66 You sir like to draw?

1
66 you sir recognize the drawing?
Farrell I dont know, it doesnt has a well-defined formit can be many things...
66 its a flowerin 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...

2
Farrell well,
now theyre
not so
equals...

3
66 are they separated, are they together..?
Farrell apparently, yes...its looking like that butterfly of Microsoft...
66 windows...a window...its 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 dont know, habitate?

66 the interior of the cup.. this is biblical ...

4
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 dont know man, the flower was happy, now shes sad, looks like she died..
66 the Nature doesnt 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.
66Is this a good human representation, sir Farrell?
Farrell I dont understand of art, Im not good in these things...
66 but you sir are an artist..

5
Farrell Im 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 whats this?
Farrell ... a physical phenomenon ..dont know...

66 a human phenomenon the unity doesnt possess nor entrance nor exit: it is a permanence: that
which remains, does not transit. And that which does not transits its 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 doesnt change: the only thing that doesnt changes, its the death. There would be a
geometry, then..? the why that such a thing happened? Id 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.

6
66 What does the flower has to do
with all this? The human doesnt
own an explanation for the nature,
because nature doesnt 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,
Thats 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 otherthe face of one be printed in the face of the
othersomeone 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 doesnt die. And that who doesnt die, its the death. And
this is to affirm that was the Death who created God: because the death was never the nature. Were
talking about one same thing: of the beauty of the Creation: of how the death created the beautyfrom
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: its the explanation of
why the stronger happened. That who believes in the death is whos 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.

7
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 doesnt
agree with this:
there are no
images in the
nature, you can
say that a
photograph is an
image of her, but
its just it.. its not
about a revenge,
but a reposition of
symmetry: The
Nature is giving
back the death to
the humanity,
together with its
beauty: she
doesnt 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

8
66to 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, its 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 doesnt 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:

9
Farrell I feel a little resembling like this.

10
66 this is the status of humanity. The end of philosophy, the end of society, the end of the progress of
humanity.
Farrell dude, its all science...
66 no... its all religion. Its believed, with this, that the aims were still not reached..its 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.
66it was always believed in the deep, because, if the cup had no end, it wouldnt have a beginning:
where would this water go to? Whats 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 dont 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
didnt 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..

11
 66 This is your passive condition. The
passive one is that one that too early
exhausted all his possibilities. He didnt
arrived to that condition now, its 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 its his understanding of his separation:
he wasnt that: It was born the understanding of the being: the man, in that moment, sought for creating
a position for all that whichs natural: that which wasnt 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 its the key of all the
feelings.

12
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 wouldnt exist the object.
66lets talk then about the object.

13
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....

14
Farrell Kahmn..? never heard about...

15
 66 you sir believe in spirit?

Farrell dude, I believe in many things...and also, I dont believe in nothing....its kinda complicated,
man, to talk about these things..its a transcendence, its something kind of cosmicit 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.. Im not seeing it anymore...

16
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?

17
Farrell no, its not this way...this is too real...is this a movie? Am I being filmed?
66 you talk how, then ?
Farrell oh, man, its not like this, its-its sort of..more like, I talk to..kind of, me, with myself...
66and you listen?
Farrell of course I listen, man, Im listening to you, Im listening to myself also..!
66 and where are they now...?
Farrell yea, man, I dont control this things...sometimes I
dream with things and it happens...
66 oh, you sir dream? Thats great..! Just dont go
prophesize.. the dream may be yours and not of the othersif
you sir dont know whats about, better not create any
relation: for the well of the prophecy and of the prophet.
Wheres your spirit, is it with you now? In the moment, you sir
are a spirit?
Farrell no, man, Im 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, Id 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....!

18
66 it was what this book said, ...its where your spirit is: inside this bookbut theres 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.

19
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: whats an object, exactly? The object is that which occupies a
position in the space: a geometric coordinate, a point. Its 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 theyre conducted:
in determined moments, the object affirms thats its interior which conducts him, at the same time that
he affirms thats 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
theres 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?

20
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 its 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 didnt, for

this the fight
continues.. : To Kill:
to believe, you need
to kill: like
everything in the
unity, theres only
one unique solution:
the angle of two
results.

21
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 thats served you over the
tablemisunderstanding that its
eating himselfbecause this is one
more angle of the object, the
satisfaction of who ate

Farrell didnt 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 didnt knew that there were boats in heaven, nor oceans

66 its 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, theyre
different: substantially different:

22
66the 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?

23
 Farrell no,
you already
said, the boats
are different

66 exactly, they cant...its about an angle. And for being about an angle, its about a possibility: the to
believe.

24
Farrell there isnt, man, if something cannot be proved, the possibility doesnt exists.

66 oh yeah, sir Farrell... to believe is the proof that the sentiment exists.

25
 Farrell no, man...to believe doesnt 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.

26
 66if 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, its 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 dont 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, buts the geometry thats 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. Its what, in essence, is
all the angle: a possibility.

27
66 Its what we have here, the Caravels of Kahmn... its a complex interdimensional structure, but, its
what were talking about, interdimensional relations: the object movements itself, but he doesnt transits.

66 and that, in this sense, all his movements are limited to the movements of a plain, never an
interdimensional passage.

28
God what are they talking about..? what drawing is this, Kahmn?

Kahmn its what sir 66 is talking about

29
Kahmn God habitate the interior of the surface of something, the contact with God is superficial. This
happens because the unity understands that God its 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 therere no passages in the unity, its the initial
movement, the Creation: the convention that something was Created: the external
God The external..?
66 its wrong the understanding that God created the universe from his interior, because there wouldnt
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. Its 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: its 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 Its 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 isnt this imagination?
Kahmn no, its 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, its the Beginningthe
drawing only exists after its 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.

30
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, theyre 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
doesnt exists the interior nor the exterior of the plain: the plain possesses only surface. The initial idea of
Creation is a superficial idea, it wont 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 isnt 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. Its 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. Its the case of Depps clock: theres no entrance unity neither an exit unity, because the unity
is a closed entity. From there the terminology of whats inside its 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 doesnt exists in the unity, its 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 its 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?

31
Kahmn theres no separation between the waters, whether they call them clear waters or dark waters,
whatever. The heaven is the solid that angled the earth. Theres no separation of the waters, the waters
of the heaven are only a projection of the waters of the Earth.
God I dont 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:
theres no passage, just changing the status of the being , to attribute another angle to the object its 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 theres 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 wheres God?
Kahmn the horizon line
God and wheres 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 whats 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. Its
the Codex of Death. That which made the man grow, putted him in the condition of permanence, he
doesnt 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.

32
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...

33
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, its 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. Its
the sensation of the sailor, he thinks that hes inside the universe, but in the reality, hes 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 its 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 its 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
didnt had a defined form: and this turned him unstable: and that he needed desperately to become
stable: in this moment it doesnt exists exactly the thought, but, feelings: we dont know for certain what
are these feelings, neither why this being feel himself like this:

34
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 wouldve 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 its 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. Lets 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 yoursyou 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.
66But does it proves any existence of a
superior intelligence, or, simply, the
affirmation that it exists indeed some
body thats separated of something?

35
66this is not my understanding. Im showing you yours: I mean, theres no understanding on nature,
this is about a configuration.
Farrell man, I..dont even know if I understand this way, Im.... 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 dont know... Im not good in believing, never was..but I dont know if I
understood it like this...
66 its natural that you sir feel like this, Because its about a montage. And as everything thats 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 whichs born broken will always need a fix: and thats
impossible to fix the nature: its 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. Its
you who choose, supposedly its 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. Its 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 its the wrong, and
vice-versa, and in this form,
extract a guilty and, consequently,
someone who innocents him. Its
perceivable that the object loses
easily its localization.

36
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..its to admit that the waters are together, but, at the same time,
separated. Theres no solution to the unity: for this it itself denominated the own solution.
Farrell man, you like to stay affirming things, kind of.. doesnt let the others talk...
66 theres 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
dont understand

37
66 it doesnt exist the interior, its 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 whats a conception..?

66 the preexistence of something...but if we understand the preexistence by the unity, we wont 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
formonly another broken geometry.
Farrell and what is the conception, then..?
66 that something existed before the universe being created: but that such existence didnt 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?

38
66 its 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, Im god, I can do anything, butwhy would I do this?
66 it doesnt seems to be natural...but thats just it? Forget the why and attempt to the geometry: its
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. Its 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.

39
 66 Most of the atheists stop there: they know
that theyre 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
dont believe. Evolutionists affirm that the man
evolved from a protozoa, one unique
beginning, and doesnt 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 princpio, 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.. ?
66without understanding what was believed, you wont 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 wont 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 dont know, man, you want me to agree, I agree, this wont 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

40
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 dont like me, man... Im not a loved guy, understand...? everything for me comes with
bad will...as if they didnt wanted to give me... and even so...to be obliged to accept, man... this defeats
me, man...! this helped me to misunderstand on what Im a deserver...

41
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 Im 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: its what the work is: the image of a purpose ...

42
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..

43
66 an interesting question would be: was it you sir who identified him or he that identified you first? It
doesnt makes any difference because in both cases you sir would be separated from nature. Theres 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: its what God is, its what their copyists proclaimed: the position of God: but that deep inside
its only the position of the death: its 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 doesnt reaches,
its only the position of the plain, its imaginary center: its condition of object: the idea that separated
itself. For these I say: eggs dont sprout from the Earth, for this ideas cannot fly.

44
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. Its something to be forgotten; I want to talk another
thing.. and, its 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 its not harmonic,
doesnt even possesses a geometry: on that where its said that shes stronger, shes just the opposite,
weaker .
Farrell man, if you were going to say something, why didnt you say sooner and stayed losing your time
on explaining something broken? And I even agree, if the thing is this way, its 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 its what were doing. But,
indeed, I wouldnt like to this again, its not pleasurable for me explain the unity and its feelings. For this,
lets 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, theyll 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: Its 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: its not a simple believing, but to understand how the images gained
feelings.

45
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 dont 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...
66you sir is paid to feel like this, or the director will soon correct you: Farrell, youre wrong... Hows
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. Its 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 its she whos 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.

46
66 this is not your chair, yours is the other.

47
Farrell oh,yes, of course, sorry

48
66 you sir behave as a rodent.

Farrell a rodent?
66 yes, a rat.

49
Farrell it seems like Im being seen....

50
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..

51
Farrell what is my utility..?

66 you sir believe in natural selection?

52
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?

53
Farrell I dont know...its the science...

66 and is the science natural?

Farrell isnt it?

54
 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 doesnt
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, Im 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 dont know, what do you want with

all this?!?!? I wanna get out of here, just this...! I
dont wanna know whats going on, I just wanna go
away... Ive already seen guys like you, got it..? they
like this kinds of things... I ... I dont fuck this
things... I dont like this , I wont stand it....

66 confinement its 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 youre 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 thats
the other one whos
giving it to him You
sir are a cynic.

66 but you sir are

not a liar.

55
Farrell and whats the difference...?

66 the desire. One seeks to possess, the other one, to possess you. This happens when the image doesnt
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 whats this?

56
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 youre 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: whats all this, other than the recognition
of the prison, in middle the solid undoing itself...? but you sir may seek another comprehension: that its
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
isnt anymore .

57
 66you sir must pay attention to this feeling, every time that it begins: starting by,
if indeed its 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 youre 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 doesnt like this
anymore: whats 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 dont 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 whats worse, you agree with this: better this way, Farrell, otherwise youd lose yourself in
so many directions, probably, youd choose the wrong way, or youd be taken by the uncertainty of the
nature: and its 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,
its 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: theyll try to prove you otherwise: but you will be alone, without knowing indeed how
all happened: its 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 whats the angle of
this comparison? To compare is to separate, isnt 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 theyre 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.

58
66But 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, wouldnt 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 arent its how your eyes see.. the glasses are just a screen most ahead, it cannot see
the nature because the nature doesnt
pass through his eyes. It doesnt exists
image in the nature, neither the image
attests its existence. The to look human
its 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
dont have there a pleasant historic... it
was hard man, to arrive till here..

59
66 the beauty was the pleasure that the death wanted to dress up, because nude she was ugly and she
didnt felt pleasure with her own body. To separate is beautiful, the beauty of the separation. Lets see
then how the beautiful happened. Why was your face chosen among so many beautifulwhat 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? Its 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 doesnt 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 dont 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..

60
66 Yes, it was hard, reallysee 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..[?]: its the psychology of the death, it prevailed. But, were
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: its 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

61
66 diseases...there exists diseases on nature?

Farrell yes..
66 you sir find yourself a sick man?
Farrell maybe..

62
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 diseasesthis would
direction the matter to the preexistencebut how to talk about that which cannot be seen by human
eyes? Starting by the own human bodyit is a lie in the same mode as its angle, spirit, is: its of what
we come talking about, of that which science doesnt know, because it doesnt 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?

63
 66 absorption, its what
were talking about.. you
talk in technology. Im
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, its 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 theres
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 doesnt pass by the nature:
its 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 wont pass.

66Enginer, sir
Farrells file...

64
66 is looking to Farrells stomachs x-ray..

66 you sir like tuna...?

65
Farrell what did you said?

66 you sir like fish?

Farrell everything thats from the sea, I like.

66 you sir have ever ate dolphins meat?

66
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

dont like alcohol ..

66and fish likes of what?

Farrell of ration...

66 you sir like ration?

Farrell no, I dont like ration...what are you, a medic? A gastroenterologist?

67
66you sir thinks that the fish has hunger ...

Farrell everything on nature has hunger...

68
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?

69
Farrell love...? i think so......

Farrell I must have loved someone, yes...

70
Farrell Maybe I dont remember...

71
Farrell ah! There was a girl in the school..!

Farrell ...! no...no ..

72
Farrell I didnt loved...

Farrell what do I eat, what do I like? Whats this? There were some actresses... I think I had so many
women, I dont know maybe some Hollywood actress

73
66 everything you loved you killed... do you sir have an explanation for this?

Farrell no, I dont have... you sir has?

66 classify to me the sentence: the man caught the fish.
Farrell Im not good at this....

74
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 its 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 wont have
nothing more to kill, and nothing more to eat, because that which you sir eats, your fish doesnt eats.. It
wont 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 were talking
about: if you sir do not absorb, you sir wont 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: its the
man who feels hunger: The processed
sentiment. Your sentiments left being naturals
because of the death. You sir say: if dont eat,
Ill die, And I say: if you sir eat, you wont 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.

75
66 Look at this negative imageof your stomach :

66 the image of the hunger...

76
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?

77
66 would this be the image of the Creator?
Farrell this looks like the image of the death
66 its correct, sir Farrell... the death needed a face... : but this is the image of the ratof 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.

78
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? Hes 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..! hes 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....

79
66 exactly, he hides his cynicism. And now, are you sir looked like?
Farrell is this me..?
66 its 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 its
natural, I dont
know , man.. but I
was abandoned, I
dont even like to
talk about this..

80
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 theyre 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 uglythis guy wouldnt be hired not even
as a villain theres no how this guy becomes pretty man, not even if he hired the better surgeon of
Hollywood, man , is something that people dont 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, theres no how the ugly becomes pretty like this. Ive already seen many
actors in Hollywood lose the paper for me because I was prettier, and they were nice people, spirituous,
intelligent, full of moralmore 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
therelittle by little, the death went sculpting its face in the beauty: it had to be the most beautiful as
well. were talking about the death: something that was defined and its 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.

81
66Since the image was invented, the beauty started being fundamental. But I tell you: theres 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, Im 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 wasnt 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: dont 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 couldnt be like this: the
death had to smile, had to have the shiny eyes, the image had to have live, had to move, it couldnt have
a fix expression anymore, but movements that identified the permanence.

82
Farrell its me...at this time, I loved myself...

66 you sir dont love yourself anymore? Look at this image... yours seems better than his wouldnt 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 its not
just this. In your image, its visible the pleasure; and the desires are not hidden: theyre 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 didnt reached perfection.
66for 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 hadnt got its exact impression..

83
 Farrell no,
man....!
youre 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, Im just affirming that which I

came saying: people love an image, curiously, the
image that people love its the image of the
permanence, the face that doesnt 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?
Wasnt it something that was missing for the
image?

84
85
Farrell this eyes arent 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 hadnt how to do this paper. For that death, the face wasnt yours. The
death wants you in another way. But...see how interesting...hows 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 imageIts a good explanation of why your faces were chosen among so many others: they
contained details.

86
Farrell h! Its this the way that Pitt is now?!He died, man..!

66 yes, he...his eyes are almost deadit 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
doesnt 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?

87
Farrell what do you mean, the death...? the death already died...it is the death...
66 buts wrong, the death is alive, it exists....If the death died, you sir never existed.

Farrell I didnt understand...

66 you sir was created, wasnt you..?
Farrell I was... mustve been...I dont know...
66 If the death died, God would cease to exist... for it would prove that the universe always existed, in
mode that it wouldnt 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 whats its relation with the universe?
Farrell none... I dont even care for this..!

88
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 wouldnt exist as well : everyone
would be already part of the body of God, and the transience wouldnt 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 wouldnt 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 its how they feel: not only when theyre 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
doesnt 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 thatve already seen things, and these things probably possessed bodies,
possessed formsthe human body dont 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,
?

89
66 and with all the science on favor, one cannot prove nothing, not even a geometry it hashow the
idea of spiritual bodies, celestial bodies, were accepted so easilyhow 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 didnt 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;..?: its 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
doesnt makes sense for you sir why the death needed a face: but understand that, otherwise, it wouldnt
exist: to die eternally its the permanence in the heaven: but this is to admit that if the death was beautiful,
it wouldnt 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 wouldnt 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: its 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 dont have an
explanation, but pretend to have one. Theres no how to guarantee to any image the preexistence of a
body, not even Gods one: the dimension God will be always separated of its body: and thats the
explanation. The wise which proclaimed the trinity, signed below that, if were not like this, he would be
the most miserable of all whats wanted with all this little joke? This is only changing the face of the
death: a sensation that youre in another place: To feel like this is to be in another place: the heaven:

90
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 wouldnt 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 effortsit argued that the ugly could
feel pretty , if he had the will of the creator : but its 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 youre saying that the death is not natural?
66 exactly, the death is not natural. Does your arrival attests your beginning? Because its 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... Im 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.

91
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: its
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, dont 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 thats great.

92
66 Theres no pleasure in this face theres 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.

93
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 its about a result. And before it starts a cleavage of the virtue
and the cynicism angle itself with the objectives, theres to be questioned what targets are being
reached the existence of objectives turned the object practice and soluble, homogenicfor this, its
understanding its superficial. But whats an experience...? the contact with something... the exterior
and the interior, whats out and whats in..? because, this is the way that the disease presents itself

94
 66Are 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. Whats called
disease is a shape, the life. Any life that raises
itself over another life, is a killer. Theres no
disease on nature, be it inside or outside, the
misunderstanding is the same. What you
guys call disease is that which didnt passed,
and its image its the degeneration, that of
which you sirs are a reflexion. But to go
beyond is to talk about that of which you
dont know: the perception of the wind for
not perceiving it, one decided to interpretate
it.

66 Sonorously you sir are tuneless. Theres something sonorous happening. For not absorbing, the
sound of the nature is not passing.

95
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 isnt one unique tuning on nature, we cannot even call it tuning, the sonority is something
natural: to talk, isnt: the word doesnt pass..

96
66 Enginer, what animal is this..? it doesnt looks exactly like a fish...

Enginer its a dolphin Kahmn said it had to be an animal of salty waters and sweet Waters

97
Farrell dolphins..?

Farrell I like dolphin... hehehehe! I also like shark...and swordfish... they are strong and fasts.... !

98
66 ...and temperamentals. This here will be your natural passport. You sir want out, this is your script.

Farrell but theres nothing written here, just a boat... but theres nothing more herejust an ocean.

99
66The ocean is an object which the only sense its to explain the nominative action of the man. Now,
think of what would be of this boat if there wasnt an ocean.

Farrell I will return to the cage?

66 yes...

100
Farrell why cant I go away or, simply, awake...?

66 you sir agree with the script? ..you sir dont want to get out of the prison..?

101
Farrell that be it, man, yes..!

66 Enginer, any question? Kill?

Enginer and Kill no...

102
103
104
Enginer all right, sir Farrell..? you sir are thoughtful....

105
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...

106
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

107
Downey Jr wont they kill us..?
Farrell I saw the face of the death
Downey did you talked to her..?
Farrell yea, man I come saying its been a while Ive been saying its been a while I saw its face
its an image
Downey what else did you see?
Farrell it was tantric, man...mystical I dont know to explain, no... Its not possible to repeat what I
listened, no .Im even wanting to sleep it seems like Ive listened all the history of humanity it
seems like Ive readed a book of one thousand pagesand it all resumed to one unique word: the death.
No one dies, except the human being.

108
Enginer lets go sir Downey Jr, its your turn...

109
Enginer sleep, sir Pitt...

Enginer you sir are six minutes late ...

Pitt Im waiting for that potIt will help me sleep
Enginer okay, I will providence it

110
Downey Jr how do I look, fine?
Kill you sir are great.

Downey Jr good, I want to cause a good impression..

111
Kill I liked very much of that movie of yours, the Iron Man...
Downey Jr you dont need to throw this in my face...it was a favor that I did to a friendthat body
indeed wasnt 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

112
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...

113
114
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.?

115
Who Created you, like this, to kill?! Killed. That few matters, the earth gave no
answer, that few matters, theres no how to kill the love. Who created you like this
to kill the love? The death its your Creator.
66.

116
117