Further anagrammatic lunacies about Nietzsche’s "Gott ist tot"

05 September, 2007




Do we know what are we barking off
when we spitting highly pronounce
the Nietzsche’s dictum “Gott ist tot” ?
We just don’t know where is that dog:
It is definitely a most unreached dot.

We just don’t know what shit we’ve got!
But our guts are full of conceited plots
which talks a lot about our lot,
but doesn’t add a tinny dot to Nietzsche’s
dictum that Gott is surely tot.

What is that oddity mostly odd
that we have chosen to call just God?
Which crazy dog?
The one barking in the dot!
The infinite Absentia that we have togged
with bonnie cloth to wrap the fraud
The Gott which ist so tot
is nothing but a joke,
a floating dot in our plot,
which is the story that flows a lot
about the plenteous brood
of a very sterile dog.

Is Nietzsche’s Gott really tot?
Ask the rotten dog!


Manuel Gerardo Monasterio

On Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot"






How could a concept die?

Concepts have their "lives" in that most dubious sparkling neurochemical "pastische" from which comes what we call "thought".

Therefore, a concept is free from being attached to the delusion -possibly the result of some hardware severe malfunctioning- of being alive as a separate entity (of course, such an animal does not exist)
This "interface" now writing is the only one known capable of maintaining such follies as daily bread.
Contrary to this little robotic-monkey presumptions, concepts are dead meat by their very definition.
They cannot die or be killed twice.

And about God, paraphrasing Heidegger -in one of his extremely rare moments of simplicity- we may say that if God is God, he is not “die-able”.

If “Got ist tot”, we just don’t know,
what we most surely know is that
Nietzsche is dead, that is: Er ist tot.
To that final dictum its impossible to add a dot.


PS: Kempis, in a rapture of clairvoyance and anticipating Nietzsche's final predicament, around 1441, wrote: "vita hominum tanquam umbra cito pertransit; quia nihil permanens sub sole, quia omnia vanitas et afflictio spiritus; sic Transit gloria mundi." Among other pristine phrases, which clearly depict the miserable position that we sustain confronted with such Intangibles as God or Not God. We are airy creatures that vanish in a blink. Veritable children of a realm of relativity. What purpose could we find in dealing with such Absolutes? They are completely alien to our very nature. They are properly domain of the gods, and we melt on its nearness, as moths approaching the attractive but deadly flame.



Manuel Gerardo Monasterio