in the absence of expected disaster, we are
left again to what we do not want to be
left again to: each other—each other’s eyes

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.

Featured Posts

RSS Feed Link

tag cloud


Posts

Leak in the Attic (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Leak in the Attic (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Leak in the Attic,” is a meditation on recovered solitude and the belated recognition of one’s capacity to endure it. Its emotional force lies in how it reframes nostalgia: not as longing for a lost beloved, but for a past version of oneself living through the immediate aftermath of loss.

The opening image establishes a parallel between material decay and emotional reactivation. As the “browned / tape” cracks, so too does a sealed-off period of the speaker’s life. The letter does not simply recall the relationship; it reopens access to a specific temporal zone—one that had been archived and kept at a distance. The detail of the tea “long bitter” reinforces this sense of duration, suggesting time stretched out and inhabited rather than merely endured.

The poem’s central turn—“not for her / but for that dreaded stretch / right after”—reorients the entire emotional field. What was once feared (“dreaded”) becomes, in retrospect, an object of longing. The speaker does not miss the relationship but the period of aloneness that followed it, a time previously experienced as unbearable but now revalued. This inversion is the poem’s core insight: that states once resisted can later appear as sites of vitality, even possibility.

The final lines deepen this revaluation through the image of the car keys “in reach.” During that earlier period, the speaker lived with the means of action always nearby, even if unused. The keys symbolize latent agency, a life still open to movement and decision. The realization that he “thought [he] was too old” reveals a misjudgment: he had prematurely closed off the future, even as he was still fully within it.

The title, “Leak in the Attic,” frames this temporal reversal. The attic, a space of storage and forgetting, cannot fully contain what is placed there. The “leak” suggests that the past is not inert but active, seeping back into the present with altered meaning. What was once sealed as pain returns as a form of lost richness.

Ultimately, the poem captures a subtle but profound shift: the recognition that one has outlived not just a relationship, but also the fear of being alone, and in doing so, has lost access to a version of solitude that now appears charged with life. Nostalgia, here, is directed not toward love, but toward the time after love—when everything seemed over but was not.

Meta Description:
A reflective poem exploring nostalgia for post-breakup solitude, revealing how a once-dreaded period of loneliness can later be revalued as a time of vitality and possibility.

Keywords:
Leak in the Attic, solitude, nostalgia, breakup, aging, memory, emotional revaluation, poetic analysis

Read More
The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking (ROUND 1)

This poem, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking,” is a concise philosophical meditation that uses a seemingly pointed cultural frame to arrive at a much broader claim about mortality, illusion, and shared significance across forms of life. The title primes the reader for a critique of a specific social posture—suggesting a certain insulated or aestheticized relationship to nature—but the body of the poem quickly deepens into an ontological reflection.

The opening question—“How deep must delusion run”—establishes the poem’s accusatory tone. The setting is simple: a forest marked by fallen trees, decay, and visible processes of breakdown. Yet this scene is not merely descriptive; it functions as a memento mori. The speaker challenges the observer who can stand within such an environment and fail to draw the obvious conclusion: that decay is not incidental but constitutive.

The middle lines introduce a key distinction between surface differentiation and underlying unity. “Differentiating details” and “causal ripples” acknowledge the complexity of individual forms and histories, but they are ultimately framed as secondary. The poem suggests that focusing on these particulars can obscure a more fundamental truth—that all entities are embedded in the same cycle of emergence and dissolution.

The final lines deliver the poem’s central claim: humans share not only the fate of the trees (“death”) but also their “ultimate significance.” This is the most provocative move. It collapses the hierarchy that often separates human meaning from natural processes, implying that whatever purpose or “point” trees have—growth, decay, reintegration into larger systems—applies equally to human existence. The word “point” here carries a double resonance: both purpose and endpoint, suggesting that meaning and termination are intertwined.

The title’s framing, then, can be read as ironic or critical. It gestures toward a mode of engaging with nature that aestheticizes or distances—perhaps treating hiking as a lifestyle marker—while missing the deeper existential lesson the environment offers. The poem’s critique is not limited to any one group; it targets a broader human tendency to abstract oneself from the very processes one is witnessing.

In its brevity, the poem achieves a stark compression: a single scene becomes a vehicle for confronting denial, dissolving perceived boundaries between human and nonhuman, and asserting a shared trajectory. The result is a piece that moves from cultural observation to existential leveling, leaving the reader with an unsettling but clarifying recognition of continuity between self and world.

Meta Description:
A philosophical poem using a forest scene to challenge human delusion about mortality and significance, collapsing distinctions between human life and natural decay.

Keywords:
The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking, mortality, nature, existentialism, decay, unity, philosophical poetry, meaning

Read More
Huxtable and Hyde (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Huxtable and Hyde (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Huxtable and Hyde,” is a compact study in self-exculpation under moral collapse, using the title’s split persona to frame a mind that toggles between social respectability and predatory impulse. The allusion evokes a dual identity—public decorum versus private transgression—suggesting that the violence here is not an aberration but something managed, narrated, and justified from within.

The opening image—“Shifting the blame to the dumpster / herself”—establishes the core mechanism: displacement of responsibility onto the victim. The grotesque phrasing is deliberate, collapsing person into refuse to show how language can degrade and thereby enable action. The intrusion of “dad tones” intensifies this dynamic. Authority is ventriloquized; the speaker borrows a disciplinary register (“nasty mess,” “fuckin shit / all over the place!”) to recast harm as disorder, and the victim as its source. This is not spontaneous anger but a scripted moral reframing.

The middle lines clarify the function of that script: it is “a method / tried-and-true to silence / that inner critic.” The poem identifies conscience as an obstacle that must be neutralized. What’s striking is the procedural language—“method,” “tried-and-true”—which treats ethical suppression as a practiced technique rather than a momentary lapse. The psyche here is organized around maintaining the ability to act without interruption.

The closing lines complete the circuit by tying this silencing to compulsion and depletion. The critic is “cockblocking the blood / for one last nut as the ludes wear thin,” linking desire, pharmacological numbing, and urgency. As the sedative fades, the need to act intensifies, and so the justificatory narrative must become more forceful. The result is a feedback loop: diminishing inhibition → heightened impulse → intensified rationalization.

Formally, the poem’s compression mirrors its theme. Each line performs a step in the process: degrade, justify, silence, act. There is no excess exposition—only the minimal language needed to show how a mind retools moral vocabulary into permission. The title’s bifurcation (“Huxtable and Hyde”) thus resolves not into two separate selves but into a single mechanism: respectability providing the rhetoric that enables transgression.

Meta Description:
A satirical poem exploring how a split persona uses authority and language to displace blame, silence conscience, and enable compulsive behavior.

Keywords:
Huxtable and Hyde, dual identity, self-justification, moral psychology, blame shifting, addiction, satire, poetic analysis

Read More
Victimhood Privilege (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Victimhood Privilege (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Victimhood Privilege,” is a tightly compressed satire of a perceived contradiction in contemporary cultural discourse: groups that possess significant institutional amplification and cultural prestige yet continue to assert a narrative of marginalization. The poem’s central move is not to deny that marginalization can exist, but to highlight how privilege—particularly of the Hollywood and state-adjacent variety—can be used to sustain and circulate claims of victimhood. The title itself names this inversion: victimhood functioning as a form of capital rather than a condition of exclusion.

The opening phrase—“The lie of marginalization”—immediately establishes the poem’s polemical stance. This is not framed as exaggeration but as contradiction. The phrase “grant-cycle renewed” anchors that contradiction in material processes: funding structures, institutional incentives, and cycles of recognition that reward the continued assertion of grievance. The metaphor of roots growing “even deeper” suggests entrenchment, a system in which the narrative is not only preserved but strengthened by the very mechanisms that ostensibly exist to remedy marginalization.

The middle lines shift to imagery of elite cultural validation. “Disney fanfare” and “velvet-rope indulgence” evoke spectacle, access, and exclusivity—conditions that signal inclusion at the highest levels. These are juxtaposed with “tearful Oscar speeches,” where suffering is publicly performed and affirmed. The poem suggests that such performances do not merely reflect hardship but translate it into prestige, circulating it within a closed loop of recognition that reinforces the narrative regardless of external indicators of success or influence.

The repetition of “brave” becomes the poem’s linguistic fulcrum. Detached from concrete acts of risk or resistance, the term functions as an automatic accolade, a kind of ritualized affirmation. The closing image—invoking Neem Karoli Baba—depends on a specific cultural reference: a figure reputed (in accounts associated with Ram Dass) to remain unaffected even under extreme psychedelic exposure. Against that backdrop, the joke sharpens. It is not that an ascetic would easily be overwhelmed, but the opposite: even someone famously impervious to powerful intoxicants would be “floored” by the sheer saturation of empty praise—and at that, via something as trivial as a light-beer drinking game. The humor underscores the critique: language has been so overused that its cumulative effect exceeds substances far stronger than itself.

What emerges is a portrait of a cultural economy in which power and victimhood are not opposites but can operate in tandem. The poem’s force lies in exposing how platforms of influence can be used to perpetuate a narrative of exclusion, creating a form of insulation from contradiction. The satire does not resolve this tension; it sharpens it, leaving the reader to confront the uneasy coexistence of visibility, reward, and claims of marginalization.

Meta Description:
A satirical poem critiquing how institutional and cultural privilege can reinforce narratives of marginalization, highlighting the overuse of moral language and its diminishing meaning.

Keywords:
Victimhood Privilege, satire, marginalization, cultural critique, performative language, Hollywood, institutional power, Neem Karoli Baba, Ram Dass, poetic analysis

Read More
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy,” is a deliberately jarring study in resentment, fixation, and the collapse of desire into degradation. It takes what might begin as longing or frustration and drives it into a grotesque extreme, where the beloved figure is no longer desired as a person but reduced to an object of violated fantasy.

The opening phrase—“Vengeful blueballs curdled”—sets the emotional chemistry. Desire has not merely been denied; it has spoiled. The metaphor of curdling suggests stagnation over time, something once fluid and vital turning thick, sour, and unusable. The reference to “months of shovel-centric HITT” is both literal and symbolic: the speaker has been engaged in repetitive, physically intense labor, but that labor is also preparation—digging, building toward an eventual act. The body is disciplined, but the discipline feeds obsession rather than dissipating it.

The central action—digging up a casket—marks a decisive turn from frustrated desire to possession beyond consent, beyond life itself. The mechanical detail—“hex key clacking,” “vacuum hiss”—is crucial. It strips the moment of romance and replaces it with procedural coldness. The speaker becomes less a lover than a technician. This is where the poem’s title comes into play: invoking Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy—figures associated with intimate, dialogic romance (e.g., the Before trilogy)—creates a sharp contrast. What those films represent (mutual recognition, time, conversation) is inverted here into isolation, silence, and unilateral action.

The transformation “from laborer to jackhammer” intensifies this mechanization. The speaker’s identity shifts from someone exerting effort to someone embodying force—rhythmic, blunt, destructive. The metaphor collapses human and tool, suggesting that obsession has hollowed out subjectivity, leaving only function.

The final lines deliver the poem’s most disturbing move: the reduction of the woman to “a sour slurry of asking for it.” This phrase fuses misogyny, decay, and rationalization. “Asking for it” is a familiar trope of blame-shifting; here, it is grotesquely extended to a state where agency is impossible. The body is no longer a person but a substance—“slurry”—further emphasizing the erasure of individuality and the speaker’s complete dominance over the narrative.

What the poem ultimately exposes is the logic of resentment pushed past its limits. Desire, when combined with entitlement and prolonged frustration, mutates into something that no longer seeks connection but seeks to obliterate the distinction between self and other. The beloved is not just possessed but degraded, rewritten as complicit in her own violation.

The title’s ironic invocation of romantic cinema underscores the distance between idealized intimacy and pathological fixation. Where those films hinge on dialogue and mutual unfolding, this poem presents a closed circuit: a single consciousness amplifying itself until it no longer needs a living counterpart at all.

Meta Description:
A disturbing poem exploring how frustrated desire can curdle into obsession, mechanization, and dehumanization, contrasting romantic ideals with pathological fixation.

Keywords:
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, obsession, resentment, dehumanization, desire, fixation, grotesque imagery, poetic analysis

Read More
Loving Ourselves Without Denial (ROUND 2)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Loving Ourselves Without Denial (ROUND 2)

This poem, “Loving Ourselves Without Denial,” is a meditation on self-regard grounded not in idealization but in the recognition of degraded, involuntary persistence. Its central image—a boxer unconscious on the mat yet still “ticking out vestigial bobs and weaves”—reorients the idea of love away from admiration of excellence and toward an acceptance of the body’s stubborn, often undignified continuance. The title’s injunction “without denial” is thus literalized: what is to be loved is not the perfected self, but the compromised organism that continues to act even when agency has collapsed.

The opening blessing—“Blessed be that nervous-system circuitry”—sets the philosophical tone. The object of reverence is not the conscious will, nor the victorious athlete, but the underlying mechanism that keeps motion going in the absence of intention. The boxer is “flatlined,” effectively removed from the sphere of deliberative control, yet his body persists in enacting the gestures of the sport. These movements are “vestigial,” remnants of training that survive the loss of awareness. The poem therefore distinguishes sharply between cortical intention and subcortical persistence, suggesting that much of what we take to be action is in fact residual programming.

The extended similes complicate this persistence by rendering it grotesque, comic, and tender all at once. The unconscious fighter is likened to an “obese bridesmaid” awkwardly rehearsing choreography at the edge of a dance floor, to a “whimpering dog in dream-conflict,” and to a jazz guitarist submerged in a stream. Each comparison strips away heroic framing. The boxer is no longer a figure of disciplined masculinity but a body caught in compromised motion—out of place, half-coordinated, driven by patterns that no longer match the present situation. Yet these images also humanize him. They place his movements within a broader spectrum of embodied life: rehearsal, dreaming, improvisation.

The poem’s language of degradation—“degraded combos,” “piss-ass digs, low blows”—is crucial. It resists any attempt to aestheticize the scene into pure beauty or transcendence. What persists is not excellence but its diminished echo. And yet, the poem insists that this is precisely what merits blessing. The nervous system continues to “work the body,” even if poorly, even if inappropriately. This persistence is not rational; it is structural.

The final lines introduce a key conceptual frame: the “liminal seam… between rehearsal and showtime.” The boxer’s movements occur in a threshold state, where the distinction between practice and performance collapses. Without consciousness to situate the action, the body continues as if still engaged in the fight, even though the fight, in any meaningful sense, is over. The phrase “cortical current / bleeding enough into jaw and tongue” suggests a minimal residual connection between higher and lower systems—just enough to produce “stupid gurning,” a final, involuntary expression.

What emerges is a vision of the self as layered and partially autonomous. The poem rejects the idea that selfhood is identical with conscious control. Instead, it locates something worthy of love in the continuity of embodied pattern, even when that pattern is maladaptive or absurd. To love oneself “without denial” is to accept not only one’s intentions and achievements but also these residual, often embarrassing forms of persistence.

In this way, the poem offers a corrective to more aspirational models of self-love. It does not ask the reader to affirm their best self, but to extend compassion to the parts that continue mechanically, imperfectly, beyond the reach of will. The boxer’s unconscious motions become emblematic of a broader human condition: we are, in significant measure, carried by circuits we did not choose, repeating forms we only partially understand. The poem’s blessing is directed precisely at that condition.

Meta Description:
A philosophical poem exploring self-love through involuntary bodily persistence, depicting an unconscious boxer whose residual movements reveal the limits of conscious control.

Keywords:
Loving Ourselves Without Denial, self-love, embodiment, unconscious action, nervous system, persistence, philosophy of self, poetic analysis

Read More
Loving Ourselves Without Denial (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Loving Ourselves Without Denial (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Loving Ourselves Without Denial,” is a meditation on self-regard grounded not in idealization but in the recognition of degraded, involuntary persistence. Its central image—a boxer unconscious on the mat yet still “ticking out vestigial bobs and weaves”—reorients the idea of love away from admiration of excellence and toward an acceptance of the body’s stubborn, often undignified continuance. The title’s injunction “without denial” is thus literalized: what is to be loved is not the perfected self, but the compromised organism that continues to act even when agency has collapsed.

The opening blessing—“Blessed be that nervous-system circuitry”—sets the philosophical tone. The object of reverence is not the conscious will, nor the victorious athlete, but the underlying mechanism that keeps motion going in the absence of intention. The boxer is “flatlined,” effectively removed from the sphere of deliberative control, yet his body persists in enacting the gestures of the sport. These movements are “vestigial,” remnants of training that survive the loss of awareness. The poem therefore distinguishes sharply between cortical intention and subcortical persistence, suggesting that much of what we take to be action is in fact residual programming.

The extended similes complicate this persistence by rendering it grotesque, comic, and tender all at once. The unconscious fighter is likened to an “obese bridesmaid” awkwardly rehearsing choreography at the edge of a dance floor, to a “whimpering dog in dream-conflict,” and to a jazz guitarist submerged in a stream. Each comparison strips away heroic framing. The boxer is no longer a figure of disciplined masculinity but a body caught in compromised motion—out of place, half-coordinated, driven by patterns that no longer match the present situation. Yet these images also humanize him. They place his movements within a broader spectrum of embodied life: rehearsal, dreaming, improvisation.

The poem’s language of degradation—“degraded combos,” “piss-ass digs, low blows”—is crucial. It resists any attempt to aestheticize the scene into pure beauty or transcendence. What persists is not excellence but its diminished echo. And yet, the poem insists that this is precisely what merits blessing. The nervous system continues to “work the body,” even if poorly, even if inappropriately. This persistence is not rational; it is structural.

The final lines introduce a key conceptual frame: the “liminal seam… between rehearsal and showtime.” The boxer’s movements occur in a threshold state, where the distinction between practice and performance collapses. Without consciousness to situate the action, the body continues as if still engaged in the fight, even though the fight, in any meaningful sense, is over. The phrase “cortical current / bleeding enough into jaw and tongue” suggests a minimal residual connection between higher and lower systems—just enough to produce “stupid gurning,” a final, involuntary expression.

What emerges is a vision of the self as layered and partially autonomous. The poem rejects the idea that selfhood is identical with conscious control. Instead, it locates something worthy of love in the continuity of embodied pattern, even when that pattern is maladaptive or absurd. To love oneself “without denial” is to accept not only one’s intentions and achievements but also these residual, often embarrassing forms of persistence.

In this way, the poem offers a corrective to more aspirational models of self-love. It does not ask the reader to affirm their best self, but to extend compassion to the parts that continue mechanically, imperfectly, beyond the reach of will. The boxer’s unconscious motions become emblematic of a broader human condition: we are, in significant measure, carried by circuits we did not choose, repeating forms we only partially understand. The poem’s blessing is directed precisely at that condition.

Meta Description:
A philosophical poem exploring self-love through involuntary bodily persistence, depicting an unconscious boxer whose residual movements reveal the limits of conscious control.

Keywords:
Loving Ourselves Without Denial, self-love, embodiment, unconscious action, nervous system, persistence, philosophy of self, poetic analysis

Read More
Dying Light 2: Stay Human (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Dying Light 2: Stay Human (ROUND 1)

This poem, “Dying Light 2: Stay Human,” is a confrontational meditation on shifting moral codes, sexual norms, and the uneasy relationship between past brutality and present decadence. Its method is comparative shock: it juxtaposes a figure emblematic of overt historical evil—the Klansman—with a contemporary landscape of commodified sexuality and altered beauty, forcing the reader to confront not equivalence but disorientation.

The opening move is deliberately destabilizing. By asserting that “yesterday’s Klansman would have made / an honest lady of any black girl,” the poem does not redeem or soften the figure but reframes him within a different moral register: one governed by rigid, if abhorrent, codes of honor, hierarchy, and sexual conduct. The phrasing is jarring because it overlays an image of care or responsibility (“made an honest lady,” “piggybacking”) onto a figure otherwise associated with violence and dehumanization. This tension is the point. The poem forces the reader to reckon with the possibility that even within monstrous systems, certain behavioral constraints existed—constraints that may no longer operate in the same way.

The middle lines extend this reframing through grotesque historical imagery—“gator bait babies”—that recalls the brutality and objectification of Black bodies in the past. Yet even here, the poem insists on a kind of boundary: “before / putting his cock anywhere near” the contemporary figure described in the final lines. The implication is not moral rehabilitation but contrast. The past is presented as violently oppressive yet structured; the present, by contrast, is depicted as unmoored, driven by different forms of distortion.

The final image—“today’s Kardashian trout face: / zombie-eyed polymer calibrated / for friction, not fidelity”—shifts the poem’s target to contemporary aesthetics and sexual culture. The language is mechanistic and dehumanizing. Faces are “polymer,” eyes are “zombie,” and the body is “calibrated” like a device. This is a world in which human features have been reshaped into synthetic surfaces optimized for use rather than relationship. The phrase “for friction, not fidelity” crystallizes the poem’s critique: intimacy has been replaced by function, commitment by sensation.

The title, “Dying Light 2: Stay Human,” frames the entire piece as a commentary on degeneration. The “dying light” suggests a fading of something—perhaps moral coherence, perhaps human authenticity—while “Stay Human” reads as both instruction and irony. The poem questions whether humanity, understood as a balance of restraint, recognition, and relational depth, can persist under current conditions.

What emerges is not a simple argument that the past was better than the present. Rather, the poem exposes a paradox: a movement from overt, codified cruelty to a more diffuse, technologized, and aestheticized form of dehumanization. The shock lies in the comparison itself. By forcing these two modes into the same frame, the poem destabilizes easy narratives of progress and invites the reader to consider what has been lost even as certain forms of injustice have been challenged.

In its brevity, the poem operates as provocation rather than resolution. It leaves open the question of what it would mean, in such a landscape, to “stay human,” suggesting that the answer cannot be found in either past structures or present freedoms alone.

Meta Description:
A provocative poem contrasting historical brutality with modern synthetic aesthetics, exploring shifting moral codes, dehumanization, and the challenge of remaining human.

Keywords:
Dying Light 2 Stay Human, satire, moral comparison, historical vs modern, dehumanization, beauty standards, sexual culture, social critique, poetic analysis

Read More

blog

FAQ

Visit my Substack: Hive Being

Visit my Substack: Hive Being


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

in how many dreams might you
have appeared last night—
all those met along the way?