What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: DEVIL GOES ON HOLLYWOOD - THE PASSAGE OF THE SERPENT - THE PLEASURE PART I - THE SEX PART I/IV - COLLIN FARRELL INTRO - EN
Select a size
DEVIL GOES ON HOLLYWOOD - THE PASSAGE OF THE SERPENT - THE PLEASURE PART I - THE SEX PART I/IV - COLLIN FARRELL INTRO
1 66 –You sir like to draw? 2 66 –you sir recognize the drawing? Farrell –I don´t know, it doesn´t has a well-defined form…it can be many things... 66 –it´s a flower…in the center, a point: the projection of an interior: the projection of one external: that which the image drew. Farrell –a flower…? 66 –would you sir know tell me how many petals does she has? Farrell –four 66 –are they all equals? Farrell –yes... 3 Farrell –well, now they´re not so equals... 4 66 –are they separated, are they together..? Farrell –apparently, yes...it´s looking like that butterfly of Microsoft... 66 –windows...a window...it´s how a man sees the nature, from a window...you sir believe that the eyes are the window of the soul? Does the spirit habitate the interior of the body? Farrell –I don´t know, habitate? 66 –the interior of the cup.. this is biblical ... 5 66 –the dead nature.. the creation. In the beginning, the death existed. This is the sentiment of the Creation. But I tell you one thing: you sir believe that the artist may, somehow, transfer his feeling to the object which he creates and now the object has the feelings of his creator? Farrell –I don´t know man, the flower was happy, now she´s sad, looks like she died.. 66 – the Nature doesn´t have an end because she is the natural symmetry of all the things. The heaven is the solid that angled the earth. Strange the heaven be an angle... the reflected image of the Earth, the death. 66—Is this a good human representation, sir Farrell? Farrell –I don´t understand of art, I´m not good in these things... 66 –but you sir are an artist.. 6 Farrell –I´m good on represent. 66 –strange how this water went to stop by there...strange how it goes out too, to the outside....disappears. You sir know what´s this? Farrell – ... a physical phenomenon ..don´t know... 66 –a human phenomenon… the unity doesn’t possess nor entrance nor exit: it is a permanence: that which remains, does not transit. And that which does not transits it´s because it separated itself: the image of the loneliness, of the sadness, the loss, suffering... all fruits of one same thing: the Separation: such a thing could only lead to despair, diseases, the small pieces of the end.. Join pieces started to be the host, this operational system, the remembrance. And with this small pieces he would construct that which he would call of the will of God: the memory of an end: the remembrance of a separation: the beauty would be that which doesn´t change: the only thing that doesn’t changes, it´s the death. There would be a geometry, then..? the why that such a thing happened? I’d tell you that the body is not a cup, neither the spirit a water: the water is not on the earth, the water is not in heaven: only the cup of water is on the floor. 7 66 –What does the flower has to do with all this? The human doesn’t own an explanation for the nature, because nature doesn’t explains itself either. But he needs to explain better for himself the memory of his comprehension. How the will of God was converted in human feelings the to believe: the floor is separated, the table is separated, the cup is separated, the water is separated and the flower is separated: and so are its petals: all the objects are over the surface of something: all are separated, be it physically or not. Do you know what this means? You sir know what the separation means? That which has no passage: just a surface of contact: the object occupies the surface of something.. Would you sir believe that the object is God and that you sir are just the surface of contact? The image of the will in the plain: this was how your feelings were defined: it was how your face was drew, as if God drew all you facial movement in a leave of paper.. you sir already imagined a technology able to draw faces and impress other facial feelings, and with this, control all the movements of your body…? To the point of you look to your face and say, “That´s my spirit…! And that is one me” : see the danger that would be if such a power were given to the human race...: of one to overwrite himself in the other…the face of one be printed in the face of the other…someone could argue, ‘who controls the overwriting, controls the image, the stronger would impress the face of its God’: this never happened, never the face of God was printed, only a human face: his feelings in one unique face of a man: it was the affirmation of the separation, that God and the Nature were and have always been separated by the will of the Man. … and these would be the unique human feelings: the entire humanity in one only man: that man was justly the image of that which separated itself: the image of all that which is not natural: the image that had never been seen, for this, it impressed, to it was associated the image of God, that, the Creator...With this angle, the man would be God. This God would need a face.. The stronger is that who doesn´t die. And that who doesn´t die, it´s the death. And this is to affirm that was the Death who created God: because the death was never the nature. We´re talking about one same thing: of the beauty of the Creation: of how the death created the beauty…from the destruction of the nature, of how the virtue appeared: of how the suffering and the sadness became the feelings of the flower: of how became understood the love. The death would impose its temor [fear] and the obligation of being alive would remain in the senses until the last roar of pain: that who did not believe on its face, would be killed, in the name of love. How the death appeared: it´s the explanation of why the stronger happened. That who believes in the death is who´s going to kill, because he has nothing to lose, for, otherwise, he would lose all. If you sir believe on the creation, you sir will be always in middle the despair of the rat and the loneliness of the flower. The death needed a face also: the face of the eternal permanence: the suffering. On birthing, the human being would be marked by this permanence: it was the will of the death that prevailed: it was this way that the image began. 8 66 – If this is the price of the eternal, I ask you who is more beautiful, the eternal or the love…? The answer is interesting because, it was like this that the death presented itself: a new face, of The Creator. The Nature doesn´t agree with this: there are no images in the nature, you can say that a photograph is an image of her, but it´s just it.. it´s not about a revenge, but a reposition of symmetry: The Nature is giving back the death to the humanity, together with its beauty: she doesn’t agree with the explanation of the Creation: why the human beauty has to live on costs of her[nature] beauty..? beauty this of hard comprehension 9 66—to admit that was the water that created the cup is to admit that the love created itself alone, that, in the beginning, God was separated from his body, it´s to admit that love appeared only after, more yet, that the man will return to god the suffering of the flower: to fill the empty of its creator. The creation exists in function of the consume of the love. But what kind of human relations would be created? What good can come of the consumption of something..?: to change the natural symmetry of something: the man tried to overwrite the will of God in the face of the earth, as if God saw the same thing as he: more yet: that they were one unique thing: that the image of the man were one with God: and this returns to the Geometry of the Plain: the strange relation of God and the death: a will that doesn´t sustains itself in front of Nature. They would define the interior and the exterior of a plain: that which the being projected: and to there copied himself, creating then his object, but knowing that the object was only a projection. And for believing in his projections, he started to habitate his own projection: it was born the image: the feelings of the object. The man would attribute all his feelings to the nature, as if he were the eyes of God, his Creator. See the complication that this gave…[!]. The image is the representation of the feeling of the creation: the separation: the death. This could only lead the man to despair… see this drawing: 10 Farrell –I feel a little resembling like this. 11 66 –this is the status of humanity. The end of philosophy, the end of society, the end of the progress of humanity…. Farrell –dude, it´s all science... 66 – no... it´s all religion. It´s believed, with this, that the aims were still not reached..it´s waited for something...that this something illuminates the humanity in her hard path, and so she may reach the spiritual existence, misunderstanding the spirit of creation. 66—it was always believed in the deep, because, if the cup had no end, it wouldn´t have a beginning: where would this water go to? What’s the procedence of something that was created..? How to separate things without the floor?...it was raised over a solid.. A curiosity about this drawing is that the human animal don’t try to escape from above, but from below, he tries to dig in the floor ... . You sir know why..? Because in the deep, he has no other possibility except for this one: to whom looks for the answer. The exit is in the earth, of course, because the entrance is in the heaven: he wanted to get out of the earth, and the why of this is not a mystery: but its explanation yes. The idea of going more further didn’t went too far. A run away, no? But...run away to where? And how to escape? Those questions seems to have dominated the human thought since the beginning, to the point of the human being become the object of his own research.. 12 66 – This is your passive condition. The passive one is that one that too early exhausted all his possibilities. He didn’t arrived to that condition now, it´s not of finding strange that the homogenic solution be disappear as water: for believing that this was how it entered, from above... but, however, he looks for a solution below, as if it contained a hidden treasure, a piece of the heaven: but, a separated piece: and this would be his passport to heaven: and he called this of a life on the earth: your life for the death of the earth. But of what earth are we talking about, sir Farrell? Of the same heaven that represents her? Is it the heaven that explains the earth? What does it means, what explanation is this, “the heaven explains the earth”…? This was how the spirit was angled: : one more angle: and the history of the angles could only result in the square: the dissymmetry of something: to angulate is to interpretate: and there would be written the solution. Those questions are part of the mystery of how the man managed to angle the earth, it was born there the understanding of the death: in that moment the man saw itself separated from something, and started to name all the things. He went forward with his separation. Not less interesting it´s his understanding of his separation: he wasn´t that: It was born the understanding of the being: the man, in that moment, sought for creating a position for all that which´s natural: that which wasn’t him. From this point, he accepted being conduced. In determined point, he understood himself as a servant, to be save he should have the feelings of the servant, and the feelings of the servant are the actions of the servant. It was this way that the servant creature was conceived. That rat inside the assay tube is a servant... but, a servant of what, sir Farrell? Of his own fears...? the fear is the love? Perceive that, for all the angles, the death it´s the key of all the feelings. 13 66 –this book affirms having found the solution for that which himself proposed as a problem. A window. The angle. But this is only a construction of the plain, without the plain, it wouldn´t exist the object. 66—let’s talk then about the object. 14 66 –“The object: the nominative actions of the being: it requires a temporization of the results, a previous localization: the object and its conductor. Its conductor must have the property of father. For this the sensation that the object is the son of the action: it occurs for the transience of the action”. These are phrases of sir Kahmn.... 15 Farrell –Kahmn..? never heard about... 16 66 –you sir believe in spirit? Farrell –dude…, I believe in many things...and also, I don´t believe in nothing....it´s kinda complicated, man, to talk about these things..it´s a transcendence, it´s something kind of cosmic…it must have yes some spirit...but not like this, of this spirit….there are divinities which I believe, with whom I relation myself .... uh…! There was a window over there.. I´m not seeing it anymore... 17 66 –you sir see things also...? Farrell –yea, man, I see... 66 –have you sir ever talked to any of them? Farrell –in certain way, yes, man... 66 –are you sir talking to any of these things with which you talk to, right now? 18 Farrell –no, it´s not this way...this is too real...is this a movie? Am I being filmed? 66 –you talk how, then ? Farrell –oh, man, it´s not like this, it´s-it´s sort of..more like, I talk to..kind of, me, with myself... 66—and you listen? Farrell –of course I listen, man, I’m listening to you, I’m listening to myself also..! 66 –and where are they now...? Farrell –yea, man, I don’t control this things...sometimes I dream with things and it happens... 66 –oh, you sir dream? That´s great..! Just don’t go prophesize.. the dream may be yours and not of the others…if you sir don’t know what’s about, better not create any relation: for the well of the prophecy and of the prophet. Where’s your spirit, is it with you now? In the moment, you sir are a spirit? Farrell –no, man, I’m being able to grab myself... 66 –would the spirit be in the heaven and the body in the Earth? Farrell –if it was in heaven, I’d be dead… 66 –why...? Farrell –Because if the spirit were not with me, where would it be? 66 –yeah...why the spirit needs to be in somewhere…? Farrell –the spirit has to be in somewhere....! 19 66 –it was what this book said, ...it’s where your spirit is: inside this book…but there’s nothing inside this book, this book is plain as this table: just as the words over the paper: if you sir dragged off all this pages and putted over the table, you sir would do the image of the spirit: a puzzle. 66 –Think on the capacity of the words: to name all the things, to attribute a position to all the things, to name the nature: the creation is a nomination: to give name to an action: this is to attribute a feeling: the feeling of the conductor. 20 66 –do you agree with this, sir Farrell, the object possesses the action of his conductor? A very interesting process of the mind. It was how you sir was named: a passive object. The human action is the object that God created: the universe. But think: what´s an object, exactly? The object is that which occupies a position in the space: a geometric coordinate, a point. It´s how the images are done in the plain: small points that move themselves alone, as if they have an own life, Because something habitate its interior: and he affirms to have an own intelligence, at the same time on which they affirm that they´re conducted: in determined moments, the object affirms that´s its interior which conducts him, at the same time that he affirms that´s his exterior that orients him, affirming that he possesses two different localizations, two different positions, two different feelings. You sir perceives the problem of the object? The being needed a position: and he found two: the object, to be, needed to occupy a position, because the position would give him the feeling that he looks for. Otherwise, the position would keep the sentiment of the being: this would be the position which he occupies. This is the understanding of humanity: the object possesses two different positions. You sir may talk about politics, governments and systems, but this is the base. If this base is validated, everything that will raise from it will make sense, but what is this sense, exactly[?]: two results: the understanding that, for each action there´s a result: and this is the problem, because the object affirms to be one unique thing, as if the nature reacted against the human being. 66 –how to comprehend the object then, sir Farrell? A unity... but, could an unity occupy two positions, two different dimensions? 21 66 –the humanity fights until today to find this answer. And never no one found. Many already tried to, but on facing with their honesty, surrender to the fact that an unity it´s about a fake duality. The science curved itself on trying to explain the object. There was someone intelligent that said that the velocity would solve the problem, for, if the velocity were so big, you could be in a place and comeback to the other so quickly, that many times doing this you would have the sensation that you were in two places at the same time. You can explain the sensation, but never explain the object… this is a very ancient confusion.. the Nicinic Creed… Farrell –Nicinic Creed? Never heard about... 66 –one was trying to prove the substantiality of God... three is equal to one... Farrell –man, this is impossible..! how did they get? 66 –they didn’t, for this the fight continues.. : To Kill: to believe, you need to kill: like everything in the unity, there´s only one unique solution: the angle of two results. 22 66 –But to kill what exactly? How to talk about death? And what is it dying..? this would lead us to the nominative actions of the object… someone named all, and attributed them properties… Farrell –what does this someone has to do with me...? 66 –this someone serves you the meat that’s served you over the table…misunderstanding that it’s eating himself…because this is one more angle of the object, the satisfaction of who ate… Farrell –didn’t understand... 66 –imagine that you sir are a boat over the surface of an ocean, and that, at the same time, you sir are a boat over the surface of another ocean in heaven… Farrell –I didn’t knew that there were boats in heaven, nor oceans… 66 –it’s what say the intelligents... ´in the beginning, the waters were separated´, the separation of the plains.. So, you sir would navigate in the heaven and in the Earth at the same time. Okay …? Farrell –it looks a kind of impossible, but, that be it… 66 –now, there would be a problem: The boat of the heaven is not exactly equal to the boat of the Earth, on the reality, they´re different: substantially different: 23 66—the waters of the earth are also not equals to the waters of the heaven. The sentiments of the earth are not the same sentiments as the ones of the heaven. Could this boat navigate in two oceans at the same time, without their waters never meet? And even so, living together eternally..? living side by side everybody would love each other? Would it be good for God like this? Would it be good for the man..? God would watch the man exist.. a strange conjugal pleasure...what does one wants to prove with this? Would the love be a laterality? 24 Farrell –no, you already said, the boats are different… 66 –exactly, they can’t...it’s about an angle. And for being about an angle, it´s about a possibility: the to believe. 25 Farrell –there isn’t, man, if something cannot be proved, the possibility doesn´t exists. 66 –oh yeah, sir Farrell... to believe is the proof that the sentiment exists. 26 Farrell –no, man...to believe doesn’t prove nothing… . 66 –to prove a sentiment is not so easy like that. But to prove him is the reason of the explanation. But if this goes forward, accepting that as a mystery, relevant questions as the purity comes to the fore, and the surface of the plain starts being better understood: the reflex. 27 66—if you sir have a dirt spirit, an impure spirit, a bad sentiment, this spirit would not be in heaven: for this would be admit that the heaven is impure. But if admit that the spirit is on the earth, it´s to admit that this spirit separated from heaven, separated from God. Horrible the constatation: God is separated. More yet, God was that which separated itself: more yet, the man is separated from God, for God being separated from the man. Maybe you sir don´t perceive, but the drawing possesses four angles. The boat of heaven and the boat of earth form two different dualities: a combination of two by two would always give four different results. This could identify the factions and its many comprehensions, but´s the geometry that´s relevant. 66 –being God the boat, he would be separated from heaven and separated from Earth. Only joining the two boats in an unique geometric point, that which would commit all the things, it would be possible the existence of God, as being the geometric angle between body and spirit. But the drawings possess another complications. For this angle, the unity thought being solving the problem, proposing two possible solutions, the same of always God would be in two dimensions at the same time as well: but understand that the heaven is a geometric projection: an image obtained by the angulation of the Earth: for this, the understanding that the heaven is a ceiling, is a vain… and that the celestial asters were fitted over this imaginary vain, as if the universe had indeed a ceiling, based on the supposition that the earth were indeed a floor: or meaning it, the interpretation is the image of the creation: in the deep, only geometric plains in this terrible equation: the horizon would be the angle of this parallelism impossible: two straight lines that would never meet, except for the imaginary hypothesis of the time: a possibility. It´s what, in essence, is all the angle: a possibility. 28 66 –It´s what we have here, the Caravels of Kahmn... it´s a complex interdimensional structure, but, it´s what we´re talking about, interdimensional relations: the object movements itself, but he doesn’t transits. 66 –and that, in this sense, all his movements are limited to the movements of a plain, never an interdimensional passage. 29 God –what are they talking about..? what drawing is this, Kahmn? Kahmn –it´s what sir 66 is talking about… 30 Kahmn –God habitate the interior of the surface of something, the contact with God is superficial. This happens because the unity understands that God it’s in another dimension. The surface of the earth is the limit of an extremity: the other, is the heaven: for this the understanding of the death, because God indeed is not in the interior. The explanation is because there´re no passages in the unity, it´s the initial movement, the Creation: the convention that something was Created: the external God –The external..? 66 – it´s wrong the understanding that God created the universe from his interior, because there wouldn’t be explanation for the impurity of the universe: the interior of God would be impure as well. the most intelligent knows that the understanding of the Creation is not this. But the rest succumbs to the fact that God would be separated: God is one thing and the Universe is another: For these, the universe is the body of God. It´s the original understanding of spirit and body, separated things. Afterwards, God added his spirit to all the things, his anima, and, afterwards, God removed his anima as well. In biblical terms, this is present in the Creation of the man: ‘He blew over his nostrils…’ : the Creation is not simultaneous, it follows the dualistic rite: one thing, then the other: it´s what one is discussing: how god went to stop by in the interior of the man, how God went to stop by in the interior of universe. Kahmn –It´s what the drawing explains: this is the projection of an external: that which precedes the being: the man, on separating of the nature, did it by a reactive sentiment: he did not liked what he saw: sir 66 explained that: it was the motive of the separation. On seeing himself separated, his being became formless: and he needed to create a form God –isn´t this imagination? Kahmn –no, it´s a previous stage, the man was only angling… In geometrical terms, he opened a space on his mind: and as a point external do this adjacent square, he projected himself as the center of this square, a point: because the center is the origin of any geometric draw. Geometrically, it´s the Beginning…the drawing only exists after it´s geometrical projection in the plain: that being, still inexistent, saw himself as a point inside a square: and curiously, in that moment, he called center his interior. As the center is the geometrical position of a plain, the center also is the projection of one interior: the interior is only the geometrical projection of an external. 31 Kahmn –For this the sensation that the sentiment of the external went to stop by in the interior of the plain: the spirit is the geometric projection of a body: God indeed was not a spirit, for this the spirit projected is exactly equal to his body. But geometrically, they´re about two different localizations: And, while Earth, the spirit of God will be on his interior, and while the heaven, the spirit of God will be in his exterior: God is outside of the universe and at the same time inside of the universe: is the effect of the projection of one external: but it doesn´t exists the interior nor the exterior of the plain: the plain possesses only surface. The initial idea of Creation is a superficial idea, it won´t bring another comprehension, except for this. 66 – The spirit of God outside and the spirit of God inside, needed an angle, the holy spirit: something that explained how the water went to stop by in the interior of the cup and how it went out to its exterior. God needed to be outside to act over the plain, and at the same time, to be inside to explain his permanence: is a closed circuit. There isn´t transitivity between two plains Kahmn –The spirit of the boat is: the spirit wanders over the body, the spirit of God wanders over the waters… and he knows where to go, because he rules the wind, his thoughts, which tells him where to go to. The nature will never be a purpose to an empty body, the boat which only possesses one sense: the reason. It´s the strange angle of the mind: the empty: he makes us perceive the necessity of a complement, the filling, the feeling of possessing the dimension which is not yours: the desire that the heaven possessed the earth, since the earth never possessed the heaven. The waters of the clock are separated. It´s the case of Depp´s clock: there´s no entrance unity neither an exit unity, because the unity is a closed entity. From there the terminology of “what´s inside it´s in the interior”: the sensation that that which one habitate is that of which one is part as well… what occurs is that the images are side by side, what exists is a surface of contact: for not existing a passage, the movementation between places, switches of positions, from heaven to the earth and from earth to the heaven, what one sees is the existence of a separation: the interior indeed doesn´t exists in the unity, it´s only a projection: an illusion. Geometrically, an impossible representation: a scape of a geometric position, the angle of the empty, the angle God. 66 –the undulatory effect of the mind, geometrically, this system is used in many resources in the transpositions which involve the heaven and the earth, body and spirit, servant and seigneur: the biblical dualities are treated inside a geometry: the geometry of the plain. In mode that the main duality, the universe and God, as two different dimensions, would have to: for being the duality, father, and given it´s derivative and cascadable effect: where the properties of the respective dimensions create a connectivity: an angular relation. This geometry is visible in all the biblical passages, for it being the base of the rationality. If the proposal of an unidimension were really valid, there would be no interiorizing conflict: resurrections, purification, effort, acceptation, conformity, tolerance… sentiments of rejection: this would be to admit that the will of God was that the man separated from the earth: more yet: that God wanted to separate from himself, that God wanted to separate from the man: that the will of God was to separate himself from the man: to separate himself from that which he created? Why? Why would he separate himself of his own creation? Would God be in suffering in that moment and this was the sentiment which created all the things? 32 Kahmn – there´s no separation between the waters, whether they call them clear waters or dark waters, whatever. The heaven is the solid that angled the earth. There´s no separation of the waters, the waters of the heaven are only a projection of the waters of the Earth. God –I don´t understand… 66 –if the waters of the Earth are dirt, they will never be able to be cleaned, independently of its origins, just as the horizon line emulates two different positions, are the unclean waters and the clean waters: there´s no passage, just changing the status of the being , to attribute another angle to the object it´s to attribute him a different position. The spirit unclean on the earth would never be clean in the heaven. While Earth, the spirit will be dirt, while heaven, the spirit will be clean. God –so there´s no how to solve the problem of contamination? 66 –of the purity... Kahmn –of the certainty .... 66 –more yet, such a contamination never existed God –where´s God? Kahmn –the horizon line God –and where´s the man? Kahmn –the boat most ahead on the surface of the plain..the Earth is not in the interior of the universe, just as God is not in the interior of the man: he looks to the infinity, aiming the horizon, believing in the possibility that an angle may one day exist: but for practicing such geometry, does not forget of his projection. God –what´s the explanation and the understanding of all this ? Kahmn –that the spirit would never be inside of the body, God never habited the interior of the man. It´s the Codex of Death. That which made the man grow, putted him in the condition of permanence, he doesn´t has how to believe in the lie, Because he has the memory of his projection: he would never believe in God for this. He will always know that God is only a projection. God –why did this happened? Kahmn –sir 66 that has bigger details about this, he wanted to be this way, something that had to be seen, and not contextualized. For angling things up, the human beings misperceived the passages. 33 66 –it would be innocuous that the waters of the heaven and the Earth were separated, in the same mode that the solution for its problem were the separation. In the same mode, insignificant the resurrection or the purification of an inexistence. The human status will be the same: or over the surface of heaven, or over the surface of Earth, always seeking for a localization of God, a validation of a truth: the one of the existence of one unique possibility: the creation, or, simply, the naming of all things, without perceiving that was the death which sculpted your face. 66 –Notice that... 34 66 –...the sails are turned to the interior, and that the sensation of the caravels are in a circular movement, in the interior of an ocean, it´s on the reality the contrary, for understanding the ocean as a straight line, as the straight line being the plain, the boat would be upside down, on making a circular movement. It´s the sensation of the sailor, he thinks that he´s inside the universe, but in the reality, he´s only in the exterior of a plain. And this was the way that was created the image of the interior of the plain, that God would be inside and outside at the same time. 66 – it´s horrible to realize that the unity indeed cannot hide its mystery, and that it lost itself in its own geometry: from having departured of the plain, for being about a plain, there is no interior: any relation on the plain will be always of surface. With the conception, it was created a boat on the Earth. With the resurrection, it was named a boat on heaven. The understanding is of laterality. When one wants to join both boats and form an angle, the explanation is interiorizing: the spirit habitate the interior of the body. But if you sir pay attention in the drawing, you sir will see that the spirit is outside of the heaven, and that the body is also outside of the earth: but perceive that it´s about a separation: the understanding is that the spirit possesses a position in heaven: and the body possesses a position of the earth and that the status of the being depends on two geometric localizations. The intelligent said that the heaven possesses many rooms and that he would be by the side of someone, just as the others would be by his side: once more the laterality: all occupies the surface of a plain: the occupation is superficial. The Wind was blew over the surface of the Earth: and it was believed that he went to stop by in the interior of the plain. And the sentiments were so introduced: the nominative actions of the being. Imagine a being that didn´t had a defined form: and this turned him unstable: and that he needed desperately to become stable: in this moment it doesn´t exists exactly the thought, but, feelings: we don´t know for certain what are these feelings, neither why this being feel himself like this: 35 66 –Mysteriously, this being saw himself separated: a little step for the big history of humanity. But not less big was the sentiment that preceded the separation: this being would´ve felt something he named as death, an end: for this, immediately he separated himself from the end. It would be more harmonic to admit the inconsistence of his thought, or, his interpretation, or simply, that the word was wrong, that simply it was about angles of the nature: no one wanted like this, for being more practical, or simply, for matters of usability, that being affirmed that nature was not him, and from there, he started to identify all the things. It was born the to believe. The death was the first thing that this being believe: this would be the genome of a generation that followed. Later it would be born the other angles, the spirit, heaven and god: the nature was angled as death, the body as spirit, the earth as heaven, and God as the man: the four angles of the plain: the square of the mind would be mounted: now the being would get a defined form, or, simply, the space of his actions: a screen, where it would be painted the image of something: but not only simple illustrations of its results, but the impression of his feelings: the memory of the will: was how the Word was stored. But if you sir kept the word, you sir will also keep mine: by the word the image came, and by the image the word goes. But to construct sentiments is not that easy, what would be of the believe without the judgment? The judgment also possesses properties: the Word possesses body and spirit: and for being about isolated plains, the holy spirit was angled… it´s how the judgment is comprehended. Intelligent the drawing, the caravels are the judgment over the four angles: or simply, the purpose. The judgment possesses three entities: a body, a spirit, and a body-saint, the angle, the holy spirit. Let´s go ahead with this geometry, then… understood better the problem of the judgment, and how its entities, body and spirit and body-saint are related. You sir are liking the explanation..? this is the essence of any philosophy, not only yours…you may think that this is the manifestation of God, or of how it was obtained, but this is only the manifestation of the fucked ones: for being the mass the majority, it prevailed. 66—But does it proves any existence of a superior intelligence, or, simply, the affirmation that it exists indeed some body that´s separated of something? 36 66—this is not my understanding. I´m showing you yours: I mean, there´s no understanding on nature, this is about a configuration. Farrell –man, I..don´t even know if I understand this way, I´m.... trying to understand… Will I be punished for this..? 66 –no, you sir was already punished for understanding like this … Farrell –I mean, if I understood, I don´t know... I´m not good in believing, never was..but I don´t know if I understood it like this... 66 –it´s natural that you sir feel like this, Because it´s about a montage. And as everything that´s mounted, it will never be natural. for more stupid that the human being is, he knows that he has the capacity of identify the break of something: Because that which´s born broken will always need a fix: and that´s impossible to fix the nature: it´s a feeling of a natural one, and not of a created being. Farrell –what you sir want me to say..? 66 –that you submitted yourself to the use, for misunderstanding the creation: that you accepted the conditions of the world for the criterials of survival. This is the sentiment of the death: the salvation. It´s you who choose, supposedly it´s you sir that conduct yourself: the conductor: who is the conductor? The body? The spirit? Both? None of them both but a third one? So are three...and the three form one unique movement: a triangle. It´s an interesting explanation... we may try to solve the problem, and this is basically only comprehend the unity. We could reach the constatation that the spirit is right and the body it´s the wrong, and vice-versa, and in this form, extract a guilty and, consequently, someone who innocents him. It´s perceivable that the object loses easily its localization. 37 66 –for this, discover the exact localization of the spirit is complicated: the most intelligent proclaimed that the spirit is in the interior .. but that this may treat itself of a half-truth, because the spirit may be contaminated, and this is basically to unsay what said, this is an ambiguity ... 66 –an insolution for the duality..it´s to admit that the waters are together, but, at the same time, separated. There´s no solution to the unity: for this it itself denominated the own solution. Farrell –man, you like to stay affirming things, kind of.. doesn´t let the others talk... 66 –there´s no other kind of conversation except the affirmation. You sir are just affirming your incomprehension... Farrell –but incomprehension of what, man…? I do not comprehend what you say I don´t understand… 38 66 –it doesn´t exist the interior, it´s about an inexistence: the angle of an empty, equal to your existence. Does your arrival attests your beginning? The birth is a principle? And what happened with whom was born, died? This thought is interesting, Because the unity utilizes itself of this argument to prove the Conception. Farrell –and what´s a conception..? 66 –the preexistence of something...but if we understand the preexistence by the unity, we won´t even have the understanding of what is indeed a conception, for it would be perceivable that it was only about an anticipation of the results: the infinite cannot anticipate to the movements, for it would lose its form…only another broken geometry. Farrell –and what is the conception, then..? 66 –that something existed before the universe being created: but that such existence didn´t possessed indeed a body yet. The conception affirms that the human body is the first existence of the body of God: and for being the first, it would be the unique as well . Farrell –but how can a body exist before it be created? 39 66 –it´s as I told you, it was intended to explain something, and, for this, one possibilited. Imagine that you sir is God: and that you created a body for you here on Earth: could you sir affirm that, in such conditions, it was you sir who created the universe? Farrell –dude, no, of course not... 66 –why..? you sir is God, you sir could do anything… Farrell –I know, man, but this is-is… 66 –is what? an absurd? Farrell –because… all right, man, I’m god, I can do anything, but…why would I do this? 66 –it doesn´t seems to be natural...but that´s just it? Forget the why and attempt to the geometry: it´s something that needs to be proved: where is the geometry of this possibility ? Farrell –dude, God wanted to do this way, it was his will, he wanted to prove something with this, to show something to the human beings… 66 –the unexplainable motives of God would be your explanation. It´s not quite like this, the unity needs to explain its initial geometry : and not simply go out naming the things and say that this was the beginning: The unity presents itself as unique possibility: and where, in the nature, is there a unique possibility, the occurrence of one unique result? This is to invalidate the own Science that tries to explain the rationality. I do not discuss the to believe, you can go ahead with him: but know that you sir will be going ahead without an explanative geometry, in this moment, your status is of an animal, irrational. 40 66 –Most of the atheists stop there: they know that they´re toward an impossibility: without an explanative rationality, they surrender to the fact that such a creation never existed: without knowing that, on doing it, they would be assuming a unitarist position as well : the possibility that such a thing did not happened: be it for the validation or the denial, the unity manifests as one unique result: and the question is quickly finished, solidifying itself between those who believe and those who don´t believe. Evolutionists affirm that the man evolved from a protozoa, one unique beginning, and doesn´t differs in nothing of the creationists. Farrell – and is there a solution for this? 66 –no..the unity requires, for all the effects, the obligatoriety that it be a creation: to deny it and to affirm it will give always one a unique result. Farrell –and what are we talking about, then? 66 –a princípio, to affirm that the creation does not possess a geometry. Secondly, that its geometry is fail, it is fake. And third, which are the feelings of this creation: what was intended with this. Farrell –but if the creation possesses all these problems, why try to understand it then.. ? 66—without understanding what was believed, you won´t have how to understand what happened. Farrell –why is it important to know what happened? I think that no one worries indeed with this, people want only to work, to live, to have their families and this things, man, to be happy... 66 –and the love, sir? Farrell –what does it has, the love? 66 –the work is more important than love? I mean, without the work you sir won´t have the love? The adornments that to it are related to... would the creation be the form of how to manage to acquire the love? The society on itself is understood as the love? Would the love be a conception? This would be to affirm that the love is a result and not your beginning… Farrell –I don´t know, man, you want me to agree, I agree, this won´t lead to nothing, I hated to study, man…! After a while I ended up liking it, man, but this ...this is boring, man, these things are boring, man… 41 Farrell –I thought you guys wanted to kill me, man, not to obligate me to learn something... and this for me is worse than death... I had to learn to be an actor, even knowing that I was never a great actor…. Farrell –I did great movies, but..the movies were always bigger than me...the director wanted to be this way... the guys don´t like me, man... I´m not a loved guy, understand...? everything for me comes with bad will...as if they didn´t wanted to give me... and even so...to be obliged to accept, man... this defeats me, man...! this helped me to misunderstand on what I´m a deserver... 42 Farrell – I mean, that was mine...but I had to accept as if it was being given, a favor….I ended up understanding as work ...having to live with the critics that I´m not indeed a deserver...that I arrived where I arrived because of my face... I decided to be pretty to see myself rid of these things, man... 66 –you sir is describing me a prostitution...this acceptation has no other name... a separated idea will be always servant of its actions: it´s what the work is: the image of a purpose ... 43 66 –maybe because you sir found the world a beauty as well, but, where to love or to hate the world applies to the nature? And how such understanding applies to the beauty ? more yet, how to understand the feelings in such configurations? Are weird associations, the ideas are not convergent, do not possess a unicity.. 44 66 –an interesting question would be: was it you sir who identified him or he that identified you first? It doesn´t makes any difference because in both cases you sir would be separated from nature. There´s no how to know the size of your nomination. Farrell –will there have test, this things, notes, kind of, I can be reproved…? Will I have to study for pass..? is it some university? The Hollywood actors will now have to pass through this to learn to relation themselves with the institution? I mean, is there someone from behind this, some intelligence? 66 –You sir are in the conditions of the word, that which is over the surface of something of something : you sir are the position which you occupy, this is the status of your being: few matters if you sir moves: you sir are in [place]: and if you are in, God also is in, your spirit also is in: and this is the entity with which you sir relation yourself: the position: it´s what God is, it´s what their copyists proclaimed: the position of God: but that deep inside it´s only the position of the death: it´s what humanity is: the feeling of the death: the suffering, or, simply, the existence: You sir are a creature, that one which believes in the image of a solid, that the time is the image of the universe, for this, all the things have end. If God is the image that the death doesn´t reaches, it´s only the position of the plain, it´s imaginary center: its condition of object: the idea that separated itself. For these I say: eggs don´t sprout from the Earth, for this ideas cannot fly. 45 66 –it was proposed heaven and Earth, it was proposed body and spirit, and all this reports to the beginning, to a creation: a liar and fail affirmations. It´s something to be forgotten; I want to talk another thing.. and, it´s basically much more than propose a new beginning, but reaffirm that the human being reached the limit of its incomprehension: the idea of a creation reached its end, because it’s not harmonic, doesn’t even possesses a geometry: on that where it´s said that she´s stronger, she´s just the opposite, weaker . Farrell –man, if you were going to say something, why didn´t you say sooner and stayed losing your time on explaining something broken…? And I even agree, if the thing is this way, it´s broken really, the possibility of one cannot exclude the possibility of the other, this would be to impose a result… 66 –the nature possesses no geometry, for this, explaining her is not that easy: inevitably, for that such a thing were done, the existent geometry would have to be removed. And it´s what we´re doing. But, indeed, I wouldn´t like to this again, it´s not pleasurable for me explain the unity and its feelings. For this, let´s go forward with the geometry already existent and seek a better understanding of its functioning: 66 –the actions give name to the objects and the objects classify them. There exists a square, and you sir are the passive object. As the angles go changing, they´ll change the status of your being. Just as in the movies your face is angled, in one moment you sir are a murdered and, in the other, a prisoner. This construction, orchestrated feelings: It´s what a nominative action is: it attributes the feelings of who created them. If we get the four angles of the square and rename death as sex, spirit as desires, pleasure as heaven and will as God , as unique equilateral object of the purpose, and create a relation of angles between body, spirit, and holy spirit, and seek for a biblical comprehension, we will have the exact comprehension of how it occurred the nominative actions of the being: how the object transformed itself into feeling, how your movements became actions: the image of the being will be able to be extracted: it´s not a simple believing, but to understand how the images gained feelings. 46 66 –This would closure the first part of the understanding of something. Is it you sir who choses your characters..? Today you sir is important, but, was it always like this? Did someone ever told you, “Farrell, you don’t give for the paper...”? Farrell –man, this is normal in the world of arts, no one cares for this… 66 –right, you sir misunderstands the opportunism… Farrell –no, man, there exists a director, there exists a script, there exists a cost involved... 66—you sir is paid to feel like this, or the director will soon correct you: “Farrell, you´re wrong..”. How´s hard to see you sir smiling, it looks like you sir are always with a choked smile, different of sir Pitt, that has a hidden smile… . Are personalities of the being, and these things have a why. 66 –the impression of the image, the photography is the feeling that the image has. The good director seems to know what is the right face, and this is the instant of the art. Among the defeated and the winners, are the faces of their creators. It´s not only the significances of why that their faces are used, but what was it wanted with this.. the face of God was sculpted from the face of the death. The impression manages to give life to that which died, and you will call death any loss impression, because it´s she who´s going to tell you how you must feel. You sir know what is the pleasure? Is it possible to photograph the pleasure? The pleasure is the smile of the pain… . And this is the difficulty of your smile. Sit down, sir Farrell. 47 66 –this is not your chair, yours is the other. 48 Farrell –oh,yes, of course, sorry… 49 66 –you sir behave as a rodent. Farrell –a rodent? 66 –yes, a rat. 50 Farrell –it seems like I’m being seen.... 51 Farrell –as if I were being seen in a big screen. This here looks like a lab... 66 –this is the sentiment of the image, the vision, it needs to be seen to validate its impression.. 52 Farrell –what is my utility..? 66 –you sir believe in natural selection? 53 Farrell –it exists? 66 –you sir think that there are choices on nature? That there exists researches on nature? That there exist experiences on nature? What are those things? 54 Farrell –I don´t know...it´s the science... 66 –and is the science natural? Farrell –isn´t it? 55 66 –does it exists the science of the nature? Does it exists formulas in the knowing? The nature is science? the science is the knowledge of the nature? The humanity is the knowledge of the nature? There exists something that the human being knows that nature doesn’t know? Would the human being have the knowledge that the nature hided and, in the possession of this knowledge, he may dominate her and impose his will? Farrell –dude, I´m not such a cult guy, like this, what you sir want with all this? I like the nature... 66 –oh, you sir like.. is there a reason why for this? Farrell –man, I don´t know, what do you want with all this?!?!? I wanna get out of here, just this...! I don´t wanna know what´s going on, I just wanna go away... I´ve already seen guys like you, got it..? they like this kinds of things... I ... I don´t fuck this things... I don´t like this , I won´t stand it.... 66 –confinement… it´s the feeling of the permanence. This agitation of yours, in your shoulders, your facial expression… the eyes want to move, but seems to fixate on something, as if the something fixated the eyes, as if the eyes were caged…. You sir are running, but you´re stopped. This is the movement of the caged one... Your s.i.r. is perceivable in the nature, but are not the movements that are visible, but… another thing: that which is not passing. Those who do not pass, created the law. The cynicism of the power: he wants that, but needs to say that´s the other one who´s giving it to him… You sir are a cynic. 66 –but you sir are not a liar. 56 Farrell –and what´s the difference...? 66 –the desire. One seeks to possess, the other one, to possess you. This happens when the image doesn´t forms totally The lie forms into a truth: the cynicism, in an occasion: both fruits of a same essence, the possibility… . The cynicism denies, while the lie affirms. And the big problem is the being of the question: the guarantee of an image. You may see yourself as another person, and this affect the permanence, a stepping away of your real you. You sir know what´s this? 57 Farrell –no... 66 –the loss of a position..the loss of the position of God, the loss of the paradise. In that moment, you sir left being someone, you sir left being pretty… because the beauty was the sentiment that the death aimed. You sir can say that, in this moment, you sir are not in peace with yourself and, by consequent, to think that you´re dying, or worse, that something is killing you, the such ´reaction of the nature´.. and this would compromise all your results, to think that your future will be unmade. And that in middle the step of the eternity, you sir felt in a hole. Amen, amen, save, save: what´s all this, other than the recognition of the prison, in middle the solid undoing itself...? but you sir may seek another comprehension: that it´s the way the love teaches the virtue, in a painful way: how to recover your lost naturalness? The loss of the floor is not a displacement for the empty, nor much less an act of Faith, nor less yet the price of the nature: just the disobstruction of something: there was something which separated you, and now there isn´t anymore . 58 66—you sir must pay attention to this feeling, every time that it begins: starting by, if indeed it´s a feeling, to think that you are losing something. This would be, at the same time, to understand that the pleasure became a suffering: and that that indeed was never your will: perceive how the to kill was quickly initialized: how the death emerges from its beyond, in the exact moment on which you´re forced to, mysteriously, take a decision: to choose a result: results these that preexists and, curiously, the chosen one will be the one which guarantees the permanence: the pleasure was delivered to the waters of the will: the object sails now in the conditions of the being: the angles of the square. There exists an intelligence on wanting to act like this, on feeling itself like this: and the object reports itself to its exterior and to its interior at the same time: that is the angle of its conductor, its mysterious judge: that who is between the external and the internal..: he carries the winner sentence. Mysteriously, assume the feelings of the conductor: and this one, by its turn, the position of the will: “now Farrell doesn’t like this anymore”: what´s this, sir Farrell? You sir want to pass a cheap talk in the nature and change your last name, as if the one who created you had only one name…? but don´t hide that, for being a decision, it treats about one only fear, one only action: someone slaps the wheel and you want to assume the position: and what´s worse, you agree with this: “better this way, Farrell, otherwise you´d lose yourself in so many directions, probably, you´d choose the wrong way, or you´d be taken by the uncertainty of the nature…”: and it´s in this point that I wanted to arrive: the visualization of the weakness: the fragility of the to believe: of how the immortality is put forward, toward the natural sentiments: those which were not dressed by the moral: this one, now perceivable, was never part of the nature: as it was already said, it´s the idea that separated itself: which denominated itself the Justice, judge of the question that it itself created. I tell you one thing, acting like this, you sir will be realizing, constructing, without knowing that, at the same time, will be destructing your dreams, dissolving yourself: until that, one day, you sir will say: “Farrell is dead”: they’ll try to prove you otherwise: but you will be alone, without knowing indeed how all happened: it´s what I come talking about, the drawing I told you in the beginning: the flower. For the human being, there was something more beautiful: the vanity: and him, just as God, misunderstood. And this is the difficulty of the explanation of the image, of how the face appeared: and even the feelings of his creator. Tell me, sir Farrell, would the Nature be more beautiful than the sky? And what´s the angle of this comparison? To compare is to separate, isn´t it? And to separate is to kill. And to kill is the action of the death. And what is this action? A construction: the death needs to kill to construct: this is how the statue was separated from the rock, this is how the clay was separated of the earth. The construction is made through slices of separation of pieces: creations of squares : is as the bodies were created: little pieces of the comprehension of something: pieces these that were also separated of something: an unity would not exist without the separation , because the separation attests its existence. You sir are an individual , but in the social plain, you sir are collective… : see the juridical artifact that raised itself in function of this… and how the disexplanation persists in middle a geometry that does not sustains itself: the questions lose themselves in middle the posse and the judgement, and these questions are not relevant: you sir may prioritize them, but they´re not relevant. 66 –Little square in an enormous big square: was how your face was angled, a rectangle, a square disguised 66 –… the square is the image of the most beautiful, for the perfections of the angle, are all straights. Look at your eyes, mouth, nose and chin: the perfect proportions. 59 66—But how were they elected and, who elected them? Would by case your nose be the center of your face? The spirit of the square is the permanence. The square needed a face which expressed the permanence: the pleasure on dying: the pleasure of the death. Without the geometry, the death would never have a face: this would be almost a distaste, wouldn´t have an impression, the square, the image of perfection: the geometric figure that all love: it proved to be the most beautiful than the nature, to the point of the man prefer living inside of a square rather than in the nature.. Farrell –dude, your glasses are squared… 66 –but my eyes aren´t… it´s how your eyes see.. the glasses are just a screen most ahead, it cannot see the nature… because the nature doesn´t pass through his eyes. It doesn´t exists image in the nature, neither the image attests its existence. The to look human it´s an interpretation: because he rejected his own look , wanted to look closer like a microscope: or farther as a telescope..: he did not accepted his natural look, , did not accepted to see the nature with his own eyes. To look at you, sir, is see one image. Farrell – Man, this this a boring talk, I... I don´t have there a pleasant historic... it was hard man, to arrive till here.. 60 66 – the beauty was the pleasure that the death wanted to dress up, because nude she was ugly and she didn´t felt pleasure with her own body. To separate is beautiful, the beauty of the separation. Let´s see then how the beautiful happened. Why was your face chosen among so many beautiful…what beauty is this that you sir hide, sir Farrell? Would you sir be the image of the pleasure? That which nature identifies to be her pleasure as well? but would there be pleasure in a square? I mean, is a square pleasurable? Why the squared faces are the pleasurable? what is the pleasure? What is the pleasure for the nature…? And why is the pleasure related to the concept of beauty…? It´s something that humanity needs to answer… what pleasure is this that the beauty constructed? This is to explain how the death is beautiful. The understanding that one has is that the beauty angled the death, because it doesn’t changes. And this is the concept of eternal. But was the death that angled the beauty: it would exist while life in the earth, and would exist while death in heaven. As everything in the unity, would be solved through a duality. The death would have to results for the beauty, would have two results for the pleasure: the death would angle all the feelings, the feelings of earth and the feelings of heaven. But where in the love one is most beautiful than the other? Farrell –I don´t want to come back to the beginning ..if you want, take me directly to the final, it will make more sense for me, always did.. 61 66 –Yes, it was hard, really…see how much we talked to manage to arrive in the image… but, even though without understanding it, we perceived many angles… how did the human mind was so well configured, and… how did the image configured so well the human mind..? we orchestrate inexistences so easily…: why did the humanity was involved into such an enormous difficulty, the to believe..? how did the beginning and the final are so well related..[?]: it´s the psychology of the death, it prevailed. But, we´re not talking about the technology of the mind, the information: for we would be, fatally, returning to the Creation. Organic: living organisms… those, which born, grows and dies… of course, and reproduces itself, also: this not only is your finality, just as is also your explanation: it´s the concept of living being… how important was the idea of organism..even more than the one of son. Is you sir a living organism...? Farrell –I must be… 62 66 –diseases...there exists diseases on nature? Farrell –yes.. 66 – you sir find yourself a sick man? Farrell –maybe.. 63 66 –on evaluating by your stomach, yes… not only it, liver, pancreas and intestines as well: the entire digestive apparel….this could initialize what the human beings call of systemic diseases…this would direction the matter to the preexistence…but how to talk about that which cannot be seen by human eyes…? Starting by the own human body…it is a lie… in the same mode as its angle, spirit, is: it´s of what we come talking about, of that which science doesn´t know, because it doesn´t has how to know: wounds, Chagas… impurity… are understood as something external to the human being, which appeared from nowhere… 66 –There exists anything rotten on nature? The feces are rotten? An animal in decomposition is a rot? There exists the smell of rot? The rottenness is an impurity? Abutter likes the smell of rotten? What are the feces? Why do they stink? What is the bad smell? Would there be any intelligence in affirming that the feces are separated in your belly? That this was the form of separating the impurities of the body…? You sir find yourself fragrant? You sir feel the smell of the other people? The smell of the world is pleasant? Or this is about just one more impurity..? is it possible to prove any existence of these things on nature? 64 66 – absorption, it’s what we´re talking about.. you talk in technology. I´m talking about another thing, something natural. something that is beyond your comprehension: the absorption is a natural pleasure. The society, the existence, that which is believed, it´s the sentiment of an image: the man stopped looking to the nature, to look to another thing. There was earth on what he was seeing, today there´s nothing more. His eyes were completely modified and, consequently, stopped dreaming, started living of illusions, this atmosphere that he breathes, and attributed to this values. His pass-time is to consume these values.. the time doesn´t pass by the nature: it´s only the understanding of the death: and of that which it misunderstood: God. And to you sir, was given an opportunity, because the opportunity is the only possible understanding toward nature, in function of its use. What is the pleasure for the nature? This is what you sir has to answer. And without passing, you will never know: for, in another way, nature won´t pass. 66—Enginer, sir Farrell´s file... 65 66 is looking to Farrell´s stomach´s x-ray.. 66 –you sir like tuna...? 66 Farrell –what did you said? 66 –you sir like fish? Farrell –everything that´s from the sea, I like. 66 –you sir have ever ate dolphin´s meat? 67 Farrell –no, never... I like dolphin... 66 –you sir like aquariums..? Farrell –I like it, I have one in my office... 66 –have you sir ever experimented to put alcohol? Farrell –no, they would die, fish don´t like alcohol .. 66—and fish likes of what? Farrell –of ration... 66 –you sir like ration? Farrell –no, I don´t like ration...what are you, a medic? A gastroenterologist? 68 66—you sir thinks that the fish has hunger ... Farrell –everything on nature has hunger... 69 66 – you sir think that the fishes eat the ocean? Could one unique fish destroy a coral? Would it be possible one unique specie extinguish the others? Would it be possible a specie that, everything on which it touches, it kills? Unique things started to happen on nature.. 66 – you sir ever loved someone, sir Farrell? 70 Farrell –love...? i think so...... Farrell –I must have loved someone, yes... 71 Farrell – Maybe I don´t remember... 72 Farrell –ah! There was a girl in the school..! Farrell –...! no...no .. 73 Farrell –I didn´t loved... Farrell –what do I eat, what do I like? What´s this? There were some actresses... I think I had so many women…, I don´t know… maybe some Hollywood actress… 74 66 –everything you loved you killed... do you sir have an explanation for this? Farrell –no, I don´t have... you sir has? 66 –classify to me the sentence: “the man caught the fish”. Farrell –I´m not good at this.... 75 66 –the fish is now of the man. To name is to attribute a property to something: the posse. The man ate the fish: the man took the life of something per se: he needs to kill… everything that the man possesses, he kills.. he needs to kill to live... this incredible technique of survival it´s the use: if you sir use it, you sir will kill it… you sir comes doing this since you was born... and your time is ending, soon you sir won´t have nothing more to kill, and nothing more to eat, because that which you sir eats, your fish doesn´t eats.. It won´t work live in the interior, or remove yourself from the world, you sir will be in a boat, wandering in an enormous ocean, because you will be always using. As I told you, the absorption is what we´re talking about: if you sir do not absorb, you sir won´t be absorbed. Simply will disappear. Understand that your concept of death is different of mine. But this happened because something unnatural happened: the unity: the incomprehension of the separation: you sir do not absorb nothing. And you sir digest everything. Someone said, ‘ thou shall not worry with what to drink nor what to eat..’: and what I say is: it will not be absorbed. The worry with the food is of the man, not of the nature: it´s the man who feels hunger: The processed sentiment. Your sentiments left being naturals because of the death. You sir say: “if don´t eat, I´ll die”, And I say: if you sir eat, you won´t be absorbed. The to eat human describes a sentimental relation with something: the food. And the absorption a relation with the other, the nature. You sir use to kill and consume to eat. You sir feeds on that which you sir killed. 76 66 –Look at this negative image…of your stomach… : 66 –the image of the hunger... 77 Farrell –my stomach is like this..? 66 –yes, he is...and you sir also... 66 –you sir thought that you were eating… because something was eating you sir too.. And is it this the feeling of the love…? Would this be the face of the pleasure? Is this an absorption…? 78 66 –would this be the image of the Creator…? Farrell –this looks like the image of the death… 66 –it´s correct, sir Farrell... the death needed a face... : but this is the image of the rat…of the despair… of the suffering… of the image of the pain..but it wanted to be beautiful, the beauty of the hunger… that the beauty was its. This because, in some moment, it felt ugly.. do you sir know why did this happened? Farrell –man, this face is ugly... 66 –oh yea... the beauty needs a confirmation: a strange relation: why that the most pure has to be the most beautiful… and so the death was then angled: the beauty had to be added. It was sought for an understanding: that the man, toward the nature, were the most beautiful: that the nature was removed of the face of the earth. Does this face looks like the other? Farrell –no, are two different faces.. as the boat, are two different boats... 66 –it was sought for a passage of the suffering to the pleasure: to believe that the death possessed another face. 79 66 –it was sought for a perfection , and this not only included the beauty, as a facial expression., that would give the death a sublimity. Farrell –dude, how does one know that the death had blue eye…? He´s with the eyes closed... or, the hair color…? And this smile...? I already messed with my chin and nose... and I know that this face was mounted… the color of the skin… the made eyebrows …this nose is thinner than mine… beard made.. the mouth is completely different, look at this mouth, man..! …he´s full of makeup.. This was made in a studio…! Too much forcing, is trying to say that the velociraptor is a dinosaur…! 66 –look at your face now, does he looks with this image? You sir find yourself looked like this...? Farrell –no, man, in nothing... 66 –in nothing, really..? Farrell –this guy has the hidden smile.... 80 66 –exactly, he hides his cynicism. And now, are you sir looked like? Farrell –is this me..? 66 –it´s you sir who has to know, to find out. Not by the resemblance, seek for another explanation. There exists a problem in the face of the death: the suffering: it needed a face that transformed the suffering into pleasure: that there was beauty on seeing the pleasure suffering: that people felt piety, compassion, on seeing that image, for treating about a poor one: a son that lost his father: that was abandoned. Where in your movies you sir was not this? You sir looks like you have a natural sentiment of abandonment .... Farrell –if it´s natural, I don´t know , man.. but I was abandoned, I don´t even like to talk about this.. 81 66 –yes, no one likes to see an ugly crying. But this these two images tell you what: ‘death’ or ‘I love you’? Farrell –death, man… 66 –they´re closer of the face of the truth… see that the death never separated of the will.. Even though this is not the real face of the image, and that its real form be in the per-come, just as your face, this was the chosen one by those who first resulted the image: it would be the face of the will, of the feelings of the conductor.. the human face should have this face: because this face were the sentiments of its creator: the face of God: the God Image. Farrell –this image is not pretty, man, I mean, his face continues ugly…this guy wouldn´t be hired not even as a villain… there´s no how this guy becomes pretty man, not even if he hired the better surgeon of Hollywood, man , is something that people don´t understand, the ugly has no how to become pretty, man, the pretty can get prettier, but the ugly one, will not get… 66 –yes, but the death angled the nature and, in this sense, it can create a projection of that which seems ugly to you, is beauty. Farrell –it will not work man, there´s no how the ugly becomes pretty like this. I´ve already seen many actors in Hollywood lose the paper for me because I was prettier, and they were nice people, spirituous, intelligent, full of moral…more experienced, theatrics’… they said themselves real actors.. they wanted to say that they were better than me… 66 –and were they better than you, sir? Farrell –some of them, yes… 66 –the best was not chosen by the criteria of the beauty: the beauty constituted per itself the challenge of the death… the death needed a new face: that could not be its. The matter was not of being the most beautiful, but the unique beautiful: the sentiment of posse which dominated the image since the beginning… what is this feeling that accompanies the unicity, the center, the origin…? To possess the beauty would be the ambition of life: it was something that the death would manage to acquire later. As it is of costume, little by little, it went constructing its face, as it did in the beginning: a piece here, a piece there…little by little, the death went sculpting its face in the beauty: it had to be the most beautiful as well. we´re talking about the death: something that was defined and it´s the main understanding of the humanity: much more than the feeling, something that was created: and see how this thing created itself, an external, that projected a plain, that entitled itself the center of all the angles, and projected the interior: the geometry of something that never existed: of the sentiments which are not naturals, and of a beauty which was never its. The will could not have that face. 82 66—Since the image was invented, the beauty started being fundamental. But I tell you: there´s another thing hidden between the suffering and the pleasure: the desires. And the eyes of the image do not hide its desires. And in this quesite, I´m the promotor: the image did not passed. The feelings of God are the feelings that the death gave you . And the face of the death was unfinished: there were humanity still to be built, there were weaknesses to be won: the image wasn’t the most beautiful anymore, the smile was contained: the pleasure was empty. The face emptied its face: the image had become without no sentiment at all. The death had hidden itself in the beauty but still continued visible, because the image was saying exactly this: ´don´t forget of me, I died, but I still am alive´: there was a suffering overwriting the pleasure but that was still visible, and the intention was exactly this, but it couldn´t be like this: the death had to smile, had to have the shiny eyes, the image had to have live, had to move, it couldn´t have a fix expression anymore, but movements that identified the permanence. 83 Farrell –it´s me...at this time, I loved myself... 66 –you sir don´t love yourself anymore? Look at this image... yours seems better than his… wouldn´t be of this image that we were talking about..? the seek of perfection for something.. those that would compose all the human feelings... a representation of the divine, that which has the better proportions of the square, would be the beauty: which would define a standard of face. The secret is here … but it´s not just this. In your image, it´s visible the pleasure; and the desires are not hidden: they´re just not seen. And a better representation of the man: the other was the one of a fag: are perceivable things to well trained eyes..that know that still didn´t reached perfection. 66—for this, the image in question does not possess one unique result, neither a finished result: it needed to join faces and impressions, to join pieces to form something.. the face of death still hadn´t got its exact impression.. 84 Farrell –no, man....! you´re not going to start this again...! 66 –right... Farrell –what do you want with this, the before and the after…? People win money doing this...! 66 –right, sir Farrell, I´m just affirming that which I came saying: people love an image, curiously, the image that people love it´s the image of the permanence, the face that doesn´t changes... if we join the two images, the eyes change.. now you can see the pleasure... now, look at this guy.. it was him who was chosen to make the face of death… is this correct? Yes, it is: the film talks about the desire... you can see the desires in his eyes? Wasn´t it something that was missing for the image…? 85 86 Farrell –this eyes aren´t even his, these are lenses... his eyes were never prettier than mine...! this guy is not prettier than I..! Ask Angelina...! 66 –sit, sir Farrell... Farrell –no, man.. this is not my best. 66 –sit down sir Farrell, you sir hadn´t how to do this paper. For that death, the face wasn´t yours. The death wants you in another way. But...see how interesting...how´s the eyes of this image...but observe that, on putting your image over the other, that image gains now the face of the will: it exists now the man, the desires, the pleasure and the will. This would be the face of the Death: the best she can obtain for her image…It´s a good explanation of why your faces were chosen among so many others: they contained details. 87 Farrell –há! It´s this the way that Pitt is now?!He died, man..! 66 –yes, he...his eyes are almost dead…it was the image that all wanted to see: the death of the beauty. The death is the angle of two images: the one of heaven and the one of the earth. You sir know why? If we return to the analogy of the boats and the understanding of the object, the boat of the Earth and the boat of the heaven, analogs to body and spirit, it would render all the moral sentiments. The man, with this face, would have the sensation that he was in heaven. But as it was seen in The Caravels of Kahmn, they would be only side by side: only angling the image, they would be together in one unique position.. the history of how the image gained a feeling... : the death, while heaven, would now have the image that doesn´t die… think about how the Hollywood actors were important for the production of this face… it would be normal suppose that all the women love you, for you possess the image of something… Sir Farrell, what would happen if the Death died? Would it die, the death? 88 Farrell –what do you mean, the death...? the death already died...it is the death... 66 –but´s wrong, the death is alive, it exists....If the death died, you sir never existed. Farrell –I didn´t understand... 66 –you sir was created, wasn´t you..? Farrell –I was... must´ve been...I don´t know... 66 –If the death died, God would cease to exist... for it would prove that the universe always existed, in mode that it wouldn´t have been created… Perceive that what one wants with the death is to defend the Creation. What is the problem of God exist or no..? and what´s its relation with the universe? Farrell –none... I don´t even care for this..! 89 66 –exactly, none. Unless one wants something with this: that the creation was the guarantee of something. Perceive that, if God already existed, the image in matter wouldn´t exist as well… : everyone would be already part of the body of God, and the transience wouldn´t even need to be explained: but this is only the partial understanding of the thing.: the beauty defends the purity: how to explain that all were impure[?]: this would be to admit that God was impure… and die, in this sense, would not be related to no ritual of purity, the sacrifice. Many understood that there wouldn´t be a judgment anymore, and innocently, validated the model body-and-spirit, finding it a good rationality, for misunderstand its geometric complexity. The spirit will be always outside of the body, and in this sense, the boat of the earth possesses an end.. and it´s how they feel: not only when they´re dying, but along their lives, because they validated one unique existence. These same persons believed on the creation, the existence of one creator: it was looking for to defend something with the creation… Almost a necessity: it was how the unity presented itself. Mysteriously the humanity went unitarizing itself and the creed of the creation became almost an unanimity among humans: all believe in one unique thing, this unique thing that doesn´t even possesses a logic… : owe, if all believe, they should at least have a proof: a photography of a spirit per example…. . These same persons, many of them saw themselves outside of the body, as a ghost, you sir yourself said that´ve already seen things, and these things probably possessed bodies, possessed forms…the human body don´t lose its form in spirit.., the image in question affirms this. All saw, you sir are seeing now… Ora, what do we want with all this? To affirm things without nothing on hands, …? 90 66 –…and with all the science on favor, one cannot prove nothing, not even a geometry it has…how the idea of spiritual bodies, celestial bodies, were accepted so easily…how come, sir Farrell, a spirit separated from the body? You sir understand the problem of the boats? How to misunderstand that the people that affirmed such a thing didn´t knew what they were seeing..? how to disaffirm that they were not sleeping, or that they were not dreaming… would the geometry have arrived in the dreams? How then to believe or validate such an understanding;..?: it´s unhideable that was wanted something with the explanation, much more than relieve the pain or the suffering, or even, the misunderstanding of the death. Maybe it doesn’t makes sense for you sir why the death needed a face: but understand that, otherwise, it wouldn´t exist: to die eternally it´s the permanence in the heaven: but this is to admit that if the death was beautiful, it wouldn´t lose its face: and its transient beauty would be the passage not more for a sentiment, but for a conscience. It would be easy for people to understand that good actions, the improvement, the knowledge, would guarantee the transience of this memory to heaven, as if heaven were an enormous library, which the own creator would live to have kept this memory as an Acerbo of the to know human. But the ones who understood indeed about the serious problem of the unity, understood that the geometry, to be solved, the boat which was on earth had to be on heaven as well: and it was not enough to angle: But on explaining its theory, angulated as well: it said that the boats would meet in the clouds: showing the necessity of a path that united heaven and earth indeed, that this would guarantee that the image of the body of god wouldn´t change. The matter is that this possibility would guarantee only the creator of the image, not his creature. The unity thought there having found an answer.: but there was a geometric error: because when one thing starts wrong, it goes wrong till the end: it´s the destiny of things with have a beginning: an end: and when you get used to this rationality, you soon perceive that all this facilities are involved in an enormous confusion. And the explanation is quite simple: they don´t have an explanation, but pretend to have one. There´s no how to guarantee to any image the preexistence of a body, not even God´s one: the dimension God will be always separated of its body: and that´s the explanation. The wise which proclaimed the trinity, signed below that, if were not like this, he would be the most miserable of all… what´s wanted with all this little joke? This is only changing the face of the death: a sensation that you´re in another place: To feel like this is to be in another place: the heaven: 91 66 –but this is only a change in the status of the being, the object did not changed place: just the face of the heaven now is the earth: the human mind angling the image: a technique of interpretation. Think on the scrip, think that the word creates this kind of situation: two places at the same time...and that this little joke of the mind produced a kind of sensation, but that this would still be too far of a feeling: that the photography wouldn´t have such a dynamic and needed the movement, that were square by square, side by side, following the feeling of the image, the separation, that such transformation could be seen, as in the movie... : the moral spared no efforts…it argued that the ugly could feel pretty , if he had the will of the creator : but it´s the such geometric problem, for such affirmation she argued that the beauty comes from the interior: it was only to reproduce the facial movements of the death, the satisfaction of the suffering : the beauty of the law: the beauty was fundamental. The moral found itself without life, it needed a heart. And this heart would only come with the beauty: no one would love the ugly without this one possess another face. For this, the face needed to have life: you sirs gave life to the face of the death. That which rules over the earth, that which raised, to whom you represent, chose you sirs: Exact, you sir never believed in the death, but lived dying. And this is not natural. Farrell –you´re saying that the death is not natural? 66 –exactly, the death is not natural. Does your arrival attests your beginning? Because it´s what the image affirms, a conception. But this would be to affirm that was you sir who created the universe, that you sir preexisted before the creation…. Farrell –only being God, man... I´m not God. 66 –I know, you sir are a creature... but to think different is to admit that before, you sir was a dead. Perceive that the creation does not possess a geometry: God, the universe, earth, heaven, body and spirit… possesses a broken geometry.. without transience, without unicity, and without properties. In this conditions, the creation treats just about a possibility. 92 66 –Unless it explains its geometry, it is fake. Its objects, body and spirit, are bugged, are unrelationable. And whether wanting or not, misunderstanding all this, this is the understanding of the being. You sir will never believe in God, because the memory of this geometry was not forgotten, and will never be: it´s known that was needed to validate lies to obtain a result: And the beauty of the death was the history of this acceptation . That who believes in the death, don´t dream. What I say is that the humanity believed on something that never existed, and this made her misunderstand everything: the earth, the dream, and the animal. If you sirs want to live with this geometry, our dialog was made. That the humanity perceive its errs and mistakes: and accept as given the answer for its comprehension: much more than a mystery, a cynicism hidden, the creed of the cynicism. The nature, from this moment, silences and turns herself to the natural feelings. Farrell –oh, man.. I want out… 66 –that´s great. 93 66 –There´s no pleasure in this face… there´s a problem on your face, which declassify you of that position: the cynicism carries the image of the one who does not believe. Great for you, sir. 94 66 –you sir never believed on death, sir Farrell, because the death was never natural for you, sir… 66 –But, however, your face would work fine with the president face. The creation is understood as a step by step experience, at the same tame that it´s about a result. And before it starts a cleavage of the virtue and the cynicism angle itself with the objectives, there´s to be questioned what targets are being reached… the existence of objectives turned the object practice and soluble, homogenic…for this, its understanding it´s superficial. But what´s an experience...? the contact with something... the exterior and the interior, what´s out and what´s in..? because, this is the way that the disease presents itself … 95 66—Are the harmonic movements of the nature synonymous of destruction...? would the Earth have some disease...? some incomprehension of the nature? And that this could address the concept of something...? I tell you that, no research that takes off one life to save millions is able to answer to its capacity of killing billions. What´s called disease is a shape, the life. Any life that raises itself over another life, is a killer. There´s no disease on nature, be it inside or outside, the misunderstanding is the same. What you guys call disease is that which didn´t passed, and its image it´s the degeneration, that of which you sirs are a reflexion. But to go beyond is to talk about that of which you don´t know: the perception of the wind… for not perceiving it, one decided to interpretate it. 66 –Sonorously you sir are tuneless. There´s something sonorous happening. For not absorbing, the sound of the nature is not passing. 96 Kahmn –the experience of sir Farrell is a sonorous one. God –what is the sound? 66 –on the experience with sir Farrell you will perceive what is a natural tuning… 66 –there isn´t one unique tuning on nature, we cannot even call it tuning, the sonority is something natural: to talk, isn´t: the word doesn´t pass.. 97 66 –Enginer, what animal is this..? it doesn´t looks exactly like a fish... Enginer –it´s a dolphin… Kahmn said it had to be an animal of salty waters and sweet Waters… 98 Farrell –dolphins..? Farrell –I like dolphin... hehehehe! I also like shark...and swordfish... they are strong and fasts.... ! 99 66 –...and temperamentals. This here will be your natural passport. You sir want out, this is your script. Farrell –but there´s nothing written here, just a boat... but there´s nothing more here…just an ocean…. 100 66—The ocean is an object which the only sense it´s to explain the nominative action of the man. Now, think of what would be of this boat if there wasn´t an ocean. Farrell –I will return to the cage? 66 –yes... 101 Farrell –why can´t I go away or, simply, awake...? 66 –you sir agree with the script? ..you sir don´t want to get out of the prison..? 102 Farrell –that be it, man, yes..! 66 –Enginer, any question? Kill? Enginer and Kill –no... 103 104 105 Enginer –all right, sir Farrell..? you sir are thoughtful.... 106 Enginer –sir Farrell, if one day you have to choose between a movie of president or professional of the government and one of sailor, pick up the sailor one... Farrell –why...? Kill –fish likes water... 107 Enginer –the water is not separated from the Earth, neither the fish is separated from the waters, also... otherwise you sir would fell in an aquarium.. Downey Jr –hey, Farrell, how was it..? Farrell –I will not die… 108 Downey Jr –won´t they kill us..? Farrell –I saw the face of the death… Downey –did you talked to her..? Farrell –yea, man… I come saying it´s been a while… I’ve been saying it´s been a while… I saw its face… it´s an image… Downey –what else did you see? Farrell –it was tantric, man...mystical… I don´t know to explain, no... It´s not possible to repeat what I listened, no… .I´m even wanting to sleep… it seems like I’ve listened all the history of humanity… it seems like I´ve readed a book of one thousand pages…and it all resumed to one unique word: the death. No one dies, except the human being…. 109 Enginer –let´s go sir Downey Jr, it´s your turn... 110 Enginer –sleep, sir Pitt... Enginer – you sir are six minutes late ... Pitt –I´m waiting for that pot…It will help me sleep… Enginer –okay, I will providence it… 111 Downey Jr –how do I look, fine? Kill –you sir are great. Downey Jr –good, I want to cause a good impression.. 112 Kill –I liked very much of that movie of yours, the Iron Man... Downey Jr –you don´t need to throw this in my face...it was a favor that I did to a friend…that body indeed wasn´t mine... Kill –yea, but that body was indestructible... Downey Jr –yea, but...it was not so healthy like this...the energy ended and had to live reloading...and I asked myself many times how long would that machine manage to live like this, stuck into an armor that it itself built.. depending of an external energy to live..what if one day that energy ended? What would be of that machine, I mean, what would be of me, stuck to that machine… 113 Downey Jr –there were no guarantees that it was gonna live forever, I mean, if I would be able to live forever like this.. the immortality seemed me a very high cost... Enginer –we arrived, sir Downey Jr... 114 115 66 –The love was killed in the heaven: the judgment killed him. This seems to be the destine of the flower.. 66 – You sir agree with this, sir Downey Jr.? 116 Who Created you, like this, to kill?! Killed. That few matters, the earth gave no answer, that few matters, there´s no how to kill the love. Who created you like this to kill the love? The death it´s your Creator. 66. 117 onorous happening. For not absorbing, the sound of the nature is not passing. 96 Kahmn –the experience of sir Farrell is a sonorous one. God –what is the sound? 66 –on the experience with sir Farrell you will perceive what is a natural tuning… 66 –there isn´t one unique tuning on nature, we cannot even call it tuning, the sonority is something natural: to talk, isn´t: the word doesn´t pass.. 97 66 –Enginer, what animal is this..? it doesn´t looks exactly like a fish... Enginer –it´s a dolphin… Kahmn said it had to be an animal of salty waters and sweet Waters… 98 Farrell –dolphins..? Farrell –I like dolphin... hehehehe! I also like shark...and swordfish... they are strong and fasts.... ! 99 66 –...and temperamentals. This here will be your natural passport. You sir want out, this is your script. Farrell –but there´s nothing written here, just a boat... but there´s nothing more here…just an ocean…. 100 66—The ocean is an object which the only sense it´s to explain the nominative action of the man. Now, think of what would be of this boat if there wasn´t an ocean. Farrell –I will return to the cage? 66 –yes... 101 Farrell –why can´t I go away or, simply, awake...? 66 –you sir agree with the script? ..you sir don´t want to get out of the prison..? 102 Farrell –that be it, man, yes..! 66 –Enginer, any question? Kill? Enginer and Kill –no... 103 104 105 Enginer –all right, sir Farrell..? you sir are thoughtful.... 106 Enginer –sir Farrell, if one day you have to choose between a movie of president or professional of the government and one of sailor, pick up the sailor one... Farrell –why...? Kill –fish likes water... 107 Enginer –the wat