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
- death
- love
- darwin
- anxiety
- rape
- psychoanalysis
- addiction
- homeless
- addict
- trauma
- therapy
- rapist
- traumatic
- hypersexual
- hyperarousal
- grooming
- anal
- anal sex
- heart
- incendiary
- meditation
- dead
- tyrant
- Identitarianism
- poverty
- fap
- choking
- traitor
- treachery
- identity
- honey pot
- true crime
- power dynamic
- cunnilingus
- Vaginal
- woke
- OwnVoices
- animals
- empathy
- crack
- disease
- ally
- crime
- scarf
- summer
- body disposal
- kidnapping
- identity politics
- indians
- Vagina
- turtles
- Klan
- sex
- surrealism
- fisting
- anality
- erotic
- scatalogical
- poet
- Pussy
- sublime
- safe space
- poetry editor
- adolescence
- violence
- censor
- artistry
- borders
- censors
- class
- Nietzsche
- campus warrior
- mega dildo
- substance abuse
- gut puncher
Posts
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 89)
Part 89 is the most politically volatile and formally restless installment of the 2017 sequence, and its governing pressure is the question of complicity — who is implicated in what, how deeply, and whether the implication can be escaped through good intentions, political alignment, or moral self-identification. The sequence returns obsessively to the figure of the person who believes themselves exempt from the systems they inhabit, and it pursues this figure across registers that range from the geopolitical to the sexual to the domestic, refusing to grant any zone of experience the status of clean ground.
The drone stanza — "the nerds now do the killing — via drones" — establishes this pressure immediately. It names a specific historical transformation in the relationship between violence and its agents: the physical removal of the killer from the act of killing, the conversion of warfare into a form of remote technical labor performed by people who would not conventionally be understood as warriors. The "nerds" designation is not contemptuous but precise — it names the class of people whose skills now do what muscles and proximity once did, and whose distance from the act's consequences is the condition of their employment. This connects directly to an earlier installment's observation that "internet to bully, drones to strike — technology severs us from consequences of our actions that otherwise would have ruined sleep." Part 89 compresses that argument into a single image and moves on, trusting the reader to hold its weight across the sequence's subsequent range.
The poem's treatment of sexual experience is characteristically unsparing and characteristically exact. "Play-acting drunk, in a cash-only pinch, because sober sex is too serious" and its later companion "play-acting drunk because who rides a stranger rubberless on the last train home?" and the third iteration involving the mother form a triptych that accumulates into something more than a series of sexual vignettes. Each deployment of the drunk performance serves a different psychological function — the first is about the unbearable weight of full mutual presence in sex; the second is about the permission structure required for genuinely risky behavior; the third is about the protection of a parent from knowledge of her child's sexual life, and the child's performance of innocence as a form of filial care. Together they argue that performed intoxication is a social technology for managing the exposure that genuine encounter requires — a way of creating deniability, distance, and permission simultaneously. That the same performance serves such different functions across such different contexts is itself the observation.
The whore stanza — "the whore dozing mid vanilla fuck, you only lengthen the ordeal / by feeling bad about how long you are taking — either tuck her in / or choke your way into the dehumanization that gets everyone off" — is among the sequence's most deliberately uncomfortable, and its discomfort is structured rather than gratuitous. The stanza addresses the client directly, which is already an unusual move. Its argument is that guilt, in this context, is not a moral corrective but an indulgence — that the client who feels bad about the worker's dissociation is centering his own feeling rather than attending to her situation. "Tuck her in" and "choke your way into the dehumanization that gets everyone off" are offered as alternatives without editorial ranking, which is the stanza's most provocative formal choice. The poem is not endorsing the second option; it is noting that the guilty paralysis of the first is also a form of selfishness, and that the liberal discomfort that produces it is not as morally superior as it presents itself.
The sofa blanket stanza — "the moral alibi of a sofa blanket as you beat off next to the peekaboo toddler" — returns to the setting and logic of "Rectal Raiders Volume 3" in compressed aphoristic form. "Moral alibi" is the exact phrase for what the blanket performs: not protection but the appearance of protection, a gesture toward decency that satisfies the adult's need to believe he is not doing what he is doing. The word "peekaboo" is devastating — a game of concealment and revelation that is also the structure of the blanket's failure. The child sees, or senses, or hears through the alibi. The alibi is for the adult, not the child.
The sequence's political stanzas achieve their sharpest formulation in the racism-and-speech trap: "to fail to use your nonX platform of privilege to speak against racism against X people / is itself racism, and yet to speak too loudly is to elevate your own voice over X-people / as if — in an appalling display of racism — you feel you have the right to speak for them." This is the poem's most precise rendering of a genuine double-bind that operates in progressive political discourse — the structure in which any position available to the non-X person is pre-interpreted as racist, silence and speech alike. The poem does not resolve the bind or mock those caught in it. It describes the bind's architecture with the neutrality of a diagram, which is its own form of critique: a political culture that generates irresolvable double-binds for its own participants is not a culture successfully addressing the problem it claims to address.
"Even white male babies have as much value as crippled black ones — it is just a fad" and "before you shoot up whole theaters on the slide to suicide, remember it is just a fad" deploy the same rhetorical structure across very different targets. "It is just a fad" applied to the mass shooting impulse is the sequence's most provocative and most psychologically serious political stanza. It refuses the usual frameworks — mental illness, gun access, ideological radicalization — in favor of a sociological claim: that mass violence has acquired the structure of a trend, complete with the mimetic transmission, the cultural moment, and the eventual exhaustion that the word "fad" implies. This is not dismissal but diagnosis. The poem is arguing that the spread of mass shooting follows cultural logic as much as psychological logic, and that understanding it as a fad — however uncomfortable that framing — may be more analytically accurate than the frameworks that treat each event as isolated pathology.
"What will the rest of us miss if you do not die?" is the sequence's most vertiginous rhetorical reversal. It takes the conventional suicide-prevention question — what will you miss if you die? — and inverts its address and its content. The question is asked of the potential survivor by the community, and it asks not about the survivor's losses but about the community's. This risks being read as callous, but the poem's intelligence lies elsewhere: the inversion forces the reader to confront the social dimensions of individual dying, to ask whether the framework of suicide prevention has been too exclusively focused on the individual's future experience and insufficiently focused on the relational fabric that both motivates staying and is damaged by leaving. The question is uncomfortable because it is genuine.
The dying-and-medicine cluster extends the sequence's sustained argument about mortality management. "The medical prolongation of dying now a norm that would buoy Goebbels" is the sequence's most extreme formulation of this argument — invoking the Nazi propaganda minister not to equate modern medicine with Nazi ideology but to name the specific feature they share: the management of dying populations according to administrative rather than human logic. "If labor is entrenched as unendurable when epidurals become the norm, imagine what happens with death / when physician-assisted suicide becomes the norm" makes a structurally parallel argument: that medical normalization of pain relief at birth has raised the threshold of tolerable suffering in ways that have cultural consequences, and that the normalization of assisted dying will perform a similar recalibration — with implications the poem does not fully specify but gestures toward with the epidural comparison.
"However noble the activities, escaping / into them does not change that you are / complicit in the family's disintegration" is the stanza that most directly names the sequence's governing theme. Complicity is not canceled by virtue. The goodness of the escape does not change what is being escaped from or what the escape costs. This applies equally to the drone operator whose technical skill is noble in its precision, the client who feels bad about the sex worker's dissociation, the parent who performs innocence for the family's breakfast table, the political actor who navigates the speech double-bind with good faith. The sequence argues, cumulatively, that complicity is the structural condition of contemporary life — not an aberration to be corrected but the water everyone swims in, and that the primary work of moral seriousness is not to escape it but to see it clearly.
The sequence closes on two images that bracket each other with precision. "Awed humble before Mt. Fuji / when above us the whole time / was that colossal void of black" performs a classic sublime reversal: the object of awe is the wrong scale, directed at the wrong object, missing the genuine immensity directly overhead. And "needier for your attention / the more absorbed you are / in what fails to involve them" closes on the most intimate and most ordinary version of the sequence's central argument: that the systems of attention through which we organize our lives consistently misfire, directing care and presence toward the wrong objects while the genuinely present — the person beside you, the void above you — goes unmet. The sequence ends not with resolution but with this image of misdirected attention, which is both its final observation and its final form of self-description.
Meta Description
The third 2017 installment of the mosaic poem presses its aphoristic method into its most politically volatile territory — pursuing the question of complicity across drone warfare, sexual economics, progressive double-binds, mass shooting as cultural fad, and the normalization of medically managed dying, while insisting that good intentions and noble activities leave the structural conditions of implication intact.
Keywords
Made for You and Me, hive Being, mosaic poem, complicity poetry, drone warfare, play-acting drunk, sofa blanket moral alibi, speech double-bind racism, mass shooting as fad, physician-assisted suicide, epidural normalization, dying literacy, aphoristic poetry, 2017 poetry, contemporary American poetry, progressive politics critique, sexual economics poetry, misdirected attention, Mt Fuji sublime, fragment poetics
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?

