what did you put on the end of your last text to him?! this matter more than i can say.
it matter monstrously much and it is a FEELING. reason? what is that?


this i need to know. this i will pursue to the death, to the end, because if you don't even have that driving then what is it all for?

in the dazzling presence of the this striking sick feeling spreading across my chest, none of it matters... determinism? free will?
I NEED MY FAITH BACK.
"i want to believe that this is an illusion".... but my faith in nihlism as a form of life has vanished.

this is so painfully true.
truer than i ever wanted to admit but always probably true, I LIKE NAUSEA. I want this inertia, this freedom from responsibly, because the alternative bites.

hypocrite.

banging on like John Kennedy about responsibilities, not rights, banging on like Mr.Cameron...

"And I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don't just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities.

"One where we don't ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give.

(be honest won't you? isn't that why you hate him? you know that he lies too. none of us WANT that.)

"ask not what you might do for this world (for it doesn't exist), but what this world might offer to you"

Max Stirner was right, wasn't he? WASN'T HE?

I am the center of my god damned universe. Isolation. With freedom comes loneliness.

And so to return to the beginning....

Do we truly have the capacity to see through it? does anyone? or do we just develop our own perception more and more accurately, more and more in depth until we have twisted the 'facts' to fit it so beautifully that it seems we know everything.

We know nothing. Truly, this is all that i can be sure of.

When i think about language, i can only thing of how devoid of meaning it all is....

"However, the empiricist standpoint is not without it's failings, as even Wittgenstein himself recognised in his transition from Picture Theory to Game Theory. In fact, it can be said that the empiricist tradition utterly neglects the vital element of human subjectivity and diversity when considering the meaning of language; the very medium through which the human nature that he ignores manifests and expresses itself. In his later work, 'Philosophical Investigations', Wittgenstein recognised his earlier mistake; that the issue with logical analysis is that it demands too great a level of precision in the definition of words. In colloquial speech, and indeed ordinary language, an expression cannot be fixed referentially to one singular item in the world; it is subject to context, culture, and -crucially - vaugeness....."

Enough. And i go on describe Game Theory, and how it is far better suited to understanding the nature of human expression, which, funnily enough, rather reflects their nature.

What I don't do is take such statements to their logical conclusion; namely, that human beings in their utter inability to comprhend, or often even seek, truth, use their language merely to communicate their own perecptions, already filtered through personal bias, untill there is no such thing as a 'true sentence', and hence, even a catalouge of every sentence ever spoken would not ever constitute an accurate or substantial representation of the world as a whole.

Where am i going with this?

To the apophatic tradition, whose implications I must bravely explore, and attempt to examine with a naked eye.

'God' at least in my understanding, must equate to truth, to the absolute. Pure knowledge, in some form.

I have decided, somewhat unwillingly, that the only viable way to speak of such a character is to NOT speak of him/it/ /God at all. And why is that? Because nothing in human reason, and therefore human language (?) is capable of speaking of transcendence, or the universal. So that all there is left for us to say is....

"God is not evil. Nor he is good (for to describe him as 'good' limits his behavior to human boundaries.... even to speak of 'behaviour'... you get the picture!)"

So here is my question:

If we cannot speak of God, because of all these limitations, how can we ever hope to speak of truth?