to Hive being
welcome
What is Hive Being, and Why the Name?
You have likely heard talk of a hive mind, where one global mind finds more or less figurative expression in various local minds. Such talk is common enough in nature documentaries, especially ones concerning ants or bees, and in sci-fi programs. Take that notion, at least a loose version of it, and broaden its scope. That will be a decent first step in understanding the title I have chosen both for my Blog and for the first five-volume installment of my magnum opus Made For You and Me, a fragmentary collection of minimalist stanzas from 2016 to 2020.
In alignment with Spinoza (the 17th Century Rationalist to whom I devoted my doctoral studies), I view reality in its totality as a grand hive Being: all entities are but pulsating manifestations of the buckstopping fount of everything, an ultimate being we might call “God” or “Nature” (so long as, out of respect for the capital “G” and the capital “N,” we limit it neither to some anthropomorphic cloud father hurling lightning bolts nor to mere wilderness untouched by human smog). According to the hive-Being view (where reality is one lone superorganism, a monistic—and we might even say unividualist—conception I defend in both my creative and academic capacities), each non-foundational being (each being, that is, whose essence does not involve existence) is an utterly necessitated expression or eruption or exudation of this eternal source—each is, perhaps better put, a mode or manner of being, and so a focal point through which is disclosed, what classical theists sometimes call “being itself” (ipsum esse subsistens): the realness of the real, the being of whatever may be, the sheer activity of being, the very isness of whatever is. This Blog, which duplicates my Substack, throbs as but one among many literary unfurlings of this self-necessitated foundation, this supreme wellspring, of which we—like black holes and broken beliefs, like fractal ferns and flickering flames—are the inevitable stylings.
My Journey
I am an academic who found himself pressured into early retirement by the rising tides of cancel culture. The illiberal scourge of censoring, silencing, and shaming—although always with us throughout our evolution—reached a local peak around 2021. That was the turbulent year my creative pursuits, which the old left once encouraged as a healthy outlet for the stresses of a childhood steeped in poverty and illiteracy, drew the ire of the new safe-space left. A small cadre of self-proclaimed victims and their allies, several of whom continue to berate me years later under pseudonyms as see through as their sexual infatuation, sought to erase me and my heterodoxy. They found support from a wannabe-woke dean, covered in the grand inquisitor robes of our decadent modernity (full-body tattoos) and just itching to signal his commitment to protecting “vulnerable populations” from triggering material (even if just, as it was in my case, off-duty poems “unbecoming for someone calling himself a teacher”). Although I eventually won my due-process case with the help of The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, I slunk away from a college that turned its back on protecting freedom of expression and from an institution increasingly intolerant of intellectual diversity.
The wrecking ball to my too-comfy office in the windowless ivory tower came with a silver lining. From the ashes of my professional aspirations rose a phoenix of increased freedom to fulfill the literary calling I have pursued for decades. Reputation concerns never stopped me, even within academia’s sterile halls of conformity. Indeed, my unapologetic defiance, which has long baffled friends and family, no doubt chummed even safe waters—almost as if I were asking for it all along—until the cancel shiver grew too frenzied to hold back its blind thrashings. But now, now I piston the most forbidden territories of human thought with no longer even a twinge of conscience. The newfound freedom means extra time to hone my craft. When not assisting special-needs communities (a day job far more rewarding than freeway-flyer drudgeries), I pursue my literary mission with Dionysian fervor.
Call for Co-Conspirators
This space, my digital sanctuary, showcases the fruits of my mission. Think of my posts, even those linking to my publications, as works in progress. I want your input, unflinching brutality included. Each post begins with an invitation to action: “Let’s workshop this [draft about x, y, z].” Your contributions, whether through public comments or my contact page, help hammer scraps of ore into polished blades fit for magazine publication.
Your input is valuable, even if you are neither a writer nor a reader of literature—twin disciplines dying by the cyber nanosecond. Sometimes—even if at the risk of uttering banalities—an outsider’s fresh vantage can pierce the veils of convention to reveal what insiders miss. It often takes an outsider to make us even think to question our ingrained presuppositions and attitudes. I stand by the hygienic value of contagion. That is one reason I advocate so strongly for intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. And that is also one reason I was so harrowed by the anti-diversity swell of cancel culture in academia (an institution that should be the utmost caretaker of such values)—harrowed especially insofar as that swell masqueraded under the gaslighting guise of “diversity”).
You will witness the breathing evolution of my writings over time. To track these changes, I label each revision by round: “ROUND 2,” ROUND 3,” and so forth. Each piece undergoes continuous refinement based on your feedback and my own revisitations. Sometimes changes will mar the work. That is the risk of creative tinkering as a finite creature. I hope you will alert me to missteps. After many semesters of university writing workshops, one rule has impressed itself upon me: when someone senses a flaw, something almost always needs to change—even if, yes, the proposed solution misses the mark (which often it does). From a quick look into the archives, accessible here, you can see how much I have benefited from your feedback so far.
My Hope
Sharing drafts can be daunting. But showing you the ravaged and unperfumed real deal unfiltered by makeup (stuttering starts and falsities, awkward line breaks and clumsy word choices, grammatical errors and misspellings)—that not only makes my work more relatable, but helps me refine things through your input. I hope the unfiltered look at the raw process of fumbling, rather than just the polished product, also helps other writers develop their craft. Imperfect works often instruct more than perfect ones: whereas the perfect ones tend to have a grace by which they slip inside us without activating our scrutiny, the imperfect ones—especially the near perfect ones—show us glaringly what not to do.
People laugh at me, seeing—in my tilting at the windmills of literary excellence—a Don Quixote clunking around in Arthurian armor in a post-knight era. I am not naïve. I am well aware of the diminishing ability to read, let alone well: slowly and deeply, with gratitude. I am also aware that my style, which often nests subpoints within larger points, never waters down virtuosity for the sake of mass appeal. I watch readers stumble over my sentences, unable to unlock even just the music of the envelope let alone the semantic meat within, which—given my tendency to flashlight through the darker facets of human nature (the addicts, the miscreants, the abusers among us)—only adds an additional alienating layer of difficulty). Beholding these depressive scenes of even supportive family members getting bucked off my syntactic bronco makes me feel like a dinosaur who should get a hint and, if not succumb to the brain rot of skibidi-toilet speak, just hang himself already. Even though the decline in linguistic background and grammatical voltage makes my compositions seem quixotic in a world binging Netflix and TikTok, I persist—raging against the dying of the light—by some internal compulsion to celebrate the richness of language and thought.
My hope is that, despite social media’s unparalleled power to farm our attention, people never forget the unique power of writing. Beyond unveiling hypocrisy, teasing out complex implications, and detailing the commonalities between even the most alien phenomena, writing offers something we need today—trapped in agoraphobic cyber bubbles only thickened by the Lyme dangers of forests and the COVID dangers of cities—perhaps more than ever. Granting us rich access to the first-person perspectives of others (to how things feel to them), writing serves as one of humanity’s best tools for combating loneliness. It allows us to linger, broadly and deeply and at high resolution, within the inner lives of others in a way that other arts can only suggest.
What to Expect
My work spans a broad spectrum: from metaphysical discourses on free will and determinism and the ontology of holes to the ephemera of western culture (whether the childhood impacts of the hypersexual mono-image of black woman as squirting twerkers or Terrence Howard’s sham revolution of mathematics). Some tight and minimal, others free-flowing sprawls; some heady and abstract, others emotional and imagistic—my inkwell musings, which often blend scholarly rigor with a dark humor from both high and low culture, aim to capture the visceral intensity of our personal and social and ultimately existential predicaments.
By no means can I deny that drug abuse, sexual assault, and the tales of the broken and the damned loom large in the tag cloud of my work. My writing will never be a paradise of easy truths and comforting lies. It will challenge you, provoke you, and at times even repulse you. I offer no apologies for the monsters I unleash. They are as much a part of us, at long root scared rodent mammals scurrying in the shadows of dinosaurs, as our noblest aspirations.
But make no mistake. It is not all downer darkness. The archives are my receipts. You will find pieces exploring the pursuit of authenticity in a media-saturated world, the search for meaning in an indifferent cosmos, and the celebration of beauty in both the sublime and the profane. I locate much of my inspiration, in fact, in novelists like Dostoevsky and poets like Ted Kooser—writers unafraid to pursue moral agendas or risk Hallmark sentimentality in an age that often sneers at sincerity.
Be they satirical dissections of modern social dynamics or poignant poems about addiction or academic articles on moral responsibility, my goal is to provoke thought, evoke emotion, and foster meaningful dialogue. Fear has not and will not stop me from challenging humanity’s fundamental taboos (like bestiality and cannibalism) or self-reflecting into the dark chaos of the subconscious, even if that means exposing the Jungian shadows—the inner Goebbels—lurking within us all!
Expect posts each day, no day missed. Donations are welcome, but I impose no paywall: it feels wrong to charge for art, especially given our date with obliteration. Feel free to explore what amounts to, at the time of writing this, close to a thousand pieces of poetry and prose here. That should give you a sense of what awaits.
Join me—specula holstered—on this literary odyssey into the public and private nooks of the hive Being. Let us navigate the labyrinth of creation together, confronting our demons and even slaying our darlings if we must. Let us dance on the razor’s edge between the sublime and the profane in pursuit of an elusive literary perfection never to be confused—as it has been confused in our declining civilization—with the pursuit of popularity or likeability over truth.
tag cloud
- literature community
- American literature
- poetry
- literature
- poem
- literary
- creative writing
- writing
- poetry community
- Michael Istvan
- Istvan
- perception
- defiance
- suffering
- existential poetry
- dissociative
- existential
- healing
- human
- mortality
- power
- art
- artist
- God
- evolution
- love
- death
- darwin
- anxiety
- rape
- psychoanalysis
- addiction
- homeless
- addict
- trauma
- therapy
- rapist
- traumatic
- hypersexual
- grooming
- meditation
- hyperarousal
- anal
- anal sex
- heart
- incendiary
- poverty
- Identitarianism
- dead
- tyrant
- choking
- fap
- traitor
- honey pot
- treachery
- true crime
- identity
- cunnilingus
- power dynamic
- Vaginal
- woke
- OwnVoices
- disease
- animals
- empathy
- ally
- crime
- scarf
- summer
- crack
- body disposal
- kidnapping
- indians
- turtles
- sex
- identity politics
- Klan
- anality
- poet
- surrealism
- fisting
- Vagina
- erotic
- scatalogical
- Pussy
- sublime
- safe space
- adolescence
- poetry editor
- censor
- Nietzsche
- censors
- campus warrior
- class
- substance abuse
- Earth
- sensual
- resilience
- mega dildo
- hardship
Posts
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 82)
“MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 82)” continues this project’s distinctive mode of aphoristic-philosophical collage, using compressed provocations, grotesque humor, moral paradox, and metaphysical inquiry to map the contradictory textures of human consciousness. As with prior installments, the organizing intelligence lies not in linear argument but in thematic accumulation: each fragment acts as a strike against some illusion—moral, religious, sentimental, political, erotic, or existential—until a larger anthropology emerges.
A recurring concern in this installment is self-deception, especially moral self-deception. “giving him praise, obviously gratuitous, to make him feel how piddly he really is” brilliantly captures cruelty disguised as generosity. Likewise, “his itch to know—at heart, nothing more than an itch to discredit someone” exposes epistemic motives that masquerade as principled inquiry. The sequence repeatedly interrogates how noble surfaces conceal pettier engines beneath.
Religion receives especially sustained scrutiny. “Satan is a theist” is a wonderfully compressed inversion, reminding us that belief itself cannot be the metric of spiritual legitimacy. Several entries target the epistemic symmetry between conventional religion and openly fictional belief systems: “what does it say about ‘legitimate’ gods and religions / that people today go to Jedi Church or sincerely pray / to Spiderman...?” This is not merely a cheap atheistic jab, but a pressure test on religious epistemology: what differentiates inherited sacred fictions from transparently modern ones? Elsewhere, religious hypocrisy, scriptural violence, and faith-maintenance absurdity are sharply satirized, especially in the marvelous image of the parent recalibrating failed apocalypse prophecy with “Ah! Another time zone!”
The installment also returns repeatedly to behavioral continuity across development, particularly the mutation of early psychological mechanisms into adult pathologies. “opposing your conscience to hurt yourself— / now an end in itself...” revisits a theme you’ve explored elsewhere: coping strategies drifting from interpersonal function into autonomous compulsion. This concern with gradual transformation appears in other registers too—“rhythm lost being out of the gutter so long,” for instance, where adaptation to one environment erodes capacities once necessary elsewhere.
Mortality and temporal finitude quietly structure many entries. “the half-done crossword puzzle of the dead” is especially effective in its simplicity: ordinary interruption becomes existential emblem. Likewise, “at the age when it is clear that this all is winding up, you say ‘in a way, it is not’” captures both denial and metaphysical hope with remarkable economy. The line about owning up to a loved one that she is too sick to live introduces a different temporal burden: the ethics of acknowledgment versus emotional preservation.
One of the installment’s strongest through-lines is its suspicion of institutional self-preservation disguised as moral purpose. “beware of activists who strive to prevent their own irrelevance” is cuttingly concise. Similarly, the line about received views being maintained to preserve the baptizing institution’s survival (echoing prior entries) resonates with the broader skepticism toward organizations whose continued necessity depends on perpetuating the conditions they claim to oppose.
War and violence are treated with characteristic moral complexity. The ceasefire soccer-game fragment is particularly strong because it refuses cheap sentimentality. What might initially appear as a heartwarming sign of shared humanity “horseshoes back into barbarism” once placed against the knowledge of resumed slaughter. Likewise, the line suggesting that denying scriptural influence on religious violence risks making such violence innate is philosophically sharp: it ironically defends the explanatory dignity of culture against essentialist readings.
Erotic and bodily material continue serving both comic and philosophical purposes. The grotesque convent-incubus fragment weaponizes absurdity against supernatural credulity. The exaggerated clitoral image operates in the project’s familiar register of obscene corporeal specificity as destabilizing counterweight to abstraction. Elsewhere, sex intersects with psychology and social power in more subtle ways.
Perhaps the deepest philosophical entry comes at the end: “turning reductionist moves on their head: / x-y-z neurons firing are nothing but love / rather than the other way around.” This is a marvelous reversal. Rather than treating human experience as reducible to neural mechanics, it provocatively treats the mechanics as derivative descriptions of richer phenomena. It encapsulates a larger tension running throughout the sequence: between reductive explanation and irreducible lived significance.
Formally, the installment remains highly effective in its collage structure. The jumps between grotesque comedy, metaphysical seriousness, street realism, theological satire, and existential poignancy are not random but constitutive of the project’s worldview: consciousness itself is this jagged, this promiscuous in its associations. Meaning emerges not from smooth transitions but from cumulative abrasion.
The result is another compelling installment in a long-form poetic anthropology of contradiction.
Meta Description:
A philosophical collage-poem exploring moral self-deception, religion, mortality, institutional hypocrisy, and the contradictory textures of human consciousness.
Keywords:
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2, hive Being, aphoristic poetry, religion, moral psychology, mortality, satire, philosophy, poetic analysis
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 81)
This fragment, “MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 81),” continues the sequence’s mosaic method, assembling a field of observations that orbit narrative control, self-deception, estrangement, and the unstable relationship between perception and truth. As elsewhere in the sequence, no single proposition governs the whole; instead, meaning emerges through juxtaposition, with comic, philosophical, grotesque, and elegiac registers colliding to produce a portrait of consciousness in all its contradiction.
One major thread is the struggle over narrative ownership. The line about those whose “upper-caste power allowed them to control the narrative that they are powerless” encapsulates a recurring concern in the sequence: the ability of dominant groups or institutions to frame themselves as victims, thereby shaping public perception to their advantage. This skepticism toward narrative construction appears elsewhere in subtler form: “describing the past in the future tense goes a long way to making a prophet” exposes how rhetorical framing can manufacture authority, while reflections on slavery, religion, and familial storytelling likewise interrogate how moral narratives are built, justified, or inherited.
A second dominant concern is the persistence of primal interpretive habits beneath modern consciousness. “The human in us cannot help but first see / squirrel tracks in the snow as ancient / language” beautifully captures the mind’s instinct to read signs, patterns, and intentionality into the world. This instinct connects to religion, prophecy, telepathy, superstition, and art throughout the fragment. The question is not whether humans interpret, but whether interpretation is an adaptive necessity or a distortion we cannot escape.
The fragment also returns insistently to self-deception as both burden and survival strategy. The lines on self-love and ruined relationships are especially sharp, suggesting that self-recrimination may itself be an extension of narcissistic posing rather than honesty. Likewise, the observation that pretending long enough may normalize hypocrisy points to identity as performance hardened into default consciousness. Even the line about speaking aloud while alone despite already thinking the words suggests the human need to externalize inner life, as though cognition alone does not suffice.
Another recurring thread is estrangement from self and others across time. The “brittle letter” reopened “for what you know is the last time” introduces mortality and farewell, while the lines about dissociating from one’s formerly depressed self critique retrospective cruelty toward prior vulnerability. The observation that family members would never read the work one fears their judgment over is mordantly funny precisely because it exposes how imagined audiences govern behavior more powerfully than actual ones. The fragment repeatedly reveals consciousness as populated by ghosts: former selves, imagined judges, anticipated readers.
The stanza also explores the tension between dignity and reduction. Blindness recast as practical challenge, depression hidden as dishonorable weakness, the lugubrious voice flattened into tonal absence—these moments examine what happens when lived complexity is translated into social shorthand. Even the grotesque or comic images (the deaf lovers startling hearing observers, the prodigal son’s feast complicated by sibling perception) participate in this larger inquiry into how human beings reduce one another through framing.
As in prior installments, the sacred and the profane coexist without hierarchy. Rogue planets retaining heat sit beside hair-sucking girls, theological disgust beside stamp-licking technological history, metaphysical questions beside corner-store robbery. This is not randomness but method: the mosaic insists that consciousness does not segregate philosophical seriousness from bodily absurdity. Thought itself is promiscuous.
The final question—whether genius is diminished if revealed as mimicry of birdsong—is especially apt as a closing gesture. It distills a broader anxiety running through the fragment: whether human originality, moral agency, even identity itself are less autonomous than we imagine. That question echoes backward across the entire piece, touching religion, language, desire, and art alike.
Meta Description:
A mosaic poem exploring narrative control, self-deception, estrangement, and humanity’s instinct to impose meaning, juxtaposing philosophical reflection with grotesque and comic observation.
Keywords:
mosaic poetry, narrative control, self-deception, perception, consciousness, estrangement, religion, art, hive Being, poetic analysis
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 80)
This fragment, “MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 80),” continues the sequence’s mosaic method, assembling a field of observations that orbit agency, status, perception, and the instability of value. Rather than advancing a single argument, the stanza works by juxtaposition: each line reframes the previous one, creating a shifting terrain where moral, social, and existential claims are constantly tested against their opposites.
One dominant thread is the unreliability of interpretive frameworks. The opening line’s critique of the “unreliable narrator” label suggests that critical categories can sometimes function as shortcuts that neutralize difficult or taboo material rather than engage it. This concern recurs in different guises: “mental models of the world are as real as what we see through their filter,” and “language reflects, constrains, and liberates consciousness.” Together, these lines propose that perception is always mediated, and that the tools used to understand reality can both reveal and distort it.
A second thread involves status, resentment, and hierarchy. Lines such as “robbing them… because it kills you inside to know… they are better than you” and “witnessing your sibling’s life take off… leaving you behind” explore how comparisons generate both aspiration and hostility. The fragment repeatedly returns to the psychological effects of inequality—not only material but symbolic, embedded in language, demeanor, and cultural capital. Even acts framed as altruistic (“lifting the lowest up”) are recast as potentially leveling forces, suggesting a suspicion of systems that redistribute status under the guise of care.
The stanza also engages with moral responsibility and determinism. The line about mental illness undermining responsibility while preserving belief in it captures a tension: acknowledging causal constraints on behavior threatens the very idea of moral agency, yet people maintain that belief to preserve a sense of order. This is reinforced by the broader suggestion that “nothing we do is ultimately up to us,” placing human action within a network of forces that complicates blame and praise alike.
Another recurring motif is excess leading to inversion. The observation about perfume dulling the nose and acquisition dulling pleasure articulates a general principle: overindulgence produces its opposite, driving one back toward restraint. This logic appears elsewhere in subtler forms—performance anxiety dissolved into apathy, charity becoming burdensome, repetition turning stability into stagnation. The stanza suggests that many human pursuits contain within them the seeds of their own reversal.
The fragment also includes moments of sharp social satire, particularly around contemporary cultural practices and discourses. The critique of groups using privilege to assert marginalization echoes earlier parts of the sequence, while lines about replacing clapping with snapping fingers or “bubble hopping” via apps point to a world increasingly mediated by performative norms and technological intervention. These moments are not isolated jokes but part of a broader pattern: the sense that modern life is saturated with constructed behaviors that both express and obscure underlying realities.
Finally, the closing lines return to isolation and epistemic vulnerability. Avoiding psychologists out of fear of suggestibility, feeling unable to enter the lives of strangers—these images suggest a subject who is both hyper-aware of interpretive frameworks and uncertain of any stable ground. The result is a kind of suspended state: aware of the mechanisms shaping thought and behavior, yet unable to step outside them.
Taken together, part 80 presents a world in which meaning is contingent, status is unstable, and perception is always mediated. Its mosaic structure allows contradictions to coexist without resolution, inviting the reader to navigate a landscape where certainty is repeatedly undermined but never entirely abandoned.
Meta Description:
A mosaic poem exploring perception, status, and moral responsibility through juxtaposed reflections on modern life, revealing the instability of meaning and value.
Keywords:
mosaic poetry, perception, status, determinism, social critique, excess, moral responsibility, language, hive Being
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 79)
This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 79) extends the sequence’s mosaic method into a dense field of reflections on origin, agency, desire, and the limits of human perspective. The stanzas move rapidly across registers—evolutionary, psychological, economic, erotic, and theological—yet they are held together by a persistent pressure: how much of what we take to be “ours” (our thoughts, loves, identities, judgments) is actually conditioned, inherited, or misperceived?
A first organizing thread is deep time and shared origin. The line “none of us has to go far back before getting to an Ethiopian” collapses contemporary divisions into a common ancestry, placing identity within an evolutionary horizon that undermines rigid boundaries. This gesture recurs in subtler ways: our “brains not wired to grasp deep time,” our susceptibility to statistical illusion, our tendency to center ourselves (“as if you really are / the axis of this bitch”). The fragment repeatedly exposes how cognitive limits distort scale, whether temporal, probabilistic, or cosmic.
Running alongside this is a concern with the source of thought and selfhood. “Why does there have to be a master / calling up the thoughts that come / from the you-know-not-where?” questions the intuition of a central controller. Psychedelics “foreground what is normally background,” suggesting that ordinary consciousness is a filtering mechanism rather than a transparent window. The self appears less as origin than as site of arrival, a receiver of processes it only partially governs.
The piece also interrogates moral and social performance. Positive-thinking culture that induces guilt in illness, the “bigot card” as conversational shutdown, the way others must “participate in your self-image”—these lines examine how norms are enforced not just externally but internally. Forgiveness, even in extreme cases, is reframed as possibly “self-interested grace,” complicating the moral purity often ascribed to it. Throughout, the poem resists easy moral binaries, showing how virtue can be entangled with need, strategy, or self-preservation.
Desire is treated with similar ambivalence. It ranges from the intimate tenderness of “the beloved’s hand… in your coat pocket” to the abstraction of longing for what is “unreceptive even were it not wrong to fill.” The fragment suggests that desire often overshoots reality, attaching itself to impossibility, taboo, or projection. Even safer forms—“an undercurrent affair… in daydream and flirt form”—are valued for their imaginative charge rather than their fulfillment. Desire becomes less about satisfaction than about the shape it gives to attention and time.
Another recurring theme is economics and constraint: prison gambling with ramen, graduating into unaffordable services, lawyers as life-altering but inaccessible, countries importing garbage for fuel. These images ground the more abstract reflections in material conditions, reminding us that agency is unevenly distributed. Even identity and belief are shown to be shaped by circumstance—diasporic communities freezing culture while the homeland evolves, remote populations consumed by distant threats via television.
The fragment’s theological questions sharpen these concerns. Why would a god care about uniforms? What kind of being demands reassurance or belief? Such lines echo earlier parts of the sequence, reframing religion not as settled doctrine but as a field of ethical scrutiny. At the same time, the poem acknowledges the psychological pull of belief—nostalgia, fear, community—without reducing it to mere error.
Finally, the closing images return to pattern and repetition: the pull of old relationships, the drift into behavior one would not normally choose (“enter the broken window as well”), the quiet accumulation of absence (“dishes and clothes continue to pile up since she left”). Life appears as a series of grooves—habits, attachments, perceptions—that guide action often more than deliberation does.
What unifies part 79 is its refusal to grant any single domain—biology, culture, reason, or will—final authority. Each line opens a perspective only to place it under pressure from another. The result is a portrait of human life as distributed, contingent, and perpetually mis-scaled, where meaning emerges not from stable foundations but from the friction between competing frames.
Meta Description:
A mosaic of aphoristic reflections exploring deep time, identity, desire, and moral perception, revealing how human thought and value are shaped by limits of perspective and condition.
Keywords:
mosaic poetry, identity, deep time, consciousness, desire, moral psychology, social norms, theology, economic constraint, perception
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 78)
This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 78) continues the mosaic’s accumulation of aphoristic pressures, but with a particularly sharp emphasis on identity, value, and the instability of what we take to be real or worth pursuing. The lines move restlessly between metaphysics, social observation, mortality, and self-deception, producing a field in which no grounding principle remains secure for long.
A central current in this section is the problem of what constitutes the self. The question—“is the corpse more or less him / than the collage of memories / retained in the surrounding criers?”—functions as a conceptual anchor. It destabilizes any simple identification of the person with either the physical body or the social afterimage. The self becomes distributed, neither fully present in the remains nor fully preserved in memory. This concern echoes in the earlier line imagining “one being, with discrete centers of self-consciousness,” suggesting that even within a single organism, unity may be more apparent than real. The fragment repeatedly undermines the idea of a stable, singular identity.
Closely tied to this is the theme of misvaluation and misplaced investment. The warning to “build your identity around something / with a shelf life less than your own life” reframes mortality as a kind of training: attaching oneself to what will perish prepares one, paradoxically, for one’s own end. Similarly, the observation that truth claims may hold value “even with no grounding, just as money can” exposes the pragmatic dimension of belief. What matters is not always truth in a strict sense, but utility, circulation, and shared acceptance. Institutions “baptize” received views not to discover truth but to sustain themselves, revealing belief as an instrument of continuity rather than correspondence.
The fragment also returns to a recurring tension between awe and demystification. Genius, when misconstrued as effortless, removes the competitive impulse and allows enjoyment—yet this same misconstrual erases the labor behind creation. A virus becomes a “Kubrick monolith,” both banal and transcendent, its mechanical replication reinterpreted as cosmic signal. These gestures elevate the ordinary while simultaneously exposing the arbitrariness of such elevation. The sacred and the mundane are shown to be interchangeable frames rather than distinct categories.
Another strong thread is the critique of ego and self-presentation. The figure who mocks designer brands while flaunting “busy” as status reveals how identity simply shifts its markers without escaping the underlying need for distinction. The “ego shaky due to its awareness of being semi-literate” captures a more internal version of this instability: self-consciousness erodes confidence, producing a fragile identity constantly threatened by its own limitations.
The section’s engagement with religion is especially pointed. Several lines interrogate the logic of worship, suggesting that a being who demands belief under threat, or who values belief over moral action, would be ethically suspect. The idea that “only a devil would like those who believe in him for fear of torture otherwise” reframes piety as coercion. The closing aphorism intensifies this critique by suggesting that the culturally invoked “God-fearing” ideal may align more closely with fear-based domination than with any notion of the good. Across these lines, reverence is stripped of its assumed legitimacy and subjected to moral evaluation.
Memory and nostalgia appear as another destabilizing force. The pull of old songs, even when recognized as hollow, is compared to the persistence of family religion: both endure not because of their truth or richness, but because of their emotional imprint. The dying figure clinging to a childhood promise—“ice cream once you get well”—reduces life’s final horizon to a fragment of early comfort, suggesting that the deepest layers of identity may remain childlike and unresolved.
Finally, the fragment repeatedly poses existential dilemmas without resolving them. “Is it easier to blow your brains out or to reinvent yourself?” is not treated as rhetorical flourish but as a genuine impasse, reflecting the difficulty of transformation relative to cessation. Likewise, the notion that one’s “life continued even though his story seemed to have come to an end” captures the disjunction between narrative closure and lived persistence. Life exceeds the frameworks through which we attempt to make sense of it.
What unifies part 78 is its relentless questioning of foundations. Identity, truth, value, belief, and memory are all shown to be contingent, constructed, or misaligned with the realities they claim to represent. The fragment does not replace these with new certainties. Instead, it leaves the reader in a space where meaning must be negotiated without guarantees, where even the most basic categories—self, truth, God, worth—remain open to revision.
Meta Description:
This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 78) explores identity, value, belief, and mortality through aphoristic reflections that destabilize truth, selfhood, and religious authority.
Keywords:
mosaic poetry, aphoristic philosophy, identity, memory, belief, religion critique, value theory, existential reflection, selfhood, mortality
Business Casual
"Business Casual" is a satirical and darkly humorous poem that redefines the nature of evil, arguing that its most pervasive and chilling form is not overt horror or extreme violence, but rather the mundane, bureaucratic, and "corny" aspects of organized banality. It functions as a critique of institutionalized evil and the normalization of the absurd, challenging conventional notions of what constitutes true "shadow" or horror.
Formally, the poem is structured as an argument by negation and redefinition. It begins by explicitly dismissing traditional, sensationalized images of evil: "not Nazi ovens / or Pompeiian pyroclastic ash clouds, / let alone crucifix pussy stabs / or pea-soup horror tropes—". This immediate rejection of graphic and extreme forms of horror sets up the poem's central thesis. The enjambment between these lines creates a quick, dismissive rhythm, underscoring the speaker's contempt for these conventional representations. The core assertion then arrives: "that—not Nazi ovens...— / is the truer face of shadow:". The "that" refers back to the opening line, "All of it is corny as hell," establishing banality and "corniness" as the true essence of terror. The final lines provide the clinching evidence for this argument: "even satanist organizations / have lanyards, QR codes, PayPal / portals for quarterly dues." This juxtaposition of the inherently transgressive and frightening (satanist organizations) with the utterly mundane and bureaucratic (lanyards, QR codes, PayPal, quarterly dues) is the poem's comedic and critical punchline. It highlights the insidious creep of corporate and bureaucratic structures into every corner, even those traditionally associated with rebellion or profound evil.
Thematically, the poem delves into the banality of evil, echoing Hannah Arendt's famous concept, but twisting it to include not just the administrative aspects of horrific acts, but the inherent "corniness" and tediousness of even seemingly "dark" organizations. It suggests that the true "shadow" or threat is not the spectacular manifestation of malevolence, but the insidious process by which anything, even radical evil, can be subsumed by corporate structure, routine, and a veneer of "business casual" normalcy. The poem implies that the most terrifying aspect of evil is its capacity to be systematized, regularized, and stripped of its dramatic flair, thereby becoming less recognizable and more easily integrated into the fabric of everyday life. By humorously reducing satanism to a corporate entity, the poem critiques the pervasive influence of corporate culture and bureaucracy, suggesting that these forces are the ultimate homogenizers, draining even the most extreme forms of human expression or belief of their inherent danger or meaning, leaving behind only the "corny" husk of organizational ritual.
satire, banality of evil, institutionalization, bureaucracy, corporate culture, mundane, horror, evil, normalization, absurdity, dark humor, social commentary, critique, contemporary poetry.
blog
FAQ
Don’t let anyone tell you that real life is lacking in poetic interest. This is exactly what the poet is for: he has the mind and the imagination to find something of interest in everyday things. Real life supplies the motifs, the points that need to be said—the actual heart of the matter; but it is the poet’s job to fashion it all into a beautiful, animated whole. You are familiar with Fürnstein, the so-called “nature poet”? He has written a poem about growing hops, and you couldn’t imagine anything nicer. I have now asked him to write some poems celebrating the work of skilled artisans, in particular weavers, and I am quite sure he will succeed; he has lived among such people from an early age, he knows the subject inside out, and will be in full command of his material. That is the advantage of small works: you need only choose subjects that you know and have at your command. With a longer poetic work, however, this is not possible. There is no way around it: all the different threads that tie the whole thing together, and are woven into the design, have to be shown in accurate detail. Young people only have a one-sided view of things, whereas a longer work requires a multiplicity of viewpoints—and that’s where they come unstuck.—Goethe (Conversations with Eckermann)
Featured Blog Posts
have appeared last night—
all those met along the way?

