wow tucker.
my boobs are trying really hard not to take that last comment personnally.
do we really need hierarchy in booblandia? jeez.

on a less personal note...
the full treatise on the deep an ddumb nature of eyez on boobs and boobs on eyes and eyez on boobs on eyez and such
is currently being generated deep in the Universilly by true experts (as opposed to silly gnomes who dont know real boobs when they're on top of his eyes) and will be forthcoming shortly.

steezus lives.

it is easy to say what boobs are:
boobs are galactating mammalian organs, they are
sweet and milky because living things are sappy.
trees and plants have sap, which is sweetness which
lets nourishment circulate. animals are differently
evolved trees and plants, so they have sap too,
which they call milk.

to account for all this, we would have to really get
cosmic, however.
we would need to see what the boobs really 'are' but
we can't see what boobs really are without the boobs
nourishment! similarly, the boobs can't know what
they are, without the eyes (even inner eyes like
intuition) to see them.
that's really quite a paradoxical situation!

eyes, but what are they? this is more difficult to
say. aristotle said "we have eyes because we see"
not the other way around. this means that eyes
develop (and are nourished by boobs) from out of the
capacity for seeing. but what is seeing?

it is not the same as being nourished by milk. you
don't need to see to drink milk.

nonetheless what we see is a kind of nourishment,
especially
when it is beautiful and soothing to the eyes.

seeing sees the world in the fulguration of the moment
(fulguration is what happens when lightning touches a
stone and it comes to life like music); to
see is to see beings of the moment in the clearing of
time and light. seeing sees what is.

maybe seeing and eyes are what lets us get "cosmic"
about boobs and milk.

do you see what I'm getting at?

like if we only had boobs and not eyes, we would be
really well nourished, and everything would feel
really swell, but we'd never see anything. we'd
never see the boobs that feed us.

if we only had eyes, we wouldn't be nearly as warm and
mammalian. I can barely imagine what it would be like
to have eyes and no boobs. Probably the eyes wouldn't
be working very well. or if they were
working well, it would be in a cold analytic way.

because we have eyes we can learn to see what boobs
are, and we can learn to put the boobs to the eyes in
order to see better both the nature of boobs and
nature of the whole cosmos illuminated and nourished
by the milk that boobs provide.

in short, the relation between boobs and eyes is like
that between
animality, mood, ground, on the one hand
and light, clearing, truth on the other.

boobs on eyes lets our capacity to see be attuned by
our mammalness.

eyes on boobs let our nourishment centers be developed
into the clearing of what we as seers see.

boobs on eyes
and eyes on boobs
are the 'discoveries'
that help each of our basic halfs to grow up strong
and to see better.

at the root of it all is the relation between the
growing body of the soul
and ecstatic temporality
of the spirit.

one more thing. we have to develop the philosophy of
boobs on eyes and eyes on boobs from out of the primal
scene of the infant 'discovering' 'by accident' boobs
on eye, and seeing that boobs nourish sight.

just imagine a little baby sucklings and occasionally
resting his eye or getting poked: there you have the origin of boobs on eyes.

The *truth* of boobs on eyes and eyes on boobs
has to do with the full
realization of our mammallian and angelic potentials.
the capacity to see is an angelic faculty. nursing,
however, is mammallian. we need to talk about nursing
as something the angels learn how to do, and about
boobs on eyes and eyes on boobs as the two "schools"
in which the angels learn to be wet nurses and the wet
nurses
learn to be angels.

this learning can only happen in the realm of
indistinction between angel and nurse, but this realm
is the sea

hence, a mermanifesto! precisely.

of "eyentology
booblandia
galactation"

in the cults of Dionysus the infant god is
described as the child who has need of many wet nurses
and also as the god who takes fright when the un-fun
Lycourgos (whose name means 'Wolfy-One')
drives off the god who dives into the Sea where he is
adopted by Thetis or spends a long time in the Mansion
of Persephone (Queen of the Underworld), presumably
suckling, since she is, on some accounts, the mother
of Dionysus

some scholar heads say that the name "Dio-NYSUS" comes from
the nymphic Nurses of the Nyseions field who nourish
him.

"Nysiades" (in the plural) are the wet nurses of the
god and "Nysa" is a fairytale land of superabundance,
the same meadow, not incidently from where the
glorious maiden Kore was abducted by the King of the
Underworld while picking the Narcissus flowers.

the maenads who travel in the chorus of Dionysus and
who carry the Thrysus (staff with pine-cone top) are
often described as bare-chested and as striking the
earth with their Thrysus at which "the earth flows
with milk, flows with wine, flows with the nectar of
bees."

I can think of those orphic fragments where it
describes how the
blissful initiate is like a kid who has fallen into
the milk and is swimming in it, and therein is able to
*see clearly*.

lots of delicious mysteries are
to be found in the history of the root word for
"milk"
which is *GALACS in many IndoEuropean languages!
In Hittite, *galacs is the word which
is used for both animal milk and plant sap.

It covers the meaning of all cosmic
life-giving saps. So when funginears say
"galactation", they
are not really coining a fancy neologism by combining
'lactation' with the sense of the starry 'galaxy',
they are just restoring the
original usage of this word, by discovering its latent
truth.

Looks like we'll have to wait a while for the first part of the Mermanifesto itself!
Hope you enjoyed the Prolegomena.