More Nietz, and some blurbs
ON SELF-OVERCOMING
"Will to truth," you who are wisest call that which impels you and fills you with lust?
A will to the thinkability of all beings: this I call your will. You want to make all being thinkable, for you doubt with well-founded suspicion that it is already thinkable. But it shall yield and bend for you. Thus your will wants it. It shall become smooth and serve the spirit as its mirror and reflection. That is your whole will, you who are wisest: a will to power-- when you speak of good and evil too, and of valuations. You still want to create the world before which you can kneel: that is your ultimate hope and intoxication.
The unwise, of course, the people-- they are like a river on which a bark drifts; and in the bark sit the valuations, solemn and muffled up. Your will and your valuations you have placed on the river of becoming; and what the people believe to be good and evil, that betrays to me an ancient will to power.
It was you who are wisest who placed such guests in this bark and gave them pomp and proud names-- you and your dominant will. Now the river carries your bark further; it has to carry it. It avails nothing that the broken wave foams and angrily opposes the keel. Not the river is your danger and the end of your good and evil, you who are wisest, but that will itself, the will to power-- the unexhausted procreative will of life.
But to make you understand my word concerning good and evil, I shall now say to you my word concerning life and the nature of all the living.
I pursued the living; I walked the widest and the narrowest paths that I might know its nature. With a hundredfold mirror I still caught its glance when its mouth was closed, so that its eyes might speak to me. And its eyes spoke to me.
But wherever I found the living, there I heard also the speech on obedience. Whatever lives, obeys.
And this is the second point: he who cannot obey himself is commanded. That is the nature of the living.
This, however, is the third point that I heard: that commanding is harder than obeying; and not only because he who commands must carry the burden of all who obey, and because this burden may easily crush him. An experiment and hazard appeared to me to be in all commanding; and whenever the living commands, it hazards itself. Indeed, even when it commands itself, it must still pay for its commanding. It must become the judge, the avenger, and the victim of its own law. How does this happen? I asked myself. What persuades the living to obey and command, and to practice obedience even when it commands?
Hear, then, my word, you who are wisest. Test in all seriousness whether I have crawled into the very heart of life and into the roots of its heart.
Where I found the living, there I found the will to power; and even in the will of those who serve I found the will to be master.
That the weaker should serve the stronger, to that it is persuaded by its own will, which would be master over what is weaker still: this is the one pleasure it does not want to renounce. And as the smaller yields to the greater that it may have pleasure and power over the smallest, thus even the greatest still yields, and for the sake of power risks life. That is the yielding of the greatest: it is hazard and danger and casting dice for death.
And where men make sacrifices and serve and cast amorous glances, there too is the will to be master. Along stealthy paths the weaker steals into the castle and into the very heart of the more powerful-- and there steals power.
And life itself confided this secret to me: "Behold," it said, "I am that which must always overcome itself. Indeed, you call it a will to procreate or a drive to an end, to something higher, farther, more manifold: but all this is one, and one secret.
"Rather would I perish than forswear this; and verily, where there is perishing and a falling of leaves, behold, there life sacrifices itself-- for power. That I must be struggle and a becoming and an end and an opposition to ends-- alas, whoever guesses what is my will should also guess on what crooked paths it must proceed.
"Whatever I create and however much I love it-- soon I must oppose it and my love; thus my will wills it. And you too, lover of knowledge, are only a path and footprint of my will; verily, my will to power walks also on the heels of your will to truth.
"Indeed, the truth was not hit by him who shot at it with the word of the 'will to existence': that will does not exist. For, what does not exist cannot will; but what is in existence, how could that still want existence? Only where there is life is there also will: not will to life but-- thus I teach you-- will to power.
"There is much that life esteems more highly than life itself; but out of the esteeming itself speaks the will to power."
Thus life once taught me; and with this I shall yet solve the riddle of your heart, you who are wisest.
Verily, I say unto you: good and evil that are not transitory, do not exist. Driven on by themselves, they must overcome themselves again and again. With your values and words of good and evil you do violence when you value; and this is your hidden love and the splendor and trembling and overflowing of your soul. But a more violent force and a new overcoming grow out of your values and break egg and eggshell.
And whoever must be a creator in good and evil, verily, he must first be an annihilator and break values. Thus the highest evil belongs to the highest goodness: but this is creative.
Let us speak of this, you who are wisest, even if it be bad. Silence is worse; all truths kept silent become poisonous.
And may everything be broken that cannot brook our truths! There are yet many houses to be built!
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
BLURBS
Christ, did you know, (would you ever have even guessed?), that they would play Small Axe in a lobby of the Westin Hotel at Copley Plaza? It is played in a lobby that is hardly even used. Businessmen only here and there enter, and this song of upheaval is sung (hung) over empty shiny tiles, automatic revolving doors shuffling in air. And small wonder: tropical plants adorn the room. This too is a cruise ship. The revolving doors are emptying a family out onto the street, and the children wheel their own miniature suit(brief?)cases.
--
Deliberate vs. Elaborate
Novelists spend too long tracking small, fluttering creatures -- butterflies. Deliberate. Not deliberation: that is an act, and it has a nasty reputation. Elaboration is the same, for obvious reasons. Elaborate: 'out of labor'; either the demand that one say more and all too much, or the descriptor for things which have already undergone the process. Deliberate: we only know its injunction as 'be deliberate.' Without the prescript 'be', it implies that stifle, that stasis of all too much thought (which by transliterating elaboration becomes all too many words). I innovate the word: "deliberate," spoken forcefully by a schoolmaster to help the student thrust the knife into his despot. The master's knees buckle, he begins to slink at the middle, but he holds himself up by his arm, regaining a defeated balance. "Deliberate!" The thrust again, quicker than the first, the student now leaning hovering menacingly over the despot. The embattled mouth opens to utter once more, but before the word a final thrust impeaches. The master is dead, the room's air is no longer dogmatic. It is liberated, it is deliberate.
"Will to truth," you who are wisest call that which impels you and fills you with lust?
A will to the thinkability of all beings: this I call your will. You want to make all being thinkable, for you doubt with well-founded suspicion that it is already thinkable. But it shall yield and bend for you. Thus your will wants it. It shall become smooth and serve the spirit as its mirror and reflection. That is your whole will, you who are wisest: a will to power-- when you speak of good and evil too, and of valuations. You still want to create the world before which you can kneel: that is your ultimate hope and intoxication.
The unwise, of course, the people-- they are like a river on which a bark drifts; and in the bark sit the valuations, solemn and muffled up. Your will and your valuations you have placed on the river of becoming; and what the people believe to be good and evil, that betrays to me an ancient will to power.
It was you who are wisest who placed such guests in this bark and gave them pomp and proud names-- you and your dominant will. Now the river carries your bark further; it has to carry it. It avails nothing that the broken wave foams and angrily opposes the keel. Not the river is your danger and the end of your good and evil, you who are wisest, but that will itself, the will to power-- the unexhausted procreative will of life.
But to make you understand my word concerning good and evil, I shall now say to you my word concerning life and the nature of all the living.
I pursued the living; I walked the widest and the narrowest paths that I might know its nature. With a hundredfold mirror I still caught its glance when its mouth was closed, so that its eyes might speak to me. And its eyes spoke to me.
But wherever I found the living, there I heard also the speech on obedience. Whatever lives, obeys.
And this is the second point: he who cannot obey himself is commanded. That is the nature of the living.
This, however, is the third point that I heard: that commanding is harder than obeying; and not only because he who commands must carry the burden of all who obey, and because this burden may easily crush him. An experiment and hazard appeared to me to be in all commanding; and whenever the living commands, it hazards itself. Indeed, even when it commands itself, it must still pay for its commanding. It must become the judge, the avenger, and the victim of its own law. How does this happen? I asked myself. What persuades the living to obey and command, and to practice obedience even when it commands?
Hear, then, my word, you who are wisest. Test in all seriousness whether I have crawled into the very heart of life and into the roots of its heart.
Where I found the living, there I found the will to power; and even in the will of those who serve I found the will to be master.
That the weaker should serve the stronger, to that it is persuaded by its own will, which would be master over what is weaker still: this is the one pleasure it does not want to renounce. And as the smaller yields to the greater that it may have pleasure and power over the smallest, thus even the greatest still yields, and for the sake of power risks life. That is the yielding of the greatest: it is hazard and danger and casting dice for death.
And where men make sacrifices and serve and cast amorous glances, there too is the will to be master. Along stealthy paths the weaker steals into the castle and into the very heart of the more powerful-- and there steals power.
And life itself confided this secret to me: "Behold," it said, "I am that which must always overcome itself. Indeed, you call it a will to procreate or a drive to an end, to something higher, farther, more manifold: but all this is one, and one secret.
"Rather would I perish than forswear this; and verily, where there is perishing and a falling of leaves, behold, there life sacrifices itself-- for power. That I must be struggle and a becoming and an end and an opposition to ends-- alas, whoever guesses what is my will should also guess on what crooked paths it must proceed.
"Whatever I create and however much I love it-- soon I must oppose it and my love; thus my will wills it. And you too, lover of knowledge, are only a path and footprint of my will; verily, my will to power walks also on the heels of your will to truth.
"Indeed, the truth was not hit by him who shot at it with the word of the 'will to existence': that will does not exist. For, what does not exist cannot will; but what is in existence, how could that still want existence? Only where there is life is there also will: not will to life but-- thus I teach you-- will to power.
"There is much that life esteems more highly than life itself; but out of the esteeming itself speaks the will to power."
Thus life once taught me; and with this I shall yet solve the riddle of your heart, you who are wisest.
Verily, I say unto you: good and evil that are not transitory, do not exist. Driven on by themselves, they must overcome themselves again and again. With your values and words of good and evil you do violence when you value; and this is your hidden love and the splendor and trembling and overflowing of your soul. But a more violent force and a new overcoming grow out of your values and break egg and eggshell.
And whoever must be a creator in good and evil, verily, he must first be an annihilator and break values. Thus the highest evil belongs to the highest goodness: but this is creative.
Let us speak of this, you who are wisest, even if it be bad. Silence is worse; all truths kept silent become poisonous.
And may everything be broken that cannot brook our truths! There are yet many houses to be built!
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
BLURBS
Christ, did you know, (would you ever have even guessed?), that they would play Small Axe in a lobby of the Westin Hotel at Copley Plaza? It is played in a lobby that is hardly even used. Businessmen only here and there enter, and this song of upheaval is sung (hung) over empty shiny tiles, automatic revolving doors shuffling in air. And small wonder: tropical plants adorn the room. This too is a cruise ship. The revolving doors are emptying a family out onto the street, and the children wheel their own miniature suit(brief?)cases.
--
Deliberate vs. Elaborate
Novelists spend too long tracking small, fluttering creatures -- butterflies. Deliberate. Not deliberation: that is an act, and it has a nasty reputation. Elaboration is the same, for obvious reasons. Elaborate: 'out of labor'; either the demand that one say more and all too much, or the descriptor for things which have already undergone the process. Deliberate: we only know its injunction as 'be deliberate.' Without the prescript 'be', it implies that stifle, that stasis of all too much thought (which by transliterating elaboration becomes all too many words). I innovate the word: "deliberate," spoken forcefully by a schoolmaster to help the student thrust the knife into his despot. The master's knees buckle, he begins to slink at the middle, but he holds himself up by his arm, regaining a defeated balance. "Deliberate!" The thrust again, quicker than the first, the student now leaning hovering menacingly over the despot. The embattled mouth opens to utter once more, but before the word a final thrust impeaches. The master is dead, the room's air is no longer dogmatic. It is liberated, it is deliberate.
posted by Tongue-tied Lightning at 2:47 PM
7 Comments:
I'd like to post a comment in the near future on my thoughts about all this Nietzsche, as I've been having a lot of conflicting thoughts - it's always hard to formalize conflict, so I will give it some time. I haven't read much more of him than you've posted here, Tongue, and I really can't figure out whether I like him or not. He simultaneously aggravates me at every sentence, and liberates me with every notion.
There is one tiny thing in which I was interested while reading this, and it is entirely besides the point, but perhaps it will spark a discussion beyond its own inanity (which is the hope of much of what I do with myself). The point is that Zarathustra, in my limited knowledge of his teachings, was historically the founder of the notion of this world and our souls as the battleground between good and evil (a la Islam, Christianity). Thus, Nietzsche's characterization of Zarathustra as the proclaimer of the non-existence of good and evil seems to be not just off-mark, but ironically contradictory. I am aware that Zarathustra was often painted by Romantic thinkers as a figure representing ancient and lost mystical knowledge, much like the mystical-ization of Eastern thought that still resounds wholeheartedly today. It irked me therefore that Nietzsche seemed to be following this trend and abusing the historical character of Zarathustra for his own popular ends, especially when he himself was a trained classicist and so more than most should be faithful to ancient text as it was written. This little pet-peeve at first clouded my judgement of what he was saying - though of course what he is saying really has nothing to do with Zarathustra the person and could just as easily have been attributed to any poetic madman shouting on the street. Granted, I haven't read Nietzsche's book in the slightest beyond what's been posted, so I really have no grounding as to his invocation of Zarathustra and whether it is ever explained there textually.
So I wikipediaed it. I found out that Nietzsche actually chose Zarathustra for his all-consuming dialectic of good and evil, rather than in spite of it:
"...For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. ... Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. ... His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the “idealist” who flees from reality….—Am I understood?— The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth."
(Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, sec. 3)
Unfortunately, the rhizomatic author of this Wikipedia article seems to have ellided sentences key to the understanding of Nietzsche's aims in the paragraph. Or perhaps it may be trusted that this is all that is needed to clarify Nietzsche's purposes. My understanding of it seems to be that he chose Z. because Z. declared the origin of morality - yet with "truthfulness as the highest virtue" - therefore, because morality is basic untruth, or merely temporary truth, to Nietzsche (is that fair to say?), truthfulness trumps morality. Yet, here is where Nietzsche irks me most: he escapes scrutiny in his vagueness. Is truth part of a moral system? Is Nietzsche merely exchanging one value system for another? He seems to be making a judgement against judgement. How is this novel? Is this not in a way the basis of all human guilt (or is it pride)? Or is that in fact his very aim: merely to describe the workings of the human world and not to affect them to any Greater (Self-Overcome??) Being.
In my opinion, Nietzsche seems to be describing his own (ideal... red flag) actions:
"And whoever must be a creator in good and evil, verily, he must first be an annihilator and break values. Thus the highest evil belongs to the highest goodness: but this is creative."
The following quote also seems to explain his invocation of Zarathustra:
"Whatever I create and however much I love it-- soon I must oppose it and my love; thus my will wills it."
I can't keep writing this, but I would love your opinions on it. I'm conflicted, and I'd like to be able to take a side for a bit. Thus spoke Zarathustra.
One more thing: I would love to see some brilliant MCM professor offer a course (though, alas I wouldn't be able to take it) reading Nietzsche in tandem with Foucault. It seems the genius of Foucault's work was to apply Nietzsche's philosophy to history. This also was of course his great Failure.
(Something also struck me when thinking about the comment I made above: I said that "Nietzsche simultaneously aggravates me at every sentence, and liberates me with every notion." Foucault, on the other hand, simultaneously liberates me at every sentence, and aggravates me with every notion. ...Or is it vice-versa?)
Alright the main thing with 'Zarathustra' is, I would say, forget about the personage. This isn't about historical analyses, this is about Nietzsche. He isn't trying to do an archeology here, he's talking about people as such; as he experiences them, as he thinks they've always been, and as it is our role to decide whether they are now-- this is where we get into the whole 'instinct' issue. So don't worry about what Zarathustra represents: yes, the Ecce Homo quote shows Nietzsche was doing something intentional in choosing that particular prophet among all that he had to choose from, but you have to realize that Nietzsche's Zarathustra is not trying to proclaim a manichean order to things. He's talking about how manicheanism has any basis in the first place.
This is the issue: every society has its good and evil, but why, and whence? 'Will to power'- that is the first reason, and you'll have to read more to see why human will to power leads to the creation of good and evil. But Nietzsche's main point, the point we have to focus on, the point which Foucault doesn't give a damn about (thus losing the Dionysian edge, the gaya sciencia of his predecessor), revolves around his obsession with the overman. The overman co-opts good and evil, he creates values anew. He recognizes that society's strongest values float along like mere flotsam, and he decides his ship and bearings must be innovative and resurgent. I've always thought the first step to overmanhood (I realize the irony in that awkward term) was to exert a will to power over oneself. This means becoming conscious of what you do, watching yourself and others at all times, especially in petty situations where you fight with others or act in a way you later regret. You watch yourself at these times, and you see what you like and don't like. The first step is observation. And from here you build up (and there's a whole lot of good philosophy on the steps in between) to where you're creating values, you're defining your own good and evil, and even expressing yourself in wilful undertakings of that discovered evil. (You've got me going now, I'm gonna have to post another quote at the bottom).
So your questions. No, I would say, truth is not part of a moral system. This is probably my main area of interest in all of this: what is beyond morality and ethics, assuming that these are always already systems handed down to you and within the confines of which you more or less are forced by tradition to operate in? This is where I turn to Kierkegaard and other sources for information about something called 'the aesthetic life.' (Kierkegaard actually thinks that's the lowest sort of life- the highest is the spiritual one, though it's a sort of spirituality with such strength and 'self-overcoming' that I think his knight of faith is not unlike a Christian overman).
We're talking about Nietzsche's truth here. Jeremy would likely have a good say, he's all about the question of 'truth' in Nietzsche. Personally, I think if you're going to be able to take Nietzsche seriously you have to be willing to take truth un-seriously. And most of your confusions could really be cleared up by reading him. Still, they're good questions. Though you repeatedly said 'I haven't read him, I don't have a basis for this,' I've been answering your questions critically because they were in fact good questions. But I realized something since I've been reading Freud. Forever, being the trusty existentialist I was, I wrote him off and said 'I don't see anything like an unconscious or oedipus complex in myself, I don't see it in others, therefore Freud's of no use to me.' But since I've read him, I've been learning more and more that it's only the word 'unconscious' that was getting to me, and now I can begin to look at things in myself I always knew were there and see how they might be called unconscious. The same went with Marx: I was an Ayn Rander (and there's somebody with an at times facsimilar philosophy to Nietzsche), I believed in individual ability and just desert, so how could I take anti-capitalist material seriously? But I read Marx and some Marxists, and I realized both they and Rand make sense in their ways. I recommend that any and everyone read Nietzsche (especially if it meant that they would spend less time on wikipedia, because there are only half-, quarter-, and no-truths there). I would not necessarily start with Zarathustra, because it has to be taken with a larger grain of salt than the rest on account of its narrative/fiction aspects. So maybe start with the Gay Science. But above all read him. Because he's just one of those thinkers who you can't form a good opinion about til after you've read him. That's true of most of the greats. But especially with Nietzsche.
Gay Science 290: One thing is needful.− To “give style” to one’s character− a great and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan until every one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here a large mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of original nature has been removed− both times through long practice and daily work at it… In the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small. Whether this taste was good or bad is less important than one might suppose, if only it was a single taste!
[…] For one thing is needful: that a human being should attain satisfaction with himself, whether it be by means of this or that poetry and art; only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold. Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight. For the sight of what is ugly makes one bad and gloomy.
I agree with what you're saying - or rather with what you're saying Nietzsche is saying. But there's something about the way he puts it, even with the idea of overcoming oneself, that bugs me. I'll think about it more and post again with a response. For now, I just want to say that I really dislike the idea that the world is "illusion" - which I don't know if that can be attributed to Nietzsche, but its kind of the category I put him in (along with most Buddhism). Maybe I dislike the whole idea of non-specific philosophy (i.e. things that aren't cultural critique) because it takes this haughty tone of the Should. I know that I'm reading into this, and the wrong way, because I know Nietzsche to some extent believes people should find their personal Truth (is their own breakdown of good and evil?) - and Nietzsche, nor much of Buddhism for that matter, is trying to tell me what my specific truth is. In that way, however, I think the idea of "illusion" is misleading... To relate this more to the philosophizing at hand, I would say for instance, that just because I live in a capitalist society, this doesn't mean that I evaluate everything according to its assigned monetary value. Nor does it mean that that monetary value is Wrong (un-true). That's what I don't like about Nietzsche and other philsophies like that - at times he seems to fall into the trap, in my mind, of saying popular valuations are Wrong just because they are popular. It's that kind of critique of mass-media that has really begun to bug me lately. Sometimes I really enjoy (find Joy in) paying money for something. Is that Wrong just because the world en masse is prescribing that monetary value? Also, it feels to me that (this is sort of what I was trying to get at in a roundabout way in the previous posts) everyone is - at least I am - constantly overcoming themselves and how they value things at that moment. In that way, I'm trying to say that the Overman is not something to aspire to as a permanent position, but it is a fleeting action (perhaps the only action) - and isn't it what art is, to be constantly re-evaluating the objects around you? At least I think that's the beauty of film.
Yet after all, I realize that I am sort of bastardizing Nietzsche's viewpoints, and its even not necessarily Nietzsche's viewpoints, but how I am choosing to read him. Nevertheless, that is how I am evaluating him at this present moment (perhaps I will overcome those valuations in the near future).
In fact, I think I may just have done that. Thanks, you are beautiful people out there in the ether.
Well it's really just a matter of what you start with. I think the idea of Illusion is liberating. Ego and capitalist society are the things I want to be liberated from, as they are the things I find to be most riddled with illusory involvements and misrecognitions. Most of what you were just saying was about Buddhism, not Nietzsche, though. I do think Nietzsche is most valuable to someone if they have come to be disgusted with the world and certain perceptions of their existence. He is the philosopher of overcoming that disgust. He is the thinker who outthinks existentialism. But if you're not given to being an existentialist, I suppose he might not hit you the way he hits me.
And Nietzsche, as far as I can tell, doesn't have a damn thing to say about capitalism. He would not care whether or not you enjoyed spending money. I took those initial passages out of context and applied them to my own personal nausea around capitalism. But I have been thinking lately, mostly since all this posting, that I don't want to spend my time criticizing and feeling bad about the global economic direction of the world. I came into all those Brown classes (Lit and Society, Narrative Theory, etc.) not wanting to come out a laboring nostalgiac and nay-sayer to culture, and that's where I find myself now. And I think it's Nietzsche specifically who gets me over that stuff, reminds me of what my real concerns are (understanding what is 'needful,' as in the quote from the Gay Science). As for the should: I believe in haughtiness and normative thinking. One of my favorite quotes is Hegel saying "The aim of philosophy is to tell us what is and what ought to be." I believe in the ought because it is that type of thinking which makes me do anything and say anything in the first place. And I do think that the best expression of 'should' is a subtle one, an indirect one -- it's the should of the child, the should of caprice, the should of unconcern, the should of revelations and resoluteness and faith in something, anything. I like the following Led Zeppelin lyrics (chorus omitted):
And if I say to you tomorrow,
Take my hand, child, come with me.
Its to a castle I will take you,
Where whats to be, they say will be.
And if you say to me tomorrow,
Oh what fun it all would be,
Then whats to stop us, pretty baby,
But what is and what should never be.
So if you wake up with the sunrise,
And all your dreams are still as new,
And happiness is what you need so bad,
Girl, the answer lies with you.
The whole illusion thing is just a motivation. Just a compelling thought if you are looking for a way to think about things so you can escape from their holds. But the main thing - and this is true of Buddhism and Nietzsche - is that the escape is not meant to be reclusion and catatonia. It's meant to be a reentry with awareness. And I do think that awareness begins with thinking the world as an illusion.
Well, as for illusion, just let me say that there is just as much philosophy in this teacup here as there is in all of Nietzsche's writings, or Buddhism's for that matter.
"That's why frontiersmen are always heroes and were always my real heroes and will always be. They're constantly on the alert in the realness which might as well be real as unreal, what difference does it make, Diamond Sutra says 'Make no formed conceptions about the realness of existence nor about the unrealness of existence,' or words like that. Handcuffs will get soft and billy clubs will topple over, let's go on being free anyhow."
- Japhy Ryder
Spoken like "philosophy's dreadful murderer, the Buddha." (Ray Smith)
Post a Comment
<< Home