagonisms and ambivalences in the appearance of the absurd existence, for it is the way we have always existed, only misinterpreted in the indication of its signification: we become without us and, at the very same time, profoundly reattached to ourselves as we refill the emptiness felt within with the emptiness of the absurd, replacing the elongated struggle to become with the senseless attitude of pure being. No further is there a competition for the identity, just the overcoming of difficulty to identify the other in the next person.”

Extract from an Essay on Suicide

“A general explanation to somewhat substantiate the difference here, should commence with the fact that there is an irrefutable inaccessibility between the minds of two separate individuals. This lack, or void between two personalities, complexifies the character of knowledge we may contend to have of the “other” – that other person. Not knowing them, not being able to know them, in the same way as one would come to know and be familiar with oneself, creates an almost absurd circumstance: the act of knowing some else becomes the same act of not knowing oneself by the measure of knowing them, because these two forms of knowledge cannot be simultaneous or else the very account of knowing will be distorted by the actual duality of these two. What this means is that how I come to know the other person must really be assumed as a knowledge I have of them, without distraction from how I may know myself and, hence, there happens the very same connexion of the incompatibility we had recognized as untenable. Simply put, we have to distort the knowledge we have of knowing ourselves and the other, so as to be able to know the two of us at any one time. This creates many varied problems; however, we want to centre ourselves upon the difficulty it identifies in our rational approach to the other.

“Having explicated this excited development within the context of the individual needing to “have” (as in to possess consciously in consciousness) the other in order to be able to firmly exist with them, I must now proceed to analyse the consequences of such disarrangements. Whence suicide is concerned, the act of contemplating the suicidal other is something we all find easy to start, yet hard to accomplish with any degree of rational determination. What happens in these moments is an assumption over the actual feelings, desires and states of he/she who is suicidal by us, the contemplating collective. There can be a rapid approach to judge in the belief that we somehow know how they are feeling, as if we are able to feel/know the reasons why they are from somewhere led to this stage. According to my earlier analysis of the identification with the other, I will argue that such beliefs are distorted, and become distorted from the disabling circumstance of two types of knowledge overriding each other: the act of knowing oneself and the distinct opportunity of knowing the other: because they cannot be simultaneous, their eventual simultaneity is a mistaken lapse within the presential conditions of the us, the collected, as a positional jury: we believe they feel how we do, or we have and thus we can believe ourselves to be able judgers of such destitute situations; and, altogether, we believe that our manner of thinking should be as accessible to them as it is to us, be as reasonable to them as to us, for we believe them to be us as we them, by this distorted mechanism of mental cognition of the other as with us…

“All of this to depart onto a simple idea: the individual who chooses his/her death is an individual without us, as we are individuals without ourselves as a believable collection of individuals – not solely different, but unintelligible in our proper differences. The collective assumes the idea of itself, yet it is but one, or many, individuals seeing the collective and themselves at the same time, as if there would be some absolute synchronicity or an undiminishable circumstance of its being there. However, it suffers the same ailment as the individual does with his desire to think himself out of life, when the truth of his rationale is extending onto the belief for its termination: here, now, he suffers the inability to go beyond himself and realize whatever would become necessary for this primary belief to be discarded; as they, the collective, cannot possibly know the “place” of his death wish, nor ultimately access the acute disposition of his sentimental pretendences. There is an unassailable divide, as like the collective is just a collected possibility of individuals, this angst must also be presumed in their deficient belief of their apposite collection.”

Extract From an Essay on Free Will

Individual Priority

“My greatest concern is with priority (what is there before), memory (what has happened before), appearance (what is happening now) and presence (what is here now) – all of which are features of the decision, not to mention factors of the ultimate one: the choice is not just made, but it is a result of a present state of mind, a formality of its own mathematical deduction between what there is to help make the decision at the time, and also a choice of its self - a choice of its own choice – in that it exists first – as an option to be chosen – and is later – as the choice chosen – once it is chosen by the exercise of the mind, having this one chosen itself (the act of choosing as a choice, in itself – a progressive symmetry) by happening to choose. To choose to choose and thence choose the chosen.”