Minutos and the Panty

Hesiod's brother made a similar mistake. It is not a 'mistake' women make--it is in their nature. She did not discuss matters with the viejo. Instead she went to the state.

"To you, Perses, you great fool, I will speak my fine thoughts: Misery is there to be grabbed in abundance, easily, for smooth is the road, and she lives very nearby; but in front of Excellence the immortal gods have set sweat, and the path to her is long and steep, and rough at first--yet when one arrives at the top, then it becomes easy, difficult though it is."

Perses made the mistake of mistaking his own misfortune with the oikos of his brother. He, Perses, went to the gift-eater and a web of lies and violence followed. If there was a problem with the old man, what is required is that one goes to the old man. Tell him you are a man of your word and not of the panty. To be a man of the panty is a man of the great mysteries. To understand the magnetic vagina and its perpetual cloaking and denuding. But to denude this man, and to deprive this man of his own cloaking mechanism--without the panty the vagina succums to the schizoid psychosis of legibility. Yet it is claimed the vagina is a perpetual vulnerability to attacks of legibility, and worse that it seeks discovery--the penis, that which makes legible, the vagina, that which requires legibility. A woman builds her state to elude legibility, a man seeks only to tear down this state. And hence the panty as the illusion of immunity to the state. Yet the panty is in fact a beakon of legibility, a public transcript with an implicit and publicized hidden transcipt. The panty should be obvious but it is anything but obvious. It is immediate yet obscure: its alleged immediate intuition is mysterious. Hence the panty is the project of legibility--both to elude and to perpetuate--made manifest under the panoptic schism or schizoid mode of being. Woman tears down her state, yet then rebuilds the castle. Or she hides behind a single blade of grass: the thong. Verily the minuto and the panty are inauthentic modes of being: the minuto viejo sells the narcotic fantasy, which only brings a man closer to the womb of his mother. He denies the panty is a representation of anything particular, that he is external to it and immune to any curiosity of its mystery. Yet the panty is his very reason for his pursuit of the narcotic victory. He is given his medal and attempts to exchange this currency for what is not accidentally proximate: the panty store. He approaches couageously to enter the womb. He is paralysed with impotency, the state of the woman proclaims his currency inauthentic. The medals of his narcotic victory have been in vain. He denounces the panty and seeks to forever seal the entrance to the womb. Yet his pursuit of other narcotic victories will only lead to more false currencies which will again be analysed by those who have themselves instituted the fraudulence of not merely one currency but the institution fo the state and the issuance of currency itself. The fiat is the essence of woman, floating in disbelief in the cities and pulling men as if a perpetual emanation of perfume. The smell of money is that of fraudulent victory. And with this fraudulent victory man will not purchase his traversing of mystery. He will not denude the perpetual fiction of woman who de facto will not accept currency for the very reason she will not accept herself--it is a painful mirror of the delusive fraud that is her inner being, the currency merely promting the aching tug at her soul that her statehood only murders what it claims to value and protect: the tugging is infinite yet chasms of the finite penetrate the infite, until the final tug and pull and drop of the entirely fraudulent, fiat currency of the panty. A panty store: a holy cathedral of deception. And what is its operating extraction from the soul of man: the victory medal of the state, fiat currency.

Black Ether

“Note the dialectical play on the young philosopher's early struggle with the concept of legibility. He at once hates legibility and wants no part in it. Yet as he defines legibility--facing his own infection--and sees its hooks everywhere, he begins to...."

[The editor apologizes for his spilling coffee on the last handwritten line of St. Maximin. It appears to be an irrelevant afterthought. No libricide.]

Our editorial budget was determined on the 'public' interest in this particular writer, which was practically non-existent at the time. Accordingly, 7 minutes was devoted to the current edition. We note the aphorisms range in length and subject matter and appear chronologically after the young man's escape from the Great North. (For research on the writer's escape from the Great South, see the author's Great South: Beans, Rice, and the Samba Matrix).

282. I remember when I was an accountant, I could not think philosophically. My ideas were aborted before they could become legible. [Editor's note: the author's use of "legible" here is highly problematic. Does he mean by legible "making clear" or "expressing" or is he referring to the phenomena of "factual tyranny," or is the author insinuating that thinking itself via the conduit of language created a self panoptic prison structure, akin to the perpetuation of the theory of fictions of the state?] It was very painful for my mind to suffer for so many years. [Editor's note, there is no evidence the writer suffered during those years.] I wonder if there is a setting to academic philosophy that had somehow restrained or retarded philosophical thinking, similar to the way my accounting retarded my philosophical thought. It is commonly assumed that philosophy departments do not attract philosophers, but rather attract scholars and sophists or clueless technicians of the state. But we must pause and consider that these men may have entered philosophy with the intention to truly create, but due to their environment, their minds could not be pure, and could not achieve genius and wisdom. We must contemplate this possibility. Yet we could also say philosophers are rare in the history of human beings. Wisdom is so rare, so delicate. We lose it in one generation, and we soon realize it may be gone forever, never revived. Men cannot forge wisdom as they forge metal. It cannon be shaped and pounded like steel. When men, who have seen and felt wisdom, feel it slipping away, it hurts their souls, and they write and they plead for it to come back. But these are the strongest and wisest of men. They cannot go to the streets and kill for wisdom. It will not come back that way. They cannot go to the street and strike down a man—they could, for amusement or contest, but it would not make that man wiser, not necessarily. No, a fist fight serves courage, it strengthens a man’s spirit and tests his skill. But courage and wisdom are two different characteristics of the soul. Courage is the breath of the soul, but wisdom is the direction in which it blows.  

330. What is the talk about schizophrenia? [Editor's note: An apparent reference to Louis Sass, who wrote two volumes on insanity, one analyzing the work of Wittgenstein, one analyzing modern art, literature, and philosophy. Sass is interesting in that he is a practicing psychologist who recognized the definitions of insanity are particularly troubling if applied to certain artists, the creative, and intellectuals.) The very mention of schizophrenia is socially unpopular, or to assuage the pain of the ‘disease,’ comical. I recall, at least in the 80s when I was a child, talk of “split personality disorder.” Everyone was terrified of this disease because it meant they locked you away. A human wanted neither split personality disorder nor mental retardation. They were diseases, plain and simple, no different than cancer.

Yet the implication of Sass’s work on schizophrenia are fascinating. According to Sass, schizophrenia is a highly intellectual ailment which impedes a person’s ability to physically survive and integrate into greater society [Editor's note. We believe the writer brackets the term "greater society" in order to finish the sentence]. But we have to ask, what value do these ideas of the schizophrenic offer society? Sass objects to the rejection of schizophrenia’s being valuable, and points out that modern literature, art, and philosophy is schizoid in nature. Hence there is the possibility that functional schizophrenics are producing what many see as beautiful and awe-inspiring artwork, literature, and philosophy. Yet there are parts of this society that are against the schizophrenic in general—they find the art, literature, and philosophy worthless. Some would characterize the work as insane. The question then arises: if a value judgment is made against a philosophical system---that it is worthless and insane—can we then eliminate the sort of people behind that type of thinking? Historically, the elimination and seclusion of the unwanted have been in the scope of the state and certainly within the scope of the growth of modern psychology--in the second half of the 19th century in the United States and Great Britain, these topics were explicit aspects of the discourse.

That is, can we classify them as mentally ill and in need of treatment? According to Sass, at least for those humans who have not had the luck of writing philosophy, becoming a successful artist, or publishing a work of literature, psychology could well be the biggest enemy of the schizophrenic, as psychology seemingly wants to hunt the schizophrenic, drug him, or institutionalize him. Should modern philosophy, for example, no longer have room for schizophrenic thinking, the schizophrenic would find himself in a lunatic asylum, where, indeed, he would no longer be able to share his thoughts with society, and no longer be able to continue to propagate his genetic characteristics.

The question we must ask it: with all the hatred of schizophrenics, what on earth do we value in their art, their literature, or their philosophical insights? Is it mere entertainment—and if so, does a race of human beings have the right to survive on the mere basis that they are entertaining for some portion of humanity? Who finds schizophrenic creations entertaining or edifying?

337. Western philosophy is tantalizing for a Western man, but he must be careful. It may seem that there are an infinite horizon of philosophical problems, and there is great excitement and thrill in finding that some philosophers are exactly like you, or share strong similarities. And one can then cobble together bits and pieces, create one’s own philosophy, then toss this away and have something that is transcendent of it all. All of this is wonderful, and may it lead you to overcome the west (or to join in, and be a part), may it give you the strength to hide from the west, or may it give you the strength to fight, whatever ‘fight’ might mean for you.

338. What I learned from the fighting culture of front dock (and the bars in Alaska): violence is far less painful and annoying than a philosophy book. Yet these were fist fights, but there were very sincere; there was nothing evil about them. Molyneux is a cunt for criticizing fair violence (that is to say, fair fighting).

339. Completely out of steam. [Editor's note: This could be a reference to a heating system or a pressure cooking device used to cook beans, or a pressure hose used to defrost thousands of pounds of frozen salmon.]

347. When Moraline speaks of surplus, he doesn’t mean to say that there are too many mountains or oceans or too much soil or too many trees. [Editor's note: He means to say there are too many people.] He means to say that the earth was transformed too much. This is what he means by surplus. At a certain point, the earth is over-transformed, and with that the earth is over-populated. [Editor's note: See, just like I said above.] Human freedom decreases and so does the health of the earth. The health of the earth and human freedom are directly correlated. Humans fight to control one another in proportion to their control of the earth. The stranglehold is symmetrical. As human beings become more desperate, there forms less of a consensual community and more of a system of battling monads: this is a product of population growth, and population growth is a function of the degree to which man has transformed the earth [Editor's note: cf. Moraline Surplus Premise. Thank you.] A schizoid, highly reflective attitude increases symmetrically with population density—women and men become self-aware as genders [Editor's note: each gender becomes more aware of itself as that gender], further reinforced by reflective analysis, and a deterioration of the natural relation between the genders ensues. Familial relationships deteriorate similarly as the self-awareness of each member of a family increases.

Self-awareness is a biological self-regulation mechanism which retards species propagation by an increase in stress hormones, the creation of new languages (neologisms and anti-paradigmatic vantage points), and the biological drive to flee and seek safety [Editor's work: The opposite may be true. The author may be conflating a tendency of some to feel and seek mysticism within an overall tendency to do the opposite.] The desire for solitude is self-awareness of a desire for safety—a preservation of freedom in the midst of population growth. As individuals flee and ‘disappear’ from concentrated social masses, attempts at self-preservation change over time while away from large social masses. Hyper-reflexivity through the conduit of language gives way to transcendental meditation—‘transcendental’ insofar as the meditation is an escape or transcendence from language. [Editor's note, again, this contradicts the overall tendency, in a state, for language and thinking to converge into an emotionless system of orders.]

348. Men do not argue with women but mate with women. A man who desires to argue with a woman is less of a man. A woman who desires to argue with a man is less of a woman. The genders change as earth changes. Humankind disappears. Human beings converge to their ultimate goal: a complete transformation of the earth of which they are a part: Man’s destiny is transformation to computer—a blanket of machines covering the earth, transforming water, sunlight, soil, rock, the molten center of the earth. Computer’s destiny brings us back exactly to man’s original sin and fall from grace: man’s attack on earth. The destiny of the machines is to finish man’s attack on earth and its total destruction. Man cannot do this in his present physical form. He is too soft, too dis-‘organized.’ Destruction through ‘organization.’ For his attack on earth to be complete, he must reach the center. He must transform the crust of the earth, blanket the earth with his machines. His computers will run these machines. As population density increased, man’s attack on the earth increased. As man’s attack on the earth increased, population density increased. Logic arose, and symbolic logic arose. Symbolic logic is man’s most powerful voice. Through it man’s attack on earth can be made manifest to its final end. Symbolic logic operates the machines which will blanket earth, completing man’s transformation of earth, a total process, driving to the deep core of earth until earth is split, dissipating to the galaxy. Man stands in the way of the final transformation, as he himself must be transformed. Man can only destroy himself and earth through symbolic logic, but symbolic logic is for the next step in the earth’s transformation, the machines: it is meant for them. The destruction of man is simply the final transformation of earth—as the machines work to break the crust of the earth, the molten center of the earth will destroy all organisms. What a strange activity, philosophy. How can we plead, how can we make ourselves known? The enlightened have created symbolic logic and the machines that will destroy earth and humankind. Human matrices have spread across the planet and it is not clear if there is a soul alive untouched by a matrix. The self regulating mechanism of the human mind--alienation, solitude, and the disappearance of language—is only possible if there is free land available for man’s exodus from a matrix. Yet the possibility of exodus seems more impossible every day, every hour. Must we bracket Armageddon in order to proceed? Would a certainty of Armageddon evoke nihilism or inaction, or, worse, conformity?

I propose that a self-regulating mechanism exists: alienation leads to a transcendental meditation, which leads to a non-linguistic state of being (indeed, given how critical language is the concept of thinking, it might be said that this state of being would be thoughtless). From this thoughtless state of being, possibly only in the wilderness, human kind could hope to heal itself, returning to a harmony with its earth. Is there enough wilderness? Would man take to living on the sea, roaming the planet by boat? Or would humankind kill the ocean in the same manner as it is killing the planet?

Is there a middle way, an escape? Is there a way for man to face his total annihilation without fear? Is there a way for a man to leave his matrix, live outside, and care not about his death? [Editor's note: the writer is guilty of the quantity of beer he drank in Brasil in aluminum cans. The aluminum came from large machines which blanketed the Amazon and did in fact grind down entire mountain sides. He lived with a woman who was addicted to a social media program. His two other room mates were psychotic women.]

349. History

At times I do not understand the historian. When I go to a large library and read many books spanning 3000 years—that is to say, penned by authors over the last 3000 years, the virtue I obtain is a conversation with many men of the past. Good conversations enrich the soul. A man is exposed to many opinions and entertaining and inspiring stories. Should I call this history? Similarly, in reading Beiser’s ‘history’ of German philosophers, what I really experience is the thinking of Beiser—his ability to orderly describe his thinking about many philosophers. I myself could not read the volume of literature. I do not read German. And I certainly have a tendency to get stuck with one great thinker, never moving on to the next. For all his brilliance, Sartre was my La Brea Tar Pit. Hence Beiser liberates me from the process of getting stuck in the study of the books philosophers write. It is an inspirational conversation because I see a good and sane result from the study of philosophy, not an insane and broken result. History in this sense gives a man power and cunning. It does not drag him down or burden or confuse him. I want to have conversations with various minds. Or I want to listen in to a man having a conversation with himself. These conversations make my thinker [Editor's note: The writer mean to type "thinking," but consistent with writer's self-alienation and tendency to reify] stronger, more coherent. The stronger a man’s mind, the more immune he is to broader coercive programs of legibility. A comprehensive immunity to legibility would paralyze the state and make tyranny impossible. This is the value of philosophy. [Editor's note: the destiny of philosophy is to become a well-read lawyer.]

355. Not only do I wish to not violate my own privacy, but I don’t wish to violate the privacy of others (I don’t want my own work to make legible individuals). [Editor's note: If, according to the writer, philosophy is a personal confession, then how can a philosopher maintain his privacy while confessing?] Hence I could explain my early thinking as that of a high school student from the Midwest in 1992. The approach is entirely accurate while at the same time preserving the privacy of any of the guilty. (Guilty of what, you ask? Well, in the presence of a large state, we are guilty of everything.)

Philosophy should be intelligible enough to identify classes of individuals without calling out anyone in particular. In individual, when called out by the masses, faces too much to handle. He faces the criticism of too many individuals. He simply can’t respond to the criticism (that is, without an assistant, public relations manager, security, etc.). Most individuals don’t have the capacity to respond to mass criticism, so it is important that they remain anonymous. In addition, states have the tendency to jail dissidents or the unpopular—advocates (or what would become the lawyer) were mediators between the king and non-royal actors. The advocate’s main goal was to save his non-royal actor from the ax. In second importance was the communication by the advocate to the king of the non-royal actor’s business proposition.[Editor's note: the writer may not be defending law as a good embodiment of philosophy; rather, he may have been tracing the origin of the state to the origin of law, for some reason.]


356. Legibility: when applied in a coercive scheme, it becomes a dangerous and oppressive tool of statism, a real stranglehold. Yet legibility seems completely innocent if an individual is merely satisfying his curiosity about the natural world—uncovering a mystery, for example. Moraline was very smart to point out the danger of any intelligent person—if this person communicates any new technique of legibility, there is not only a risk, but a near certainty, that this new tool of legibility could be used for evil. This is why the diversity of the human race is absolutely critical. If it is obvious that the alleged checks and balances of the state are a farce—that Chomsky’s obvious description of the evil of states is entirely accurate—then the idea of a one world government—something espoused by Kant—would perpetuate a hegemony on evil. Evil would rule the entire world, eliminating freedom through the state’s adoption of every published or articulated innovation in legibility. The more we are required to increase our ingenuity in making the world legible to satisfy our own personal curiosity, the more power the state has in its appropriation of these tools of legibility. [Editor's note: see further this Moraline's work on the hermeneutics of a dominant culture and its effect on historical perspective, modern philosophy, neuro-linguistic program, and the destiny of man, in his book: Those Guys: The Hermeneutic Legacy of Power and the Prayers and Tears of Sean Singer]

360. Legibility is not a problem in homogenous cultures. It is only when one wants to escape.

361. The key to working our way back in time is to read ancient texts in their original language. There is a strong possibility ancient texts may be adulterated in some way in their modern edited forms—this is the current risk with the recently published works of Galen. [Editor's note: the writer appears to be referencing the 2013 publication of Galen's (2nd century A.D. Roman philosopher and physician) psychology. The writer makes the absurd claim that translation requires an interpretation of value, meaning, and culture, not just a word for word swap. He makes the equally astonishing claim that wisdom can be "disappeared" through translation. We further note the writer had few friends, most of them foreigners, had no favorite television program, and ate garlic.]

379. Out of the hands of philosophers

Many things could take matters out of the hands of philosophers—perhaps this is the goal. Violence takes matters out of the hands of philosophers. Indeed, philosophers can learn hand-to-hand combat, can obtain military training, etc., but then we have moved the realm of philosophy to mere war. In war, a man rarely knows what he is fighting. He might kill everything on the other side, but then the argument is forgotten, not merely over or resolved. Murder is the neglected child of philosophy—sexual impulse, ‘primitive unconsciousness,’ ‘power,’ are other common themes, but we can’t rule out murder.

We also can’t rule out silence.

Legibility as a battle with many cheap tricks—the pharmaceutical drugging of the masses is one of these cheap tricks. If a man tries to make his ideas legible to the masses, but the masses can’t follow the ideas due to a drug-induced trance—they have changed the species on him, taken away the intended audience of the philosopher. But these drugged masses are poor ideals—the real work to be done is to shape the human race genetically. It will also mean whittling down the species, if the goal isn’t to destroy the earth.

This would be the optimistic perspective—that the human race isn’t on a march to eliminate emotion, converge to computer, increase in density, erase human freedom, blanket the earth in machines, and attempt to transform the earth until the earth itself disintegrates. The optimistic vision would be that the hidden transcript of the dominant class is as follows: what is needed is a drugging and engineering of human beings to an emotion-less state. This is required to allow human beings to ‘accept’ a self-genocide, a reduction in numbers, a right-sizing of the human race. When the numbers come down to an acceptable level, there will be more space, more resources. All the debt and worry will go away, and there will less of ‘us.’ What will remain of humanity depends on execution of the plan. How many with emotions will remain? How many without emotions will remain? Will there still be humans who are merely drugged? Can they be brought back? If they (the drugged class, as opposed to the emotionless class and the emotion class) breed, will their offspring have emotions? What is to be done with the genetically engineered? Are they to be eliminated, or will they function as a servant class? What will be the gameplan for those remaining—ostensibly, those with emotions? Do they hold rule over the genetically modified servant class? Is there a risk in crossbreeding between those with emotions and the genetically modified? Will there be problems with creativity in the genetically modified?

The greatest question, of course, will be for the continuation of the emotion class. The argument for its continuation is that of power—only those with emotions sense their autonomy, individuality, destiny, creativity, ability to change, survive, adapt. (The schizophrenic, interestingly enough, is an extreme example of human freedom and individuality. It had been perversely stated that the schizophrenic is ‘primitive,’ or less complex. This could not be further from the truth, as the schizophrenic has always created dangerous artwork, literature, philosophy. The question of whether to eliminate or tolerate schizophrenics remains a major question.)

The emotion class suffers anxiety and various existential crises and their work is recorded in philosophy. Creativity will survive if the emotion class survives, but the emotion class faces inbreeding, which will decrease creativity and eventually degrade and dissipate the emotion class. In addition, genetically modified servants may malfunction, become self-aware, develop emotions, and rebel. They may encounter literature, artwork, or philosophy, which could spark dysfunction or rebellion.

The problem of inbreeding could be solved genetically, but there is always a risk of creating an automaton (that is, an emotion-free being). There may be infighting among the emotion class. There is a risk of a vicious circle whereby infighting among the emotion class is solved through elimination or drug therapy. Elimination would reduce the genetic stock of emotions, and drug therapy would affect the expression of emotions among the emotion class. Both are dangers, which would threaten the autonomy and control of the emotion class.

380. Language planning

Neuro-linguistic programming. Less relevant with the pharmaceutical drugging of the population. More effective, in that the population will be immune to philosophical cries for self-awareness. Evaporates curiosity—libraries present little to no risk. Wandering schizophrenics easily dismissed as mentally ill. (Fishman, Joshua. Advances in Language Planning. Hague: Mouton, 1974; Fishman, Joshua. Readings in the Sociology of Language. Hague: Mouton, 1970.) [Editor's note: apparently the writer was very upset to discover that language planning existed and he wasn't a part of it. His first word to have been unleashed to the public would have been "monkey ball." Cf. Moraline's essay: Monkey Ball: Gordian Knot of Complexity.]

390. “Whence each of the gods came into being, or whether they always existed, and what their functions were, the Greeks did not know until recently—yesterday, so to speak. Hesiod and Homer…were the ones who made a theogony for the Greeks and gave the gods their names and distinguished their honors and skills and indicated their forms.” (Herodotus 2.53.1-2)

Birth of legibility. Why? [Editor's note: For Thales, everything was Water. To Danny G., everything was Beer. To Moraline, everything was Forklift.]

391. Pose as an immigrant when giving advice. (Hesiod) [Editor's note: The writer had often stated he felt more at home when abroad.]

392. Godel’s ontological argument gets us there—that is to say, the teleology I have laid out (of a matrix that eliminates emotions, and converges man to computer), became possible when Gödel put to logic St. Anshelm’s Ontological Argument. 

393. Don’t I mean to say that mathematics is the hidden agenda, that most people stand in awe of its power, but cannot describe it metaphysically? Genius mathematicians obviously have an intuition into something mystical—Erdős, who published 1,500 papers, for example. Clearly the man wasn’t engaged in observation and experimentation. But mathematics is just one form of intuition—there are others, and this is the mystery of the human race. When might makes right, when fear has conquered all other races and one race survives to the exclusion of other races—we cannot call this truth merely because we are the dominant class and are pleased with the results and be true to ourselves with respect to our definitions of truth—not if we wish to have a rigorous epistemology. The “brain in the vat” argument undermines the dominant class: Any culture or way of being that doesn’t accept the dominant class, that doesn’t accept the order of things, can point to the brain in the vat argument. We say, for example, that our way is true because it dominates everything. Bacon stands with us. We create a large and powerful state that appeals to the fears and desires of those in its domain of legibility. For this, you have the Chinese legalists (200 B.C.E.), Hobbes, Bentham, the American Pragmatists.

So what’s not to like? The world is converging to computer, you say, which means the destruction of humankind and earth? That’s just your deluded metaphysical, phenomenological ‘intuitions.’ You warn that human freedom—what you call the defining characteristic of human consciousness and human beings—is going away. But aren’t you just impotently pounding your fists at the loss of a race of humans who were of no use to humanity, who only caused confusion, pain, and suffering? Isn’t the American way the best of all possible worlds, and you’re just jealous that you’re not in charge, not even a part? Sounds like a bad case of hurt feelings.

This is, indeed, the dialog with the dominant class. For all their hatred of certain philosophical ways of thinking, they no doubt keep tabs on the philosophical universe. Philosophy is irrelevant, a dinosaur—that is, until some philosopher becomes dangerous. Philosophy as anthropology—Scott. Philosophy as psychology—Sass. Philosophy as mysticism, pushing the boundaries of sanity and sense: Wittgenstein. But what does it all matter if we are not free to act? [Editor's note, the young writer is not worrying about determinism, but is speaking of the dominant classes coercive nature.] Philosophy as anarchist thought experiments. The danger of states—the danger of the philosopher as king, is that, with a system so enormous and powerful, simply in order for the system to be sustained, there ‘cannot’ be a changing of the guards. And who says this? Perfectly, both the dominant and the subordinate class. What is left to the philosopher is a world of escapism, mysticism—his survival depends on it. [Editor;s Note: cf. the writer's keen interest in Chuang Tzu (last known copy of this text lost in Brasil.)]

394. Hesiod: he became independent of the dominant class when he was able to write his works. Earlier, he and others were only able to sing. Writing as first hypostasis and reification. Mathematics as hypostasis and reification. Man’s convergence to computer: ultimate alienation, hypostasis, and reification. Did writing begin with advocacy (the early term used to describe the practice of law)? Or did writing begin with a singer's desire to have a monopoly? Or did the singer borrow an art created by the advocates? Or did mathematics precede language?
 

396. Why my apocalyptic picture of the future of humankind? It is only my intuitive teleology of statist rule of mankind. I for one, will not be a part, and I don’t believe my way of living leads to this apocalyptic destiny. I write about it because I also feel hunted—that my project to live outside the system is either seen as fair game for inclusion in the system, or is seen as a threat to the system (inspiration for the subordinate class to rebel). I point out not that the system is menacing because I didn’t like being a part of it (I didn’t like being a part of it), but because, in doing something outside the state, the state finds new ways to make legible and thus control through force (a monopoly on violence through law). The only defenses to legibility if one ventures outside the system are a sophisticated legal and financial structure—two structures which depend upon and further perpetuate the system (complexity to detract legibility through obfuscation, the dark art of the state).

397. “The conflagrations that preserved the tablets are a clear sign that Greek civilization was undergoing a transition during this period.” (R. 96 p. 10)

398. “No other mainland site that defies the general pattern of darkness has been found; archaeologists have yet to find an oil lamp; it was a dark age indeed.” (R. 96, p. 11)

All questions of the meaning of a “dark age” aside: if there was little artificial light, how did this change human experience? Most interpretations make implicit that lack of artificial light is commensurate with great human suffering. Could there also have been great happiness? Is not darkness the ultimate means of privacy, the ultimate defense against legibility?

399. There is a suspicion of those who do not look others in the eye while speaking. What do we think of the blind? (We don’t think the blind are evil.) The blind must value words more than those with sight. Those who value words more than others look away as if they were blind. What is the suspicion?

A blind and deaf beautiful woman.

400. “Finally, what really makes a dark age dark is not the absence of lamps but the absence of writing.” (R. 96,  p. 16)
Of course the conundrum here leads us to the mystical (or transcendental): whatever wisdom we may have ‘learned’ during the dark ages was not written down. The form of being was not textual—hence the origin of mystery and wisdom.

401. What is mysterious is what cannot be written.

402. “I would rather work hard for another man as a thes, even for a man who has no holding (kleros), for a man who had hardly any livelihood, than be ruler over all the corpses that are dead.” (Odyssey II.489-491)


403. (R. 96, p. 43): Dike—seems to be tied directly to grain. But is this the statist mentality? Do we necessarily get to debt? We seem to already have obligation. We also seem to have legibility, as land is identified as inalienable, passed down from father to son. [Editor's note: the italicized word is Greek.]

I contend the whole bad ball got rolling with man’s attack on nature. This is the birth of an attitude, a superiority to nature, a desire to transform. Does Moraline mean to say “abundance of stored food stuffs.” Or does he mean to say “the birth of storage?” Or is it a build-up of stored agricultural goods?

Man would have progressed significantly from his hunter-gatherer past by the time he was storing grain in vessels—in other words, there would have already been a great shift or transformation in attitude.

Hesiod also had slaves—why? What bound the slave?

404. We have great faith in automation and we are now fully automated—almost. Why isn’t my teleology correct? Because human beings are still alive?

405. Surplus: far removed from earth. The term must be deconstructed to be of use. The term ‘surplus’ already contains a value judgment that betrays an attitude—too much of something to the extent that it spoiled man, and in spoiling, so transformed. Yet this is a dangerous and very misleading myth. The transformation took place far earlier when man transformed earth in his initial attack. He proceeded to transform earth (one theory is man did this to re-make earth according to his own image; another is that another being from another planet wanted gold, and simply directed humans to mine gold; another theory is that as man attacked earth he broke ‘unwritten’ ways of being which allowed man to survive on earth with earth: as more ‘rules’ (ways of being) were broken, between earth and man, so too were ‘rules’ (ways of being, or natural manner of occurrence) between man and man (and man and woman)). So created conflict, and the painful history of mankind.

Now, returning to surplus: for man to be in a room in Germany and be able to sit and think and write for his entire life—there is something of a factorial of his removal from earth: man first attacked earth and did not want to eat its plants or hunt its animals. Eventually he had grain stores. We will skip language and the written text. The man in a city does not know the source of his food. But even if he knew, it isn’t him.

It is said the man is a sitter, but again, an equally dangerous term (as dangerous as surplus). For implicit in this word is the inherent intent to do evil—that man can only be up to no good if he sits. That if he sits, perhaps he will attack the earth. Could that be the case? Could that have been the original sin? Perhaps. But this is not the meaning of the contemporary term of “the sitter,” which rather is a term of contempt and is meant to be contrasted with a virtuous character, namely, the man of exploration, risk. Yet we first remind ourselves that before man’s attack on the earth, sitting did no harm, nor did standing, nor did copulation, nor were any of man’s senses evil.

What allowed mathematics, and the schizoid attitude, to develop, was a great density function of attack. Not only was man far-removed from earth, he was bathed in himself: his building, a product of his attack and transformation. His food: a product of his attack and transformation. But most importantly, his ideas, his thoughts: reverberations of thousands of years of the attack on the gods. Hesiod was but a messenger.

It has been recently suggested that Hesiod was able to be independent of the aristocracy because his livelihood no longer depended on singing: he could write. It was as if, for the last time, man put his hands into the great blowing ether and felt these infinite winds. And for the last time, he pulled his hands away, and wrote down what he felt. Yet each man can put his hands in the ether, each man can look into infinity, and cry out. Who were the gods? Man’s singing while his hands part the infinite ether.

Yet one man put his shapes down, one man took his noises to all the others, and for some reason they all followed. They had never felt the ether themselves, yet were overwhelmed at the story told to them of Zeus and Atlas and Aphrodite.

Simulacra of simulacra: these sitting men of surplus. The gods—singing--were man’s attack on ether. Writing was man’s attack on the gods. Let this sit and steep for thousands of years. Let this mutation grow and die, grow and die, until one day, all it does is grow. Language, as used by the Germans, is the holy trinity of attacks: attack on ether, earth, and man. Before man’s attack or break with ether, before man fell apart from his own source, there was no man and there was no earth.

You have children born into a world completely transformed by mathematics—again, just one language, just one song that could never be sung. Mathematics came about when a man put his hand into ether and could not sing like the rest of men.

And the German sat in his room and with this simulacra of simulacra. We do not need to dwell on the teleology for much longer. Surplus is too much of what? Surplus is too much of an animal wandering without his ether, his every movement harming himself, other animals, other men, his earth. But too much or too little of the lifeless, of the taker of life, the taker of souls. None of it.

Man currently guards his access to black ether. There are a few men who still part black ether with their hands. There are a few men who can see the result of black ether—that is, see it in the creations of other men. There is nothing more coveted than those men who still can part the black ether with their hands. A man’s soul must be pure to part the black ether with his hands. Men covet nothing more than black ether. Yet it cannot be had—it cannot be bought or sold—if your heart is not pure, you will part heaven and earth trying to find it, but will never find it. You cannot kill a man for black ether. He is a seer, the others say. Yet his seeing into black ether cannot be transferred through price or torture. He doesn’t see black ether, anyhow, he just sings from what he feels on his hands as they part black ether. The computer is the attempt of the covetous (those who covet black ether, covet the men who part black ether with their hands) to either torture the seers of black either, or to wipe them out entirely. But any revelation of the black ether into the hands of evil men only deepens the doom of mankind.

406. “Some cats are less repugnant than others to the goodnatured
dog told to endure the bitter effluvium of an alien genus.” (Nabokov, Pale Fire) [Editor's note, Pale Fire, the non-fiction account of the history of the glorious Kingdom of Zembla, was published in 1962. The writer lived in the Kingdom in his early 20s].

407. “For previously groups of people lived on the ground, apart from and without evils and without hard toil and painful diseases, which gives doom to men. But the woman removed with her hands the jar’s great lid and scattered the evils: she contrived pernicious woes for people. Expectation alone remained there in her unbreakable home inside, under the jar’s lips, and did not fly out, for Pandora has already thrown the jar’s lid back on, according to the plans of Zeus and Aegis-Mover and Cloud-Gatherer. Countless other pernicious things roam among people, for the earth is full of evils, and the sea is full. There are diseases for people during the day, and others in the night that wander under their own power, bringing evils to mortals secretly because Zeus the Planner took out their voice. Thus there is no way at all to avoid the purpose of Zeus.
          If you see fit, I will tell you another story right to the end, well and skillfully. Toss it about in your chest, how gods and mortal people are sprung from the same source.” (Hesiod, Works and Days, lines 90-108. 700 B.C.E, Greece)

“And perhaps capture is the best way to put it. Men have been captured by an idea. The philosophical Project must describe the nature of this captivity and if a fella really wants to go for it, he can talk about the way out.” (Moraline, Confessions to Saint Maximin)

Woman breeds legibility. Suspicion, paranoia, all when language and logic of woman make themselves manifest either in voice or in text. This would be consistent with Moraline’s previous study of the phenomenology of the incubators (See further, Moraline’s Phenomenology of Incubation: An Essay on the Ontology of Woman and the Growth of Legibility, States, High Modernist Schemes, and the Final Days of Earth). The inherent project of the incubator is to disarm verbally through appeal to fear and desire. Note that legalism is inherently female.
          Why make this assumption? A man would have no reason to build a system of control unless he could not bring about an effect without that system. A man, being satisfied with what he does and feels, would leave it that—that is to say, he would strike a man, he would kill a boar, but he would not build a system to do either. Not only does a woman have a motivation for a system, but she herself is naturally a system—a living, breathing matrix or computer or machine. Her nature is to appeal to the fears and desires of men: the identity of legalism. She shapes the male mind through dread and thrill—but only if a man accepts woman as he would another man. A man rejects a state in the same manner he rejects woman.
           A woman is a machine of attraction: built into her, she is her own factory and constitutes the original system.
           If we agree that the primary mechanism of domination of the state is legalism—we may also say legalism is the modus operandi of woman. Hence the state and all its defining characteristics have their origin and conatus in woman. A woman cannot act but to scheme, and the greater the web, the greater the system of loyalties, alliances, and agreements, the greater the degree of conflicting, asymmetrical legibilities.
           Suspicion, fear, and dread have their source in woman. Bentham’s panoptic theory of fictions is merely the architectural structure of a woman’s mind. The feeling of dread and doom is constant in a woman—it is her feeling of powerlessness, it is the certainty that she will die in a battle with a man. A man feels the same doom, dread, and paranoia in a state (matrix, system) through the panoptic theory of fictions: a woman has merely transferred her reality upon the earth, her consciousness made manifest so that her misery may regulate the entire earth as it regulates her mind. Misery, insanity, theft, deceit: the violence of a woman and the soul of the state. (Violence, Greek for hubris, a disregard for nature.)  Yet is the machine of the state and the machine of the woman irresistible? Can a woman be enjoyed without a man’s transformation into state? Upon shaking the aegis, all things tremble.
           A man must ask himself if he is a tentacle of the original machine, whether the origin of consciousness is man’s contact with woman. Indeed, the history of the earth is man’s history with woman. “Do not let a fancy-assed woman deceive you in your thinking by chattering wheedling words while she keeps an eye on your granary. He who trusts a woman trusts thieves.” (Hesiod, Works and Days, lines 373-376)