I like aphorisms because they tend to sort of jog my mind in ways that other things might not. Things like Zen Coons and that sort of thing. Liu Panashadze, a lot of scripture actually is written that way, which is why I sort of don't avoid religious texts the way some other people do. Some other non-believers or whatever you want to call us, skeptics. One of the ones that sort of got me the most and fascinated me, which I sort of applied to just about everything, is a little known one web, but I've quoted it before by Seneca, where he says the difference between us and the atraskins and the atraskins were the Romans immediate neighbors to the north, is that we Romans believe that lightning is created with the Romans. But lightning is created when clouds collide, whereas the atraskins say clouds collide in order to create lightning. Now it's almost impossible, I think. I've thought about this for a very long time, and I don't think there's any way really to sort of integrate those two views. They seem to be irreconcilable. Well, I shouldn't say that because there are ways to integrate them, but to sort of take them just at face value in terms of what the clouds are doing. No. There's an interesting line in Wenichu Wept, which sort of says the same thing. He says, have you lived life or have you been lived by it? It's the same kind of thing, and I think that it goes to the very heart of things like the will to power and the ubermensch. And I don't really see how you could actually write a treatise on that on an entire sort of philosophy or entire gist of everything that you ever do. What is your relationship to your own existence? I think that's why it's necessary to use aphoristic and poetic means of writing about things. Some things just aren't so easy to capture in clinical non-poetic language. Thank you.