/lit/ - Literature

>>6909399
No, it means he first gave true nothingness a thing to be a thing, which in its default non-being state the options of either nihilating it or accepting it into his being in non-being transcendance and attempt to hold the being in being together as long as possible in effort of realizing the expectation of its eventual and impossible reality putting him in a state of perpetual preparation of an action which will never come because the minute he gets distracted from his syssaphilian task of non-being to being creation we (given being in his non-being transcendance of his own being) will cease to exist.