It's getting harder and harder to be around the people I know.

I mean those with whom I should be,
those who will make me happy.

But day by day I lose their lingo,
and I say, to know, where do you go?

Now this is something completely new,
forget all my previous geometry—this isn't to unknow but know.

And so I question my questioning that was so grounding—
is it to unknow that makes you know,
or to know that makes you unknow,
to reach the nonchalant?

Because the nonchalant remains the end goal.

Now this will sound perfectly cringe,
but I don't know how else to say—
that I can tell you the antimony of Kant
but just don't get those references to TikTok.

I don't mean to sound in that way,
because what I'd give to understand

and with you laugh in that peculiar way!

I never needed Kant,
it was in the nonchalant.

I think Kant also knows
that Kant never needed Kant,
but sacrificed himself
to observe your dancing,
realizing too late what he'd done.

And so he sang, content and blue,
"Even if a man sees a mirage,
he still sees."

His dialect of appearances,
trespassing theoretical land.

He continued singing,
reality in camouflage.

Took the world,
hid his mind that knew it was,
said nothing is not.

People only heard the not,
but it's a rather elaborate knot,
and nothing is caught.

And so the people I know
all got vertigo
and went on clicking tocks.

And I,
my hidden words to lie,
alone.

Because only I understand what I mean,
and I know I
don't.

...

"Even if a man sees a mirage,
that doesn't mean the man sees nothing.

It just means he sees in his mind,
we describe those sights through perceptions or other mental appearances.

Thus, we are not directly acquainted with non-mental existences, but rather to appearances or data from our senses that make those things be.