wrong answer 












             i would have     taken: a galloping horse or the earth’s moving diaphram and nothing else 

but, as Kant tells us, it is only the tide, only the tide 
and the moon, that are the same everywhere, at all 
places. Out of the two, the moon being, of course, 
the one thing you cannot reach. To enquire about 
the tide at any particular location is therefore not
a question at all but a category error.                     
      
A vision of God's toe, dipping in and out of
the water, afraid to touch it too long, get too cold etc. 
lest it give him ideas. The water was, of course, colder than 
expected. This expectation being, itself, a form of blasphemy.

Sublime the mountains at sufficient distance. Sublime the surf 
at no distance. The intermediate distances being taken up by
real estate. Ergo: the beach as the only visual experience in 
which there is nothing to overcome. 

Unless you count the drive there, the sun, the sand in the car, 
the milling around afterwards — but these are preconditions, not conditions, and Kant was very clear on this, or would have been, 
had he ever seen the ocean, which he didn’t, which explains everything.

       

I mean, 
        if you had to be enclosed for eternity 
                              in a minimally small physical space, wherein a certain wave would break permanently through to you, 

but beyond this, nothing else would or could happen — would you call it heaven or hell? 




        now... 

                   drink me