{∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} : Rage Against the Meat Grinder

I am glad you liked the book.Before I came across you and Schopenhauer and the philosophical truth( all three are mixed up in my mind), it was Van Gogh’s biography that sustained me for a long time.
When I came across you I finally meet someone who was leading the kind of life Van Gogh led(When all is said and done,I remain a weekend warrior).

I think both of you even look quite similar-could easily pass for brothers.

I read his first biography just before I joined the work force and I can tell you the truth, whenever the gorts at workplace attacked me, I just went to a secluded place and thought about him.I did help.

You know ,Van Gogh managed to sell probably just one painting while he was alive.Does that mean he was a failure? Maye according to the gorts.

May  be his work ,his art’s financial failure is the testimony to its solemnity.
Is money,earning money the only yardstick?
I remember this dialogue from your favourite movie:
Simon Grim : I worked, while you sat back and comfortably dismissed the outside world as too shallow, stupid and mean to appreciate your ideas.
Henry Fool : Is that such a priority? Is that some sort of measure of a man's worth? To drag what's best in him out into the street so every average slob with some pretense to taste can poke it with a stick?

Take care.

There is a 2-book limit at the public library for residents at the hotel I am holing up in, so I am returning a book written by a psychiatrist (ANGST: origin of anxiety and depression), holding INSIDE JOKES, and borrowing their copy of the classic, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari.

Please recall the post by Ibra, in a thread called, "On the Minimization of the Cognitive Complexity of Systems," where Ibra quotes Giles Deleuze.  Did Deleuze not fling himself from the 7th floor apartment of his?

That is why the fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly, and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered: "Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?" How can people possibly reach the point of shouting: "More taxes! Less bread!"? As Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally  go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike: after centuries of exploitation, why do people still tolerate being humiliated and enslaved, to such a point, indeed, that they actually want humiliation and slavery not only for others but for themselves?

    Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire ofthe masses that needs to be accounted for.