isolé à l'âme

One sleepless night releases more glories than all the occurrences of a world in which sociality reigns supreme. Man's misguided integrity reaches its zenith only in daily encounters, while in solitude strife and discord shatter the identity and liberate the demons within. Forlorn under the starry heavens, man sees that his reality is only that which he is not.

#Maxim

You don't see the fading of old age on those whom you appreciate the beauty of their spirit, for they, beside their shining ability to captivate you by the glamour of their intellect, also preserve the spiritedness of youth and the cheerfulness of childhood through their enduring propensity for reflection and regeneration. The contemplative man doesn't allow the stains of corruption to appear upon himself, we see him as someone who robustly overcome them with the aid of his ambiguous powers that enliven and enchant us youth in the same way they enliven and enchant him. The cultivation of the intellectual and spiritual aspects in man turns him into a luminous star that even in its decay appears in the form of aesthetic phenomenon. With the aid of fortune, the dissolution of the cultivated can issue an illuminating supernova that even rivals the zeniths of life in beauty and grandeur.

#Maxim

What distinguishes the group in its popular image from the people of thorns and those with real power is that it is not, in fact, a political phenomenon.  It is nothing but a gelatinous state in which standards are absent and desires and impulses prevail, which soon subside and are won by those with real power.

In contrast, political groups that differentiate themselves from the jelly of the mob have a political standard of existence, and a force gathered to serve this standard, that is, in short, they have something that fulfills the condition of political existence that is impossible for the anarchy of the mob to achieve. The condition of political existence is what makes centers of power separated from the gelatinous mob worthy of action, trustworthy, and trustworthy.

This definition obligates its holder to do something that is more dangerous and longer-lasting than the fluctuations of the masses that escalate today and then subside tomorrow. Separating from the jelly of the mob obligates the political group to trade the weakness of today for the strength of tomorrow, and it requires it to bear responsibility and assess the consequences, and it requires it to sacrifice in the hope of the largest share.

As for the mob, they always have quick demands and far-fetched dreams that would not maintain a regime for a single day, but they Always, as great as they are, they are fleeting, just like the thoughts that decorate life in moments of wandering and wandering and then dissipate in the face of the slightest influences of reality.

#Essays

To realize the difference between arbitrary hierarchies based on money and fame and true aristocracy, just think of the following words. As far as the first type is concerned, for the ambitious man who seek to position himself on the top, there is no true gap between him and those who occupy the desired place except certain material conditions.

Hence, it's legitimizable in his eyes to see his position as a consequence of injustices and arbitrariness, and indubitably defensible to hold grudges and rely upon resentment and hatred. Whatever may result from this crude competition has no deep positive effects upon his true self. Worse, all of its gains can vanish in a moment, leaving one more psychologically dependent and personally inferior.

On the contrary, with regard to true aristocracy, the first step demanded from our ambitious man would be to purify himself from the constraints that contradict the position he seeks. If he models his ideal upon a man whose value is based upon mere material conditions, he will not find himself obliged to transform himself or impose upon it any constraint to be consistent with his endeavors.

But if he modeled his ideal upon, for instance, a knight or a scholar, the first step would be to overcome his lower urges in order to be consistent with the ideal eagerly desired, for this very ideal stimulates one's freedom and interiorize the struggle as a value-laden psychological battle between two forms of existence more antecedent and fundamental to any exterior results.

What differentiates true hierarchical aristocracies and secures them from plebeian envy and resentment is that it's mainly built upon an over burdensome and voluntary oppression. It seeks a goal that by its very nature fortified against all attempts of usurpation and immune to arbitrariness.

One esurient gaze at a knight widens the distance between you and the honor of knighthood, for the legitimate desire here is neither to usurp a status nor to take a possession of an ownership, but to appropriate oneself to a higher impersonal ideal that obliges and binds.

What appears to be the case is that “the people” is a gelatinous term invented to beautify the mob. You do not find a ruler who was saved by the support of the masses or their defense of him from the aggression of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power, while you find in rulers many examples who were saved by the cooperation of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power.

The masses, by their nature, have short memories, weak resolve, and weak constitutions. Their condition varies from hour to hour. They fall under the temptation of the smallest appearances and unfortunate temptations. Even if the individual raises his voice among the crowd, he only speaks with the mouth of a person from whom the responsibility of the individual has been removed in the name of “the group,” the word thanks to which anyone can say whatever he wants without swallowing the bitterness of responsibility, which, once placed on the group, disintegrates it irrevocably.

#Essays

Nowaday's individualists are by no means claimants of a superior position, nor they are overcomers of a putrified status quo or anything of this sorts. They are mere social lepers living parasitically on the surpluses ensured by a collective brutally anonymized by a rigid institutionalization and bureaucratization.

#Maxim

Good and evil are degrees of affections with no distinct ontological difference. The stability of the soul is what allows man to engage with the affections received, and the sufferings inflicted, with certain disposition in tantamount with his resources. Like the waves to the pilot, in one direction and at a certain rate, they may aid the journey, and in another direction and a different rate, they may put an end to it. And like fire too, it is good on the hearth, but bad in the hangings. The soul leaves the battle triumphant when it, with an unshakable psychological disposition, encircles the affections and redirects them, when it turns the bad master into a good servant. We have seen unshakable fortresses standing before mighty armies, setting their limits, and like lords, they address their volatile anger, saying, hitherto thou shalt come, and no further, here thy proud marching be stayed.

#Maxim

The Heideggerian critique of modernity culminates in his rejection of any political subjectivism, which later comes to be viewed as any ideology complacent with the latest versions of western metaphysics and its variants. Heidegger's critique, although different in method, is reminiscent of the Schmittian discourse on political romanticism and its subjectivistic roots in early modern occasionalism. But, in many aspects, the Schmittian critique is politically more relevant than Heidegger's later cryptic insights that grounds his new political in the questioning of being and the possibility of a new beginning, an approach which is tantamount to subordinating the political to the 'theophanic’.

One may argue that the two thinkers are totally different in aims and methods. A Heideggerian will probably argue that Schmitt’s thought on the political is another variant of modern subjectivism, and that its volkish tendency is another attempt to ground the political in a super-political will à la Nietzsche. A Schmittian may respond that the very attempt to ground the political in a philosophical form of self-examination à la Aristophanes’ Socrates is politically self-defeating and even dangerous.

Few today would deny the powerfulness of the Heideggerian critique. In a world in which the destructive tendencies of machination and calculation are more apparent than ever before, Heidegger's philosophy is an urgent necessity. Albeit that only reluctantly the two critiques can compromise certain notions, given their radicality and methodical differences, the Schmittian discourse on the political can provide radical insights on the limits of Heidegger’s later poetical contemplations on the political.

And likewise, Heidegger's critique can provide a deeper philosophical insight that may allow redeeming the Schmittian notions from their volkish odds and rejuvenate the discourse of the political, and more importantly, it can free the ‘national’ from the nationalism of modernity. But without a rigorous analysis of the thinkers and an emphasis on their profound differences, any attempt to establish a dialogue between the two will undermine its consistency and fall into arbitrariness, because the two kinds of thinking are not of the same sort, although their concerns converge on various issues.

Schmitt's political philosophy tries to capture the overarching levels of intensities and conflicts that result in political associations and dissociations on the concrete political levels, while Heidegger's project is mainly concerned with the meaning of being and how things come to be given in the first place. A possible dialogue can be guided by an attempt to focus on the relations of the 'political', i.e. the condition of concrete politics, outside the metaphysics of will.

This approach, lest a repeat of the romanticist impasse, should not be characterized by a poetical passivity, nor should it try to deprioritize the will from the political horizon altogether. Rather, its main goal must be disentangling the notions necessary for politics from the metaphysics of will and freeing the sources of political association from the logic of calculation and manipulation.

Two things make Heidegger's philosophy so annoying to every novice; the inversion of the Aristotelian prioritization of actuality over potentiality; the transformation of thinking from the present-indicative to the future-subjunctive. Understanding Heidegger's philosophy mainly requires developing an ability to think the mutual presencing and abscencing through time. Only in Time, the realm of the possible gain primacy over the realm of the actual. For Heidegger this Time is the bedrock of our existence.

If pride really exists, it is something beyond words. Our delusional pride is a prisoner of need bound by its chains. In this, action and exaltation are equal. In either case, it is indicative of a lack, of a need for another to be fulfilled. And what else needs! He needs a mirror to see himself. When is a mirror an urgent need? As soon as confidence is shaken; Whenever we are not sure that we are meeting the correct condition. Pride is a deceitful word. Speak the opposite of reality, turning the event into something other than what it really is. He who is despised by his nature is too low to be fuel for that fire of pride, but he who is hated fulfills this status. The first does not pay any attention to it, but the second is because of the greatness of its impact on one, which is avoided by the trick of pride. He deceives the ill-wisher and takes advantage of what is around him to use him for the hardship of travels. Sometimes you find him seeking the shade of a tree to protect himself from the sun’s rays, then he cuts its branches to help him in the severe cold, and at other times you find him hunting for food. In the same way as this innocent man, he deceives the arrogant with a deceitful word in order to rid himself of what has become too heavy for him.

#Maxim

There are those who reject conscription based on conservative arguments against statism and its derivatives. We will not argue that the status of the modern soldier is like that of the knights of ancient times, when aristocratic values ​​such as honor, courage, virility, and chivalry prevailed. But due to the current state of societies, the modern conscript remains one of the models that still retains traditional values ​​in many ways, and compared to the models of these days' youth, it is one of the ideal images that achieve the manifestations of masculinity in modern societies. Whoever argues from a retrospective perspective to reject militarism in general imagines himself dealing with the Quraysh masters or the Habsburgs, so military life in its contemporary form appears to him full of what inherits humiliation and indignity. But in reality, today's societies are in dire need of the domination of manifestations of military discipline and the degradation of all models that promote freedom, because today's freedom means nothing but the absence of discipline and indulgence in the lowest pleasures.

#Maxim

The ancients devoted entire literature and sciences to explaining the impact of the means through which knowledge is transmitted and the means by which it is received, i.e. what is necessary for both the teacher and the learner, in terms of their interference in the way information is presented, the way it is understood through it, the sensations it elicits, and the feelings that you tame, not to mention the mind that you discipline and prepare to achieve its goal.

They were allocated because some of the means weaken the senses, some of them activate it, some of them incapacitate the mind, and some of them enhance it. Starting from the way and place of sitting, to the hours of learning and their harmony with the nature of man, and ending with the subject of knowledge itself, for which there will definitely not be a list if the necessary conditions for its correct transmission are absent.

On the contrary, the democracy of technology--that banishes the limits of time and space--has obtained most of the necessary preparation attempts to deal with topics of all their differences, until all content has been flattened and distorted, and the science of the means of transmitting knowledge in its proper way has become a mere delirium that is not accepted by our democratic era, which allows everything. For everyone, no matter what.

This is a topic that if we talk about it for a long time, our speech will inevitably be dominated by indefinite phrases. We will continue to repeat phrases like everything, everyone, any place, and any place, because the essence of the topic is the denial of definiteness, and considering it merely a form of power that restricts, frames, and suppresses.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is one of the examples that reveals the concealed discontinuities and the neglected divisions that we have become unable to think of deeply due to the dullness promoted by the securing smooth-running efficiency of the natural sciences. A basic question like what is science for is closed by the most dogmatic answer, i.e. progress.

For me, in this civilizational condition, science boils down to the question of progress. If you believe in progress, especially if in the liberal sense, questions like the nature of the relation between knowledge and politics, spirituality and science, morality and prosperity, man and the world, will never trouble you because the horizon of progress provides you an ultimate optimistic synthesis. The futural horizon offered by this worldview is underpinned by sciences whose hardliners deny that they have any ideological dimension. While these sciences, in this civilizational context, have become a preparation for an ineffable theophany that subordinates our activities without even realizing it.

#Essays

All human actions unconsciously presuppose the permanence of the present state: we forget that it is finite, and inevitably transient. Especially actions that are expected to achieve pleasure or happiness. That is why you find wisdom in all its forms heavy on the soul, because it reminds you that what you are in now will not always be the same. Wisdom requires a total judgment that presents the current situation in the light of the totality of life, in a way that evokes the inevitable annihilation of this state, and reminds of what comes after it, in terms of other cases in which its consequences remain after its pleasure is gone, which calms its impact and takes away its joy. And because man, by nature, is inclined to forget, forgetting that what he is in now will inevitably pass away, you will see that he does not like the effect of remembering on himself at all. Remembering destroys the foundations of trust, and shows life as it is, which man refuses to acknowledge. He refuses to acknowledge it because it puts the verb in its correct position, which detracts from its value, underestimates it, and denies it. Wisdom is mortal because it is a true representation of death, an action evaluated apart from the subject; It represents a life that is evaluated in isolation from its owner. Wisdom is to see the action after it is gone and its effect remains, to bring in a new situation that contradicts this current one. The first wisdom is to view the current state in the light of all life, and the last of it is to view life in the light of death. If a person truly acknowledges this fact for one day, if he says a thousand words, maybe ten words will suffice him, and if he does a thousand actions, maybe he will suffice with one or two actions.

#Maxim

One shouldn't not be really affected by the vitalist critiques of thinking that reduces the whole realm of thought to the weakness and petrification of spirit. In the matter of fact, the realm of thought is the least place comfort can be found in. On the contrary, vitalism ends up elevating unreflective life, and even distraction, in order to avoid the burden of consciousness and reflection. It seeks a certain security in the purported unfathomability of Life. Most vitalists end up endorsing cheap biologism and evolutionism in order to avoid the burdens of thought. Why they do that? They simply seek security. Paradoxically, they seek the very security demanded by certain forms of thinking in the realm of the unfathomable. It's totally understandable that this petrified age of information necessitates a serious critique of intellectualism, especially in its democratized versions. Most people are fine with unreflective life, and it's even dangerous to force them to leave it in name of education. In fact, the unreflective life is the most important pillar in the history of any civilization we know about. It's the infancy without which maturity is impossible. Vitalism merely wants to venerate this infancy and, in a quiet cartoonish manner, seeks to enliven it ad infinitum. The problem with vitalism is that it doesn't know its real limits, and that most of its proponents and acolytes don't recognize this limitation because they ground their view in what seems obvious but totally insufficient. The reason many vitalisms ends up dissolving itself in the natural sciences is due to this insufficiency.

#Maxim

Summary of Nietzsche's argument against weakness: The soul is inborn to strength and dominance, and the weak does not seek, behind showing its weakness, except to obtain strength in a negative way, by degrading the amount of strength that it was unable to acquire in a positive way. This process takes place in a way that the weak himself is not aware of. The weak’s request for pity, for example, aims to achieve what he was unable to obtain by himself, by demonizing power, surrounding the strong with a complex of guilt towards his strength, and forcing him to atone for it by granting each weak the status that he failed to achieve. Acquisition of power in this way leads to curbing excellence, deterring exclusivity, and giving preference to all groups, which are also seeking domination through what their members cannot achieve uniquely. This pattern leads to the degradation of existence to suit the herd's need to avoid danger, ensure comfort and safety, and achieve what is difficult to obtain. Do we not resort to asking for pity in those moments when the means of fulfilling our will are denied? Does the lover not show his weakness in order to possess the feelings of his beloved by harnessing his sympathy for his benefit? That sympathy that the animals themselves get! Doesn't the loser show his weakness to gain the recognition he failed to achieve on his own? Don't people resort to these (negative) means, when all other means refrain from them, to obtain what they want through them? Manifestations of weakness are nothing but despicable means used by the cunning animal to extend its power over the world!

#Maxim

The reality of the priority of thought over the world is insurmountable to general acceptance, as the common understanding has settled that thought is derived from reality. But the word reality that circulates on the tongues of people, and that no sane person denies the necessity that it entails, does not refer to reality that means the thinker, or who cares about thought in general.

Reality is not just a constant given to an inactive recipient whose sensory stimuli are imprinted in his mind like the impression of bright colors on a white paper that has no choice but to reveal what was imprinted on it without a single trace of it. Kant, with his Copernican revolution, was one of the first philosophers to turn the table of reality by making the self much more than a passive recipient of a reality that it has no power over, as it required every possible perceiver to agree with the self in one way or another, and to wear what it dictates from templates, describing the sensible ones as without them being blind.

This revolution, which the later extended its scope, led to the saying that the world is the definitions of thought, or the process of the soul in Hegelian expression, based on the assumption that there is no reality without thought, as reality in its reality is perceived, and the perceived is presumed to be conceptual, whose capabilities the thought investigates.

Researching the potentials of thought and its definitions for itself is a different science from the partial sciences that research experience and do not penetrate the potentials of experience, i.e. what makes experience possible in the first place. Since Kant, research into the a priori conditions of perception has been the primary concern of philosophy, and that includes philosophies that do not see themselves as perfect as before, such as Heidegger's philosophy, which Rorty described as Nietzschean wine poured into Kantian glasses.

The Kantian movement and its heirs agree that there is no reality except within the framework of a priori definitions of experience, a vision that necessitates the preoccupation of philosophy with what these ruling determinations are for every possible experience, the task that Hegel meant throughout his philosophical career. If reality is possible only in the light of a priori determinations, latent in the transcendent Essence, in the process of the Essence, in existence, or in language, then the history of the real world is nothing but the history of the possible a priori determinations of experience, the determinations thanks to which the experience of reality is shaped in this way or that.

The point that the history of the world is the history of thought is not to say that history as a succession of events is unimportant, but rather that it is secondary to the history of the systems that determined the historical experiences that mean the history of thought.

#Essays

Today none of us look at the sky for anything, perhaps, a bluish horizon dull and meaningless. The air and mobile maps uprooted the last pegs of the stars, and the sublime ceased to become what man is as defined by the ancients (meaning man in Greek anthropos: the being who turns his eyes towards the heights, from here we understand the symbolism of the Olympian mountains where the place of the gods is) when we understood that our place is a dark point revolving in the void And our eyes turned in despair after we stared at the darkness of the universe that black holes pulled from every direction.

#Maxim

With each morning, I tighten a new causal chain for getting up and living. The hours are getting shorter, the sunset is approaching, so the stomach turns around in enmity, as if I am accused of melting the entire sun inside me, so the chain ceases to be cohesive and stable. Darkness dissolves and it dissolves completely, and enmity multiplies enmity until bedtime.

#Maxim

In his book (Van Gogh: The Suicide of Society), the French playwright Antonine Artaud asks: What if Van Gogh had not died at the age of thirty-seven? And he answers his question himself, “I cannot believe that Van Gogh could have painted another painting after the painting of the crows.” Another painting, that is, parallel to it in greatness or superior to it.

As a sad and solemn finale, in which Van Gogh stopped enduring the world and giving his “impressions” of it. Here are the amazed crows flying in the fading gleam of the evening over the yellow, murky wheat where they are being blown by the wind, and the blue of the sky is like a thunderous roar that began to come to him and pour down on the strokes of his brush and the delicacy of his feather and replace it with a revolver to shoot him in the chest, and open the water a new outlet for the exit.

The crows spilled his blood, and began to fly in the horizons, but they forgot how to manage their shame, so they left the scene as it was in order to expose it: Is this what Van Gogh wanted to deliver?

The funny thing is that he is the godfather of Impressionism, which made colors and brushes tongues that speak to the fears of their creators, unlike realism, for example, which glorifies objectivity in photography, so Van Gogh used to write his entire biography in the form of paintings that do not speak, but say everything.

#Maxim

I previously wrote an old post about the place of the hand in the place of our existence in the world, and it was titled “The hand from the tool to the sign.” What I mean by that is to clarify its problematic and ponder its meanings and how to arrange its existence in the world from Aristotle to Derrida (in his famous book marked “Heidegger’s Hand .. Heidegger’s Ear”).

And the situation is that I remembered it again when I saw an exciting news recently, which is Sweden’s decision to return to paper textbooks after the country witnessed a terrible drop in the level of students when they replaced writing by hand by “clicking” with an electronic machine. Heidegger had a famous text in the forties of the last century called “Parmenides” in which he warns against the consequences of being drawn into the complexities of modern technology, especially in the matter of the hand, because this will go beyond simply clicking on the screen to change our concept of the world as a whole in which we live.

Technology does not look at our hands except as a biological tool that nature provided us with (which is the perception that prevailed from Aristotle to Descartes and modern metaphysics through Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi), so it does not cease to invent new alternative mechanisms for it (such as the mouse in the computer) that reproduces its style while it transcends the level of nature (where the physical organs) to the sign and sign phase.

The animal hand “grabs” and “grabs”, as it is a purely biological hand, while the human hand “transfers”: that is, it exercises a kind of existential transcendence over nature, because the world is not just material facts but rather symbols, signs and signs. But this transcendence is not Kantian in anything, it is not a transcendental transcendence that looks at the world from above, but rather it is a transcendence that preconceives its existence in the world.

This is a unique and graceful phenomenological graduation for the position of the hand. It is reported that Kant wrote a book called “How do we go about thinking?” And he raised the question of how do I know the directions if I am in a dark house? This is given that space--and time--is a tribal saying that encloses us as subjects, and it has no existence outside.

Heidegger's realization of it was that the place is not a priori and geometrical category, but rather is latent "in" the world, as its sides are revealed only when preoccupied with it for the first time by meeting others. The pattern of busy living in the company of others is the push of a button that lights up the world for us, and the geometric understanding of the place is nothing but the derivative sense.

That is why technology is always “shorter” than our hands in terms of its position and position, as if it were a material organ that does not have any special ontological or symbolic status.

#Essays

The problem of the Jews is that they are lost, and the theme of wandering in their spiritual history is original and not a political incident. Since their loss in the Sinai desert and their longing for the land of Canaan, through the destruction of their temple, and ending with their occupation of the land of Palestine, they endure an almost unbearable amount of wandering.

From here, Heidegger was sufficiently vigilant and careful in attacking the most important intruder among the Jews that began to infiltrate the Western Christian spirit hidden in the horizon of modernity and the takeover of arithmetic logic, meaning the lack of metaphysical ground on which a people stands. Heidegger's apprehension of the Jews is an ontological apprehension, not an atypical apprehension at all. "Schwarze Hefte" that were published in 2014, and caused controversy to renew again, in the second part of these memoirs, Heidegger believes that the Jews are “expatriates who are addicted to existence at the expense of existence” through their computational logic.

For a person or a culture without a world to live in and inhabit, and therefore they impede any new beginning aimed at laying a foundation. The most dangerous thing about the Jews, according to our philosopher, is that they are without foundation and without a world groundless.

The arithmetic rationality of the Jews surrounds them with a kind of inauthentic praxis that is capable of concealing and obliterating the meaning of existence, and then forgetting it. Here, Heidegger distances himself from the common Nazi populist version of anti-Jewishness, which is based on biological racism that is, the protagonist side. The fight between our philosopher and the Jews is a metaphysical fight, not a political one, as is thought.

What made the Greeks great and a metaphysical precursor to all forms of original thinking that came after them is that, first and foremost, they lived and dwelt in polis that would establish their spiritual, philosophical, artistic and moral history. The city was not just a piece of land subservient to them, but rather it was a dawn that shed all the morning's radiance from its strings.

Establishment here means that the horizon of existence is opening up, flourishing, and manifesting for the first time. This is what the Jews lack, as they always live “before” the beginning, as they are without foundation, and therefore they can never be open to existence. Heidegger associates the increase in the influence of the Jews in modern Europe, and the West in general, with the dominance of modern metaphysics, that is, Cartesian-Hobbesianism: that is, the extension of the self in the space of being, and the transformation of the world into a mathematical subject with the intention of domination and control over it, which reached its climax with high-tech today, as it uprooted man from his roots and left him abandoned.

He lives without a world, and therefore the problem, then, is essentially metaphysical and not a global political conspiracy. He said, “The temporary increase in the influence of the Jews is due to the fact that Western metaphysics has helped to provide the necessary starting point for the self-proliferation of empty rationality and computational power” that would conceal and obliterate existence from the existing. Then our philosopher continues by saying, “It is not related to it being an ethnic issue, but rather to being a metaphysical issue related to the quality of human existence that can, in a totally unlimited way, undertake, as a matter of the task related to world history, to eradicate everything that exists from existence.”

From here, we must not lose sight of the close link between the establishment of the State of Israel and the spread of nihilism in the Western spirit, and to consider Israel as a clear sign of a terrible moral weakness that afflicted humanity, and a breaking of the Western spiritual horizon that turned people into metaphysical orphans and moral dependents on their own. The conscience of humanity is everywhere.

#Essays

Communication sites are based on making the world an “object” (the word in Latin is composed of two syllables: “ject) on (ob)”). The situation is that the other today is a reflection of the ego; We “throw” the world in scattering fragments and fill them in with a fleeting, newsworthy glimpse. The world has become nothing but huge nets ready for fishing, waiting for an opportunity to be seized, and there is no difference here between the hand that writes or the fingers that capture, as long as each of them can kindle the flash of lightning that we have when the clouds hold together before us and the clouds thicken so that we, like an arrow, shoot through them, leaving a thin arc upward. to the horizon. There are many people who “ink” and have huge numbers of followers, but they don’t “write” anything useful - the act of inking here is nothing more than a hunting instinct that has reduced to just throwing in the air even if you don’t catch anything.

#Maxim