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

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 80)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

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

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 79)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

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

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 78)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

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

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 77)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 77)

This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 77) continues the mosaic’s method of assembling aphoristic shards into a portrait of modern consciousness under pressure. The lines do not build a single argument so much as accumulate around recurring tensions: agency and dependence, memory and self-mythology, labor and waste, reverence and moral revolt. The result is a philosophical field in which private anguish, cultural memory, bodily discipline, erotic risk, and theological judgment coexist without hierarchy.

One of the strongest currents in this section is the question of what kind of being one is in relation to one’s own life. The opening line—“are you the root that finds the water or the leaf that catches the light?”—immediately frames existence in terms of receptivity, function, and positional difference. The self may be active seeker or passive receiver, hidden sustainer or visible surface. That question quietly governs much of what follows. Some lines imagine people straining toward mastery—lifting weights, trying to out-train a bad diet, racing home to intervene in catastrophe—while others emphasize how much is already determined by context, by panic, by the structure of one’s relationships, by the body’s limits, or by the slow erasures of disease.

The piece is especially interested in the instability of memory and the ethics of repetition. “By repeating it, are you preserving the memory of your tragedy or laundering it?” is one of the fragment’s central questions. It captures the suspicion that narration can both honor and sanitize, that the act of keeping something alive through language may also make it cleaner, more presentable, less true to its original violence. This concern echoes in the line about nostalgia for a moment in which one was already nostalgic for another moment. Memory becomes recursive, layered, and increasingly detached from the original lived experience. The self risks inhabiting not the past, but past versions of its own retrospective feelings about the past.

Another significant thread is the relation between worthwhile care and disguised cruelty. The line about “helping / the senile unscramble memories for an afternoon” is especially subtle. It asks whether the helper’s sense of doing good may coexist with a more troubling pleasure or imposition. That ambiguity runs through other lines as well: opening up one’s pitiableness only to someone who cannot judge; being paired from the start with someone already inclined to leave; taking each other’s medicines; wasting a day off in dread of work. Human care is repeatedly shown as compromised by need, asymmetry, projection, and fatigue. Yet the fragment never reduces such acts to bad faith. It simply refuses to let them remain innocent.

The section’s treatment of worship and divinity forms its clearest argumentative cluster. The last four aphorisms are variations on a single moral interrogation: could a being who demands reassurance, punishes disbelief amid evidential scarcity, or values doctrinal belief above the suffering of innocents ever be worthy of worship? These lines are powerful because they relocate the question of God from metaphysics to moral psychology. The issue is not whether such a being exists, but whether, if such a being existed, reverence would be fitting. The fragment thus turns traditional piety inside out. Worship is no longer assumed as the proper response to power; it must be ethically earned. This line of thought is prepared earlier by the claim that a being who created us for worship would already be suspect. Reverence is subjected to the same scrutiny as all the fragment’s other human arrangements.

Elsewhere, the poem continues its characteristic mingling of the abject, the comic, and the historically grave. A subway performer booed to tears, children sketching bomb damage, poetry in the pocket of an SS soldier, a Chaucer scholar who is also a serial rapist—these juxtapositions expose the instability of moral categories and the insufficiency of cultural polish. Refinement, talent, scholarship, and sentiment do not protect against cruelty. Likewise, brutality does not erase the strange presence of beauty, memory, or aspiration. The fragment persistently resists clean separation between civilization and barbarism.

The lines about risky behavior in a “zoo of cut-off domestication” offer another key insight. Affairs, gambling, and other self-endangering acts are presented less as deviance than as attempts to generate intensity inside an overcontained life. This links the fragment’s erotic, occupational, and existential themes. The wasted workday, the desire to write great verse, the front-yard weightlifting, the remembered VCR cart of substitute-teacher reprieve—all point to a life oscillating between routine and the desperate need to puncture routine. Risk becomes one of the last available solvents of deadened time.

What unifies the fragment, then, is not topic but pressure. Every line asks, in one form or another, whether our repetitions, attachments, and ideals are preserving life or laundering it; whether our efforts are forms of agency or symptoms of entrapment; whether the beings and systems we serve are worthy of that service. In that sense, part 77 is among the more overtly philosophical sections of the sequence. It does not merely register the textures of modern life; it subjects them to judgment.

Meta Description:
This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 77) examines agency, memory, labor, risky behavior, and the moral conditions of worship through a mosaic of aphoristic reflections.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, aphoristic poetry, memory and repetition, agency, worship, moral philosophy, nostalgia, labor, risky behavior, existential reflection

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 76)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 76)

This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 76) continues the mosaic’s method of assembling aphoristic shards into a portrait of modern consciousness under pressure. The lines do not build a single argument so much as accumulate around recurring tensions: desire and misrecognition, intimacy and substitution, skepticism and residual belief, mortality and the small rituals by which we avoid confronting it. The effect is that of a mind moving quickly across registers—philosophical, social, psychological—without fully settling into any one frame.

One of the strongest currents in this section is the instability of desire, especially the tendency to mistake general hunger for particular destiny. The line distinguishing obsession with intimacy from obsession with “that one particular woman” is central. It reframes romantic fixation as misattribution, a projection that grants uniqueness to what may in fact be interchangeable. This destabilization echoes in the dinner-party scene, where what once felt like singular connection—shared “factoids,” private charm—is revealed as reproducible performance. The recognition is not merely social but epistemic: what one took to be meaningful may have been generic all along.

The text also develops a persistent tension between skepticism and lingering belief. Dismissing astrology does not entail dismissing cosmic influence; fearing AI does not preclude a strange parental investment in it. These juxtapositions suggest that modern consciousness does not operate through clean binaries but through layered, often contradictory commitments. One may reject a system intellectually while still inhabiting its intuitions at an affective level.

Moments of mortality and absurdity puncture human self-importance throughout. Children mocking a corpse, collectors cremated with their art, the “career move” of dying young—each instance exposes the fragility of the narratives through which people secure meaning. Yet the piece resists pure cynicism. The observation that early awareness of loneliness may open the possibility of deeper companionship indicates a parallel movement toward revaluation rather than simple negation.

Language and communication emerge as quieter but significant concerns. The suggestion that nuanced language requires an audience capable of receiving it points to a broader condition of fragmentation: expressive capacity persists, but shared frameworks for interpretation erode. In such a context, even refined thought risks collapsing into inarticulacy—reduced, as the text puts it, to “humans screaming wordless sounds.”

The final lines return to the problem of self-awareness without transformation. Recognizing one’s own patterns—obsession, deferral, performative apology—does not dissolve them. Instead, awareness becomes folded into the cycle itself, as when apology serves not to end desire but to rekindle it. The result is a portrait of consciousness that is lucid yet entrapped: capable of diagnosing its own conditions while remaining bound to them.

Meta Description:
This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 76) examines deferred desire, misrecognized intimacy, and the paradox of self-awareness that fails to produce change.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, desire, intimacy, misrecognition, self-awareness, modern consciousness, aphorisms, existential reflection

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 74)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 74)

This installment continues the mosaic’s accumulation of fragments, but here the governing pressure feels even more explicitly epistemic: how do we know what we know, and what forces—biological, social, technological—shape what we take to be true, good, or real? The poem moves restlessly between registers—ecological, domestic, philosophical, conspiratorial—yet the throughline is a mind trying to orient itself amid competing scripts, inherited instincts, and mediated realities.

The opening line about retreating sea ice immediately establishes a cold, almost brutal lens: even catastrophe can be reframed as “selection,” trimming the weak. That tone of ruthless reframing echoes throughout. Personal habits (“tossing and turning over mishaps long dead,” returning to exes for transitional comfort) sit alongside broader critiques of self-curation—especially the line about “curating confirmation from social media followers,” which captures a culture in which validation is no longer internal but algorithmically echoed back. The “black mirror” becomes both literal screen and symbolic scrying device: a modern oracle that reflects not truth but compulsive self-checking.

One of the most striking passages concerns the “nurturer” who, aware of both primal human needs (“apes / crave tribal nods”) and the impossibility of any voice escaping echo, nonetheless adopts “prefab scripts.” This is one of the poem’s central tensions: even when we recognize the artificiality of our narratives—religious, ideological, therapeutic—we still rely on them. The phrase “prōtē archē” (first principle) suggests a lost or abandoned attempt to ground meaning anew, replaced instead by inherited or mass-produced frameworks.

The poem repeatedly returns to perspectival limitation. “Tell it slant” is not merely an allusion but a thesis: that distortion is unavoidable when perspectives diverge so radically. This is reinforced by questions about instinct (“Throw stones at the sunning snake” vs. “Feel ashamed for such cruelty”), suggesting that even moral intuitions may be layered—older impulses coexisting with newer ethical overlays. The self becomes less a unified agent than a crossroads of competing inheritances.

Several lines probe institutional and social contradictions. The mention of power differentials in delayed romantic pursuit satirizes retroactive ethical framing. The question about holding Jews to a higher standard exposes tensions in identity-based moral reasoning. The jab at activist groups “manufacturing” threats to sustain relevance reflects skepticism toward institutional incentives. Whether one agrees with these claims is secondary to their function in the poem: they are part of a larger pattern of distrust toward systems that claim moral authority while operating within economies of attention, funding, and influence.

Technology and mediation continue to loom large. Social media not only curates identity but also destabilizes authenticity—posts meant to signal happiness instead invite suspicion. The speculative fear that even “mistypes on Microsoft Word” could be policed extends this anxiety into the future, where expression itself becomes surveilled and punishable. This aligns with earlier concerns about artists and instructors facing consequences for their work, suggesting a culture increasingly intolerant of deviation.

Amid these critiques, there are also quieter, almost elegiac gestures. The idea of “diagramming how the stars will look / to a later age” evokes a human desire to project meaning forward, to leave a trace that outlives the present. Similarly, the notion that virtuosity still exists beneath the “monocrop of pop art” offers a fragile counterweight to the poem’s otherwise corrosive tone: a belief that depth and excellence persist, even if obscured.

The closing image—sea leopards battling through threat displays rather than actual violence—serves as a kind of biological mirror to human behavior. Much of what appears as conflict may be ritualized signaling, a choreography of intimidation rather than destruction. This resonates with earlier lines about social posturing, ideological signaling, and even gang-like dynamics. Across species, the poem suggests, survival often depends less on truth or substance than on performance.

Taken together, this section deepens the mosaic’s portrait of a consciousness navigating fragmentation. It is a world where instincts, scripts, technologies, and institutions all compete to define reality; where sincerity is suspect, performance is unavoidable, and meaning is both constructed and doubted in the same breath.

Meta Description:
A fragmentary, philosophical mosaic poem exploring perception, social media, instinct, and modern identity through sharp, provocative observations on culture, belief, and mediated reality.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, modern consciousness, social media critique, epistemology, identity and perspective, cultural satire, philosophy in poetry, technological mediation, fragmented thought, contemporary society

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 73)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 73)

This installment continues the mosaic’s method of assembling jagged fragments of thought, image, and aphorism into a kind of psychic cross-section of contemporary life—where the sacred, the trivial, the grotesque, and the philosophical all collide without hierarchy. The opening image—bodily, abject, almost comic in its precision—immediately grounds the piece in material reality, but that grounding is unstable. From there, the poem oscillates between existential dread (“scared enough that your hands have no home”), darkly pragmatic inventories of escape (“gun, rope, brick, river”), and meditations on belief, illusion, and the persistence of narrative in human life.

A key thread running through the sequence is the tension between belief and absurdity. The lines about sightings of Tupac Shakur and Elvis Presley serve not merely as cultural curiosities but as epistemological probes: if people still stake reputations on such claims, perhaps it becomes easier to understand how early followers could have believed in postmortem appearances of figures like Jesus Christ. The poem repeatedly returns to this question of how conviction forms—not as a rational endpoint, but as something entangled with longing, fear, and the need for coherence.

That need for coherence also appears in quieter, more intimate registers. The comfort of hearing footsteps in the apartment above, the melancholy stirred by old sitcom themes, or the strange reassurance of shared inconvenience (“no cellphone reception”) all suggest that meaning is often less about truth than about the alleviation of isolation. Even the line “I just stopped loving him”—acknowledged as explanatorily empty—captures how certain phrases function as emotional closures rather than logical accounts.

Addiction and compulsion form another axis. The need to ingest a drug “to give order to this day,” the delusional hope embedded in improvised substances, and the feedback loop of expectation and dopamine all point to a mind seeking structure in chemical or ritual form. This connects to broader reflections on repetition: life as “macro-mantra chant,” identity dissolving under routine, and the human tendency to replace reality with plans or narratives that feel more palatable.

Social critique surfaces in flashes rather than sustained argument. The contrast between Whole Foods and Walmart gestures toward class signaling and moral posturing, while lines about selective adherence to divine mandates expose the inconsistency in professed belief systems. Similarly, the observation that people only feel they are having a good time after consulting social media highlights a mediated self-awareness that undermines immediacy.

The closing images—spatial displacements like the 50-yard line at midnight or a classroom during prom hours—create a sense of estrangement from familiar environments, as though meaning itself has slipped out of alignment. This estrangement is echoed in the cosmic note about light pollution severing us from the stars, a metaphor for the broader theme: a species cut off from larger contexts, improvising meaning from fragments, rituals, and echoes.

What emerges from the sequence is not a single argument but a field of tensions: belief and doubt, isolation and connection, ritual and randomness, body and abstraction. The poem’s refusal to order these fragments into a hierarchy is itself the point. It mirrors a consciousness navigating overload—where insight, absurdity, and despair coexist without resolution, and where meaning is something we continually construct, even as we suspect its fragility.

Meta Description:
A fragmented, philosophical mosaic poem exploring belief, addiction, isolation, and modern consciousness through sharp aphorisms and cultural references, blending existential insight with social critique.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, existential themes, belief and illusion, addiction, modern consciousness, fragmented narrative, social critique, philosophy in poetry, isolation and connection, cultural references

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 72)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 72)

This stanza from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 72) continues the mosaic method that defines the larger project: a sequence of compressed observations, each functioning like a shard of cultural memory, social critique, or psychological insight. Rather than building a single narrative, the poem accumulates fragments that together sketch the texture of contemporary consciousness. The effect is cumulative. Each line feels like something overheard, remembered, researched, or realized in passing, and the meaning of the piece emerges from the pressure created by their juxtaposition.

One of the most noticeable features of this section is its movement between the trivial and the grave without warning. Lines such as “boomboxes known to eat tapes” or “labs stationed within Euro clubs to test the authenticity of ecstasy” sit beside reflections on addiction, race, censorship, and existential fatigue. This oscillation is not random. It reproduces the way modern awareness is structured: the mind moves constantly between nostalgia, political discourse, private trauma, and stray cultural facts, with no stable hierarchy telling us what matters most. The mosaic form captures a psyche shaped by information overload, where childhood memories, academic jargon, street knowledge, and moral anxiety all occupy the same mental space.

Addiction and compulsion form one of the recurring undercurrents in the stanza. Lines like “always stopping the use of the drug, but never the starting again,” “helplessness: gasoline for addiction,” and “an addict’s radar…sometimes spots a closeted dealer” describe addiction not simply as a chemical dependency but as a pattern of perception and expectation. The addict’s world becomes structured around the possibility of relapse, so that even when clean, the person remains oriented toward the drug. This theme connects to broader ideas in the stanza about habit, conditioning, and the difficulty of escaping what has shaped us.

Another cluster of lines reflects on how social language attempts to explain inequality and conflict. The line “over-policed because under-resourced—not because of toxic cultural attitudes” gestures toward contemporary debates in sociology and politics, where competing explanations for social problems carry moral weight. The stanza does not resolve the debate; instead, it shows how such formulations circulate as slogans or frameworks that people repeat, revise, or resist. A similar tension appears in the long line about whether to ask for forgiveness when accused of racism. The statement exposes a double bind in which either response can be interpreted as wrong, illustrating how moral discourse can trap individuals in situations where no action feels legitimate.

The poem also returns repeatedly to the theme of desensitization—how people grow accustomed to conditions that once would have seemed intolerable. The line about being soothed by “the tailpipe fumes of our unregulated youth” suggests nostalgia for experiences that were objectively harmful, raising the question of what else humans might learn to love simply because they grew up with it. This connects to the later reflection that speediness helps us avoid “the queasy questions.” Constant motion, distraction, and productivity become defenses against confronting the fragility or absurdity of life.

Technology and mediation appear as another thread. References to AI, web searches mapping the psyche, and television doctors teaching real doctors how to behave all point to a world in which experience is increasingly filtered through systems of representation. The line about interacting with AI until our inner worlds seem less special suggests a fear that human uniqueness may erode once machines can imitate thought and emotion. In the same spirit, the mention of a future academic field like “Wigger Studies” satirizes the way institutions catalog and professionalize every cultural phenomenon, turning lived realities into objects of specialization.

Several lines also explore the instability of identity and self-perception. The girl who would disagree with herself if you agreed with her too much, the clean addict whose “side personality” gets smashed, the artist trapped by critics who define them as the hottest thing—all point to the idea that the self is shaped by reaction, by context, by how others see us. Even resilience becomes suspect in this framework, as the poem wonders whether knowing we can recover from pain might make us more willing to risk new damage.

What holds the stanza together is not a single topic but a shared mood: a mixture of irony, fatigue, curiosity, and unease. The voice moves through cultural observations, moral puzzles, and personal recollections with the same dry clarity, refusing to decide which ones deserve more seriousness. This neutrality gives the poem its distinctive tone. Instead of preaching, it records. Instead of resolving contradictions, it places them side by side and lets their tension stand.

Within the larger mosaic poem, this section functions as another layer in a long attempt to map the contemporary mind—its habits, its slogans, its addictions, its defenses, and its moments of insight. The fragmentary form suggests that no single story can capture such a mind. Only a collage of perceptions, each incomplete on its own, can approach the complexity of living in a world saturated with memory, media, and self-awareness.

Meta description:
Scholarly summary of Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 72), analyzing its mosaic structure, themes of addiction, social discourse, desensitization, technology, and modern consciousness.

Keywords:
mosaic poem, contemporary consciousness, addiction theme, cultural fragments, social critique poetry, AI and identity, desensitization, modern psyche, fragmentary form, Made for You and Me analysis

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 71)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 71)

This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 71) continues the mosaic method that defines the larger sequence, presenting a chain of brief, aphoristic observations that move rapidly across addiction, technology, religion, loneliness, identity politics, and mortality. As in earlier parts of the project, the stanzas do not build a linear argument. Instead, they accumulate pressure through juxtaposition, allowing recurring themes—especially dependency, displacement, and the search for meaning—to echo across otherwise unrelated scenes.

Several of the early lines focus on addiction as both escape and structure. The idea of seeking out abuse to distract from loneliness establishes a pattern that recurs throughout the fragment: destructive behavior is not portrayed as irrational chaos but as a strategy, however tragic, for managing emptiness. This logic appears again in the image of smoking the money meant for the bus to rehab, where the very act intended to enable recovery is consumed by the addiction it was meant to overcome. The line about dying just before a great leap in life extension adds a cosmic scale to the same theme, suggesting that human existence itself can feel like missing salvation by a fraction of time.

Domestic and suburban images appear alongside these darker reflections, creating contrast rather than relief. Soft-lit living rooms glimpsed from the street and homes filled with wilted plants evoke a quiet eeriness, a sense that ordinary stability can conceal stagnation or emotional decay. The poem repeatedly returns to interiors—rooms, houses, private spaces—as places where longing, disappointment, and strange realizations unfold.

One of the fragment’s recurring concerns is the tension between insight and timing. Characters come home eager to share new truths, only to find no one ready to hear them. A former crush fallen into addiction suddenly becomes approachable, but only under circumstances that distort what once felt romantic. A man realizes that the greatest gift he ever gave his daughter is simply his presence, yet this realization arrives only after years of neglect. These moments suggest that clarity often comes too late, or under conditions that make it painful rather than liberating.

The poem also engages philosophical and theological questions in the same compressed manner. The comparison between human “beer goggles” and a divine ability to experience every possible state imagines omniscience as total empathy rather than abstract knowledge. Elsewhere, the fragment questions how religious narratives could be sustained without someone breaking the silence, or how doctrines demanding moral certainty coexist with ordinary human hesitation. These lines do not resolve the questions they raise; they place them beside scenes of addiction, regret, and social pressure, implying that metaphysical speculation and daily struggle arise from the same need to make sense of experience.

Cultural and political tensions appear in similarly condensed form. The stanza about children being considered too immature for certain responsibilities yet expected to affirm complex identity decisions points to inconsistencies in how society defines agency. Other lines hint at institutional pressures, ideological conformity, or the uneasy relationship between science, industry, and belief. Because these observations appear as fragments rather than essays, they read less like arguments than like flashes of recognition.

The fragment repeatedly returns to the problem of belonging. A white man mistaken for a mannequin in Trinidad, a lover arriving too late in someone’s life, a former prisoner resolving to start over, a visitor offering forgiveness to a murderer—all of these images show people trying to find a place within social or moral worlds that do not easily accommodate them. Even tenderness appears in unlikely settings, such as the calm professionalism of guards escorting a condemned inmate, or the quiet intimacy of someone guiding a blind person’s hand while drawing.

The closing lines bring the fragment back to its central question: whether meaning comes from seeking or from being found. The final thought—whether love appears only when one is looking, depending on what counts as looking—captures the mood of the entire section. Throughout the mosaic, characters act, drift, relapse, hope, and reflect, never fully certain whether their efforts move them closer to fulfillment or simply circle the same unresolved needs.

Like the other parts of the hive Being sequence, part 71 works by letting these moments resonate against each other. Addiction echoes with religion, loneliness with ideology, domestic quiet with existential dread. The result is a portrait of contemporary life as a field of overlapping compulsions and revelations, where insight, regret, and longing continually coexist.

Meta Description:
A mosaic poem fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 71) presenting aphoristic reflections on addiction, loneliness, belief, identity, and the search for meaning through a sequence of juxtaposed observations.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, aphoristic sequence, addiction and loneliness, philosophical fragments, identity and agency, suburban imagery, religious reflection, regret and timing, contemporary culture, existential themes, hive Being poem series

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 70)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 70)

This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 70) continues the mosaic method that structures the larger project: a sequence of compressed observations, aphorisms, and miniature thought-experiments that accumulate meaning through juxtaposition rather than narrative continuity. Each stanza acts as a cell in the “hive,” a brief intellectual or experiential unit whose resonance depends on its proximity to the others. The effect is not argument in the traditional sense but a kind of cultural cross-section, where addiction, technology, sexuality, morality, and loneliness appear side by side as fragments of the same contemporary landscape.

Several of the opening lines confront addiction with stark economy. The line about using one drug “to stay awake” in order to use another simply “to stay well” captures the circular logic of dependency: substances cease to be instruments of pleasure and instead become tools for maintaining equilibrium. Addiction here appears less as indulgence than as maintenance of a fragile physiological balance. The following observation—about the recurring promise to quit “next trimester”—extends this theme into the psychology of deferred reform. The phrase evokes cycles of hope that perpetually relocate the moment of change into the near future without ever arriving there.

Trauma appears in parallel with addiction, suggesting a causal or at least adjacent relationship between suffering and chemical escape. The stark suggestion that drugs become a form of salvation for someone who has endured severe violation illustrates how the poem repeatedly frames substances not merely as destructive forces but as desperate coping mechanisms within intolerable circumstances. This moral ambiguity is typical of the mosaic’s method: it resists clear judgment while forcing readers to confront the conditions that make destructive choices understandable.

The poem then pivots outward to cultural observation. The image of a Tibetan monastery transformed by tourism and erotic spectacle illustrates how globalization and commodification can alter spiritual spaces. The juxtaposition of sacred institutions with sexual curiosity is not simply comic; it suggests the erosion of traditional boundaries when previously isolated cultures become global attractions. Similarly, the stanza about “the grass is greener approach” critiques a contemporary ethos of perpetual comparison and restlessness. In a world structured by fear of missing out, the discipline required to cultivate satisfaction with one’s present circumstances becomes increasingly difficult.

Technological change enters through the line about investing in one’s “interest” rather than merely in wealth. The stanza frames this shift as pragmatic advice in an era shaped by automation and artificial intelligence. If technological systems increasingly outperform humans in routine tasks, then personal passion may become the only reliable basis for meaningful work. The poem thus connects economic transformation with existential stakes: without authentic engagement, individuals risk being displaced both materially and psychologically.

Several fragments examine moral reasoning, particularly where religious or ideological commitments clash with intuitive ethical judgments. The stanza questioning divine commands to slaughter enemy infants highlights a classic philosophical problem: whether moral goodness is independent of divine decree. Similarly, the observation that belief in a deity capable of infinite punishment might be motivated by fear rather than reverence exposes the pragmatic dimension of religious obedience. These moments align the mosaic with long traditions of skeptical philosophy that interrogate the moral consequences of theological systems.

Political critique also emerges through compressed analogies. The line linking the slogan “no one is illegal on stolen land” to the dissolution of private property boundaries extends an argument about logical consistency: if territorial claims are illegitimate at the national scale, the same reasoning might apply at smaller scales as well. The mosaic form allows such arguments to appear briefly without extended defense, inviting readers to supply the reasoning themselves.

Interwoven with these larger reflections are intimate glimpses of ordinary vulnerability. Social media comparisons produce feelings of inferiority; a neighbor’s moan sparks curiosity; a person discovers that “before shots” in transformation narratives may actually depict the aftermath of decline. The closing image—melanoma spots growing unnoticed because no one is present to check a person’s back—distills the fragment’s recurring theme of isolation. Physical health, emotional wellbeing, and moral orientation all depend on relationships capable of noticing what we cannot see ourselves.

Taken together, part 70 illustrates how the mosaic structure allows disparate subjects—addiction, globalization, religious ethics, technological change, loneliness—to coexist within a single conceptual field. The fragments form a kind of intellectual ecosystem in which personal suffering, cultural trends, and philosophical questions continually intersect. Rather than offering resolution, the poem invites readers to move among these fragments and perceive the patterns that emerge from their collisions.

Meta Description:
A mosaic poem fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 70) exploring addiction, trauma, globalization, technological change, religious ethics, and loneliness through a series of compressed aphoristic observations.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, aphoristic form, addiction cycles, trauma and coping, globalization and spirituality, AI and work, religious ethics, cultural critique, social media comparison, loneliness and health, philosophical fragments

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 69)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 69)

This fragment from Made for You and Me 2: hive Being (2017—part 69) continues the mosaic method by presenting aphoristic shards that oscillate between cultural critique, self-implication, provocation, and bleak humor. As with other portions of the project, the poem functions less as linear argument than as a hive of thought-cells—each stanza a sealed chamber containing pressure, irony, and unresolved tension. Meaning accumulates not by narrative progression but by juxtaposition.

The opening line—“the film character who found the screen by which we view her”—announces a meta-awareness that recurs throughout the sequence. It gestures toward self-consciousness, toward figures who become aware of the frame that contains them. This reflexivity extends to the reader: we are invited to examine the lenses through which we interpret sexuality, power, politics, and morality. The poem persistently destabilizes the vantage point.

Several lines turn on the politics of elevation and hypocrisy. “If who we elevate reflects who we are, we are fucked” reads as both cultural despair and personal indictment. The stanza about the loudest voices chanting “no one is illegal” living in neighborhoods where housing prices enforce borders suggests a critique of symbolic radicalism insulated by material privilege. Throughout, the poem returns to a theme of moral performance versus lived reality—activism that costs little, outrage detached from proximity, rhetoric untested by embodiment.

Sexuality appears not as titillation but as anthropological evidence. The blunt evolutionary claim about “mushroom-headed penises” satirically invokes biological determinism to explain ambivalence, jealousy, and desire. The line about meeting every romantic partner in rehab compresses cycles of addiction and attachment into a single social ecosystem. “Would you still want your type if you healed?” is one of the sequence’s quieter detonations: it reframes attraction as symptom, suggesting that desire itself may be shaped by unaddressed wounds. In this way, sexuality becomes diagnostic rather than decorative.

Some fragments juxtapose brutality with bureaucratic or institutional failure. The image of someone harmed again during the very process meant to document harm condenses systemic betrayal into a single chilling moment. Likewise, “institutional gaslighting” captures a contemporary anxiety about shifting moral frameworks, where accusation and interpretation are entangled with race, power, and spectacle. The poem does not settle these tensions; it leaves them jagged.

Other lines pivot toward paradoxical redemption. “The blessing of incarceration” is deliberately counterintuitive, reframing imprisonment as the first opportunity for real conversation with parents. The statement does not romanticize confinement but exposes how, in certain contexts, constraint can create an enforced pause that ordinary life never allowed. Similarly, “thank God for the mental reprieve of a hobby’s echoes” foregrounds the small mercies that break monotony—the soreness of leg day interrupting the psychic flatness of office labor. Bodily fatigue becomes salvation, a reminder of effort and growth in a mechanized routine.

Across the fragment, a preoccupation with addiction recurs: chemical, sexual, ideological. Drugging a spouse’s smoothie, meeting lovers in rehab, thanking God for distraction—these images sketch a world where compulsion is ambient. The mosaic form mirrors this condition: one thought interrupts another the way cravings interrupt intention. The structure enacts the hive’s hum—constant, overlapping, restless.

The line “the world becomes safe when you realize you could just kill yourself” functions as existential provocation rather than instruction. It invokes a philosophical trope: the paradoxical comfort in recognizing ultimate autonomy. If existence is not compulsory, then fear loses some of its leverage. The fragment’s tonal instability—oscillating between gallows humor, indictment, and sincerity—reflects this existential edge.

Overall, part 69 exemplifies the mosaic’s method: each shard is incomplete on its own yet charged in relation to its neighbors. The poem’s ethic is neither purely condemnatory nor purely confessional. It implicates the speaker alongside the culture it critiques. Desire, ideology, cruelty, and tenderness circulate within the same hive. No fragment is allowed to stand unexamined; each is placed beside another that unsettles it.

Keywords:
mosaic poetry, aphoristic form, cultural critique, hypocrisy and privilege, addiction cycles, sexual anthropology, institutional failure, existential autonomy, ideological performance, trauma and desire, incarceration and redemption, embodiment and labor, self-reflexivity in poetry

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 68)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 68)

The 2017 segment of MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being offers a polyvocal tapestry of cultural residue, disjunctive memory, sociological critique, and neurodivergent sensibility. In this installment of the ongoing mosaic poem, the reader is plunged into a field of associative detonations—each stanza or fragment a node in a non-linear network, stitched not by narrative but by the uncanny, the unresolved, the repressed, and the culturally saturated. Formally, the text resists cohesion. It borrows from list-poem strategies, confessional fragments, comedic one-liners, sociological observation, and poetic miniatures—yet belongs fully to none. This defiance of containment reflects the thematic core: a society slipping its own cognitive threads, a hive-being struggling to make sense of itself from within the chaos of its own multiplicity.

Many of the entries in this portion serve as ethnographic snapshots, often darkly comic, of American marginality: “jailhouse Muslim: a Muslim to avoid joining a gang,” “fired for drinking,” “booger nose breathing like a hot Geiger counter.” These are not stereotypes but archetypes of degradation—portraits of survival strategies and psychic collapses at the edges of institutional and personal ruin. Alongside them appear sharply ironized insights: “close-mindedness fueled by expert degrees” and “even Obama, a good man, ordered hits—practically flying the drones himself,” suggesting that liberal piety and institutional polish mask the same predatory infrastructures as their more explicit counterparts.

Sexuality threads through the piece as an axis of both liberation and taboo. One line collapses crude humor and bodily absurdity—“ever itch your own asshole with a fart?”—while another line charges hard into contested zones of identity and legality: “being gay does not mean you are attracted to minors—likewise, / being attracted to minors does not mean you desire to rape children.” Here the poem refuses to allow contemporary identity discourse to flatten the complexity of embodied desire, refusing to affirm easy alliances or denunciations. The satire is not about defending what is morally indefensible, but about interrogating the epistemological collapse that occurs when political identitarian categories are mapped too crudely onto nuanced phenomenological realities. Similarly, “autism by nurture” and “creation by finding and selecting” raise questions about what traits are innate versus constructed, whether pathology and aesthetics emerge from deep intention or ambient conditioning.

Several lines explore the tragicomic brinkmanship of social belonging and rejection. The observation that “she felt she was somebody only when around those who did not take her route” captures the class-coded shame of upward mobility—or lack thereof. In contrast, “debating someone in absentia” skewers a cultural discourse now dominated by imagined interlocutors and preemptive takedowns. Others such as “checking the phone replaced biting her fingers” isolate micro-behaviors that speak to deep psychic rewirings in the digital age. Meanwhile, “we have all tasted death, before birth” destabilizes the secular metaphysics of beginning and end, gesturing toward a kind of collective pre-trauma buried beneath our epistemes.

More than individual critique, the poem maps the contradictions and collisions that define the American hive-mind. The repeated emphasis on contradiction—the poetic juxtaposition of minor absurdities and major social wounds—suggests a postmodern ethics of witness in a time when coherence is suspect and consensus impossible. In this way, hive Being becomes not a record of lived experience but a hypertextual substrate for a culture in psychospiritual freefall. It engages the reader less as audience and more as co-inhabitor of its discursive chaos, demanding not resolution but recognition.

This portion of MADE FOR YOU AND ME ultimately operates as a fractal ethics. Each fragment is a node of trauma, a burst of cultural code, a record of survivance or complicity. The poem refrains from offering a unified position, instead performing what it critiques: the saturation of identity, the dislocation of values, and the recursive loop of self-surveillance in a world of commodified trauma and systemic entropy. In its accumulation, it creates a portrait of late-stage cultural consciousness—a polyphonic, morally conflicted, hyper-aware mode of being that is not reducible to slogans or ideologies but speaks in the jagged, irreconcilable dialects of the hive itself.

Meta Description:
This portion of MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017) is a poetic mosaic that satirizes cultural fragmentation, moral panic, and identity politics. Through nonlinear fragments, it maps the absurdities, traumas, and contradictions of late capitalist America, interrogating everything from sexual identity and drone warfare to digital self-harm and sociological decay.

Keywords:
experimental poetry, cultural critique, satire, mosaic form, trauma, identity politics, neurodivergence, sexuality, moral panic, liberal complicity, social decay, postmodernism, queer theory, consent discourse, systemic violence, American hive mind.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 56)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 56)

"MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 56)" is a complex and often provocative installment within a larger poetic sequence, functioning as a fragmented meditation on contemporary human experience, social critique, and the nature of artistic creation. The poem navigates a diverse array of observations, presenting them as stark, unadorned assertions that challenge conventional thought and expose perceived societal contradictions.

Formally, the poem continues the episodic structure seen in other parts of the "hive Being" series, presenting a series of distinct, often disparate, stanzas or aphoristic observations. This fragmentation creates a disorienting yet compelling reading experience, mirroring the fractured nature of modern existence and the rapid-fire dissemination of information. The language shifts between the visceral and the abstract, the personal and the collective. Enjambment is used to create tension and surprise, forcing the reader to confront unexpected juxtapositions. The absence of a traditional narrative arc or explicit connections between stanzas invites the reader to forge their own links, reflecting the poem's implicit challenge to fixed interpretations.

Thematically, the poem touches upon a wide spectrum of human and societal concerns:

  • Critique of Authenticity and Performance: Several lines directly question the genuineness of identity and expression. The observation "no longer able to drop the talking points and be who he is" speaks to the performative nature of public personas. Similarly, the line "wielding bogus racist trauma for popularity and excuse to be fat" offers a harsh critique of what the poem views as cynical manipulation of identity for personal gain. The individual who "invent[s] that people hated him / to keep writing well" highlights the complex relationship between external validation, internal motivation, and creative output, suggesting anxiety can sometimes fuel artistry more effectively than praise.

  • The Nature of Art and Creativity: The poem engages directly with artistic processes and their challenges. The crisis faced by "photographers and writers" with the advent of AI is directly compared to the historical disruption faced by painters with the camera, positing a timeless cycle of technological threat and adaptation in art. The idea that "mass appeal as an artist too early... is an evil omen" serves as a cautionary aphorism against premature success, suggesting it can dull the creative "blade." Conversely, "the writer was inhumane, unlovely, until he picked up the pen" suggests a redemptive or transformative power of writing. The line about scratching "ass" over another writer's face cynically depicts artistic envy and rivalry.

  • Existential and Philosophical Musings: The poem delves into deeper philosophical questions, such as the nature of reality ("your past would determine your full future only if reality were nothing in excess to you") and the fundamental "prelinguistic why—why / any of it—arose." The observation "if the best shit of your life / did not require at least some strain, / the noose would be the chef’s kiss" offers a dark take on the necessity of struggle for true achievement, implying that ease leads to existential emptiness. The poem also challenges anthropocentric views of nature and divinity, suggesting "the simulacrum of the internet is no less near the source than a walk in the woods / since nothing exceeds nature," and that "our world is no longer so white / that it is bad manners to name / a fine sea-vessel 'ShaNiqua'".

  • Social and Political Commentary: The poem contains sharp political and social critiques. "Cheers to those covered women who burned alive for not converting" is a direct, albeit stark, acknowledgment of religious persecution. The concept of "smarts are what get over walls, which is why border-keepers should attack smarts" presents a cynical view of border control tactics. The idea of "juries bored enough to impose harsher sentences" offers a bleak commentary on the justice system. "Apes weaponizing ancestral sin when their bloodline began with a slut animal pervert" is a highly transgressive and provocative statement that appears to satirize or invert certain identity-based arguments.

Overall, "MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 56)" functions as a sprawling, confrontational canvas of contemporary consciousness. It uses a raw, unvarnished style to explore the tensions between authenticity and performance, the challenges of creation in a rapidly changing world, and the unsettling ironies of modern social and political life.

cultural critique, postmodernism, fragmentation, social commentary, invective, authenticity, performance, artistic creation, technological change, AI, identity politics, moral ambiguity, human nature, philosophy, contemporary poetry.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 55)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 55)

"MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 55)" is a sprawling, fragmented, and intensely provocative installment in a series that functions as a hyperrealist cultural commentary and invective. The poem navigates a vast landscape of contemporary anxieties, moral ambiguities, and societal pathologies, often employing shock and juxtaposition to expose perceived hypocrisies and ironies.

Formally, the "poem" is a relentless barrage of disconnected observations, statements, and shocking vignettes, presented in a list-like, unpunctuated progression. This formal fragmentation mirrors the thematic chaos it depicts. The absence of traditional poetic structure amplifies the sense of an unfiltered download of consciousness, a cacophony of modern disquiet. The syntax is largely declarative and often blunt, contributing to a sense of direct, almost accusatory address. The constant and jarring shifts in subject matter—from religious critique ("the most violent religion is the one that claims to be the final revelation") to personal vices ("crack rock for the stillborn-labor pains") to cultural trends ("trans-inclusive coloring book")—create a profoundly disorienting effect. This formal disarray is a deliberate choice, reflecting a world where coherence is elusive and meaning is perpetually contested. The deliberate use of highly offensive and controversial statements is a key rhetorical strategy, designed to provoke and shock the reader into confronting uncomfortable truths or to expose what the poetic voice perceives as societal absurdities.

Thematically, the poem is a brutal exploration of moral decay, hypocrisy, and the pathologies of contemporary society. It relentlessly targets various aspects of modern culture, including:

  • Critique of Religious Dogma and Spirituality: The poem challenges claims of ultimate truth in religion ("the most violent religion is the one that claims to be the final revelation"), and cynically observes human tendencies in spiritual belief ("all other things being equal, trust / the culture whose gods look / almost nothing like their envisioners").

  • Human Nature and Primal Impulses: It delves into darker aspects of human behavior, from the capacity for cruelty and moral compromise ("the hotel bellhop doorman—expected... never to open the door for those of his kind") to the universality of aggression ("rap battles no doubt were occurring way before the kilted men were rhyming"). It also touches on existential questions about purpose ("prelinguistic why—why / any of it—arose").

  • Addiction and Self-Deception: The poem starkly portrays the grip of addiction and the self-delusion involved in coping ("crack rock for the stillborn-labor pains," "the bottle-snuggle workarounds"). It also touches on deeper psychological mechanisms, like performance anxiety disguising itself as dedication ("sacrificed his life to sculpting, but perhaps he really sacrificed it to performance anxiety").

  • Critique of Contemporary Identity Politics and Social Trends: The poem directly engages with contentious topics surrounding gender identity, race, and victimhood culture. Examples include the unsettling "trans-inclusive coloring book: / unicorn with top surgery scars," and the activist celebrating "the first male-female trans pregnancy: abortion being... a rite of passage into womanhood." It also challenges notions of racial politeness ("our world is no longer so white / that it is bad manners to name / a fine sea-vessel “ShaNiqua”").

  • The Nature of Art and Creative Process: The poem briefly touches upon the internal struggles of writers ("the message “stop thinking while you write”... was a cure for his") and the varying expectations of readers regarding "soft" versus "hard areas" in literature.

The poem, presented by an unsparing poetic voice, constructs a bleak vision of a "hive Being"—a collective human existence characterized by shocking transgressions, intellectual dishonesty, and a pervasive sense of malaise, where traditional values and distinctions are eroding under the weight of perversion and societal pressures. The final image of "unconditional trust" being equated with "fecal matter" after an act of domestic violence provides a profoundly cynical capstone, suggesting that even the purest forms of loyalty are tainted and messy.

cultural critique, postmodernism, fragmentation, moral decay, social commentary, invective, shock value, taboos, contemporary issues, identity politics, transgressive, addiction, human nature, religion, gender identity, race, urban existence.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 54)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 54)

"MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 54)" is another sprawling, fragmented, and intensely provocative installment in a series that functions as a hyperrealist cultural commentary and invective. Dedicated "to all the kids raped to death," the poem immediately signals its confrontational and disturbing nature, serving as a raw, unfiltered stream of consciousness that dissects contemporary anxieties, moral ambiguities, and societal pathologies. Its power derives from its relentless assault on cherished norms and its willingness to delve into the grotesque and the offensive.

Formally, the "poem" is a relentless barrage of disconnected observations, statements, and shocking vignettes, presented in a list-like, unpunctuated progression. This formal fragmentation mirrors the thematic chaos it depicts. The absence of traditional poetic structure amplifies the sense of an unfiltered download of consciousness, a cacophony of modern disquiet. The syntax is largely declarative and often blunt, contributing to a sense of direct, almost accusatory address. The constant and jarring shifts in subject matter—from horrific sexual acts ("cunnilingus Cosby, slurping comatose jigglers," "adoptive gay couple teaming up for a Mortal Kombat fatality") to critiques of social justice discourse ("blaming obesity on the stresses of racism," "the duty to frame every disparity as proof of systemic oppression") to mundane yet unsettling details ("sniff a dirty diaper long enough and you learn to love it")—create a profoundly disorienting effect. This formal disarray is a deliberate choice, reflecting a world where coherence is elusive and meaning is perpetually contested. The deliberate use of highly offensive and controversial statements is a key rhetorical strategy, designed to provoke and shock the reader into confronting uncomfortable truths or to expose what the poetic voice perceives as societal absurdities.

Thematically, the poem is a brutal exploration of moral decay, hypocrisy, and the pathologies of contemporary society. It relentlessly targets various aspects of modern culture, including:

  • Sexual Transgression and Abuse: The dedication and explicit lines dealing with rape, pedophilia, and various sexual perversions (e.g., "identifying into rape-crisis centers, where all the prime meat is," "colostomy-hole sex") are central to its shock value and thematic focus on the grotesque.

  • Critique of Social Justice Narratives: Several lines directly challenge prevailing social justice discourse, particularly regarding racial issues ("blaming obesity on the stresses of racism," "poisoning the black mind with agency-hobbling victim-think") and gender identity ("physicians bowing to self-named gender even when real sex is clinically relevant," "vaginas are magic: passing through... turns a mere bundle of cells into a person only then deserving rights"). These lines aim to provoke by inverting or satirizing what the poetic voice sees as ideological excesses or hypocrisies.

  • Authenticity and Cynicism: The poem laments the "cringe" verdict on "authentic and sincere and joyful" behavior, suggesting a pervasive cynicism that forces individuals to "closet away whatever single-entendre unguarded sides remain."

  • Disillusionment and Existential Despair: Themes of a lost future ("the realization that the future... no longer lies ahead of us"), self-deception in addiction ("on cloud nine after a bad binge"), and the overwhelming pressure of choices in late life ("aside from acceptance or suicide or avoidance") contribute to a sense of profound disillusionment.

The poem, presented by an unsparing poetic voice, constructs a bleak vision of a "hive Being"—a collective human existence characterized by shocking transgressions, intellectual dishonesty, and a pervasive sense of malaise, where traditional values and distinctions are eroding under the weight of perversion and societal pressures.

cultural critique, postmodernism, fragmentation, moral decay, sexual transgression, pedophilia, social commentary, invective, shock value, taboos, contemporary issues, authenticity, cynicism, disillusionment, existential despair, body horror, social justice critique, gender identity, race relations, explicit content.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 53)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 53)

"MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 53)" is not a traditional poem in any conventional sense, but rather a sprawling, fragmented, and often disturbing assemblage of observations, aphorisms, and vignettes. It operates as a hyperrealist cultural critique, a raw, unfiltered stream of consciousness that mirrors the chaotic and often morally ambiguous landscape of contemporary society. The piece is characterized by its bluntness, its willingness to confront taboo subjects, and its rejection of any unifying narrative beyond the sheer accumulation of disquieting details. It aligns with a postmodernist deconstruction of grand narratives, instead presenting a dizzying array of micro-narratives that collectively paint a grim picture of human nature and societal pathologies.

Formally, the "poem" eschews conventional poetic structure, instead presenting a list-like progression of seemingly disparate thoughts, each functioning as a self-contained unit of observation or provocation. The absence of stanza breaks or consistent meter amplifies the sense of a continuous, unfiltered download of consciousness. The syntax is generally declarative and unadorned, contributing to the sense of direct, almost confrontational address. The constant shifts in subject matter—from mundane observations ("battered mailbox bound by sunbleached bungee") to shocking transgressions ("Granddad’s girth carved groaning want deep into her single-digit pliability") to societal critiques ("Disney, ever profit-minded, has always spoon-fed us populist parables")—create a jarring, disorienting effect. This formal disarray mirrors the thematic fragmentation, suggesting a world where meaning is elusive and coherence is a luxury. The deliberate use of shocking imagery and controversial statements ("what is lying cheating and stealing if you are doing God's work?") serves as a dialectical tool, forcing the reader to confront uncomfortable truths and question their own assumptions.

Thematic threads, though not explicitly woven, emerge through repeated engagement with certain societal anxieties and moral failings. There is a pervasive critique of moral relativism and hypocrisy, particularly evident in lines that conflate religious fervor with despicable acts, or that expose the self-serving nature of perceived virtue. The "poem" also relentlessly examines the corruption of innocence and the normalization of perversion, from the explicit depiction of child sexual abuse to the desensitization to pornographic imagery in public discourse. There's a strong undercurrent of socio-political commentary, touching on issues of mental health, racial dynamics, and the performative nature of contemporary activism. The recurring motif of "hive being" in the title suggests a collective consciousness, but one that is not necessarily benevolent or enlightened; rather, it's a teeming mass of anxieties, perversions, and self-serving rationalizations. The piece culminates in a sense of bleak determinism, where even attempts at societal progress are undermined by underlying human flaws and systemic corruption, ultimately leaving the reader with a profound sense of unease and a challenge to confront the ugliness often hidden in plain sight.

cultural critique, postmodernism, fragmentation, moral relativism, social commentary, psychological perversion, taboo subjects, brutalist lyric, stream of consciousness, societal anxieties, hypocrisy, innocence corrupted, human depravity, collective consciousness, dystopian vision, shocking imagery, confrontational poetry, deconstruction, contemporary issues, unfiltered observation.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 52)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 52)

This long-form fragmentary poem—MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017—part 52)—is a bristling, carnivalesque scroll of micro-epiphanies, aphorisms, perversions, melancholies, and ideological subversions. It belongs to a tradition of poetic mosaics stretching from Heraclitus through Cioran to Jenny Holzer, but with the rhetorical density and tonal volatility of a late-Ginsberg or Bernhardesque stream. Each entry bears the compression of maximalist prose and the torque of lyric immediacy.

Formally, the poem’s syntax alternates between elliptical compression and narrative vignette. The oscillation between high theory (“only what is in some sense divided can rightly be called ‘whole’”) and grotesque corporeality (“car-door slam, no time for the tween to degrease / the anal-gobbled doorknob”) reflects a sensibility attuned to both metaphysical abstraction and biological realia. The cumulative effect is a temporally disjunctive lyric ethics: one where tragedy, perversion, social media posturing, late-capitalist grotesquerie, and deep familial sorrow exist not in opposition but in simultaneity.

Threaded throughout is a critique of neoliberal aesthetics and the commodification of suffering: “trans children, fanned out like Instagram Benjamins—totems of parental capital,” “a masterpiece mortared with betrayals still neon in the maker’s dementia,” “the push to appeal to everyone boils down to a war against style.” These entries locate the post-woke self in a regime of performative sincerity and weaponized identity, exposing the transactional undercurrents of virtue economies. Suffering becomes spectacle; memory becomes brand; children become proxies for parental moral heroism.

But the poem is just as concerned with postmodern forms of tenderness: grief refracted through smell or music (“she slept with the cookie-tin photos,” “chemo vet sits IVed with the songs”), masculine sorrow and its occlusions (“no longer reactive against his ire for divorcing him”), and the precarious dignity of those living at or beyond the edges of systemic failure (“unhoused at a latitude that demands pacing”). The specter of loss—loss of innocence, loss of physical cohesion, loss of historical certainty—haunts the work like an elegiac backdraft. Even its cynicism is shadowed by mourning.

Despite its explicitness, this is not an exercise in shock for shock’s sake. Rather, it uses transgression as epistemological method. The grotesque is the vessel by which cultural decay, aesthetic exhaustion, and psychological desperation are made legible. The poet seems to ask: what kind of language can house our century’s truths—its pornographic surveillance, its moral purges, its memeified despair—without collapsing into cliché or denial? The answer, here, is a brutalist lyricism, equal parts psalm and punchline.

Keywords:
poetic fragments, aphoristic poetics, cultural critique, neoliberal aesthetics, grotesque lyricism, commodified identity, memory and mourning, ideological parody, perversion and moral horror, psychic fragmentation, affect theory, trauma sublimation, anti-therapeutic poetics, maximalist lyricism, postmodern elegy, digital selfhood, systemic abandonment, transgressive ethics, moral performance, virtue economy.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 51)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 51)

This mosaic of poetic fragments functions as a prismatic rendering of post-industrial psychic life, combining ontological vertigo, sensory immediacy, and sociocultural critique into a fugue of epistemic disquiet. The speaker, fractally dispersed across each entry, occupies a consciousness both micro and macro—at once nosing into the mousetrap’s anatomical gore and surveying civilization’s macro-theatrical collapse. Recurring throughout is the tension between perception and performance, where even in death (“posturing for others even during / the last moments of death”) the self is filtered through an imagined other’s gaze. The refusal of closure—both formal and philosophical—aligns this piece with post-structuralist epistemologies, which posit knowledge as always already deferred, partial, and contaminated by positionality.

Several fragments pose ontological questions via aesthetic proxies: “to depict the effects of x / on flesh... is to depict x itself” asserts a metonymic faith in representation, while the Bacon reference (“on weed we open to see ourselves / as the Bacon figures that we are”) embeds a phenomenological claim about altered perception and its ontic revelatory power. Both allusions suggest that the grotesque, in its rawest form, may offer less distortion than lucidity. Others, like “eloquence covering ignorance” or “sadness in the passing of even the saddest phase,” stage philosophical irony—lamenting the human capacity for verbal ingenuity as camouflage for existential bewilderment.

The fragment “we were not crazy / for having multiple voices inside / until the dawn of monotheism” points to a genealogical critique in the Foucauldian sense: that our current model of the unified, sovereign subject is historically contingent, not metaphysically necessary. In this light, the poem interrogates how dominant epistemes shape inner life, and how what counts as sanity, divinity, or even identity is deeply time-bound.

Fragments like “power saws killing bird song” and “scented crevices and passageways / whose call to future generations / no extermination spray can eradicate” entwine ecological grief with intergenerational continuity, staging a melancholic resistance to both industrial sterilization and extinction. The speaker notes the sublime in decay, the agency in vermin, the dignity in homelessness (“the charity of a joint, or a bottle, passed among the homeless”), consistently unsettling normative hierarchies of beauty, civility, and survival.

Temporal dislocation appears too, most notably in “vague swathes of time, such as those / where it is unclear whether one can joke / about the tragedy or about one’s period being late,” which holds together grief and banality with surgical precision. This ambivalence toward mourning—personal or collective—repeats elsewhere in the child’s unresolved bewilderment (“no words for the child’s response of ‘But you said it would be okay’”), a fragment that wounds more deeply through its refusal to emote.

Taken together, the mosaic advances a poetics of witness and disintegration, where even humor—especially humor—is a symptom of dislocation. Rather than scaffolding meaning from the fragments, the speaker offers exposure: of image, of moment, of scar. In that exposure lies not resolution, but a form of honest attunement.

Meta Description:
A densely layered mosaic of existential, aesthetic, and cultural observations that probes the grotesque, the tragicomic, and the absurd with surgical precision and philosophical rigor.

Keywords:
fragment poetics, existential phenomenology, post-structuralism, ecological grief, perception and performance, ontological critique, monotheism and subjectivity, surveillance gaze, trauma temporality, Baconian figuration, poetic aphorism, cultural decay, affective dissonance, surreal materiality, disintegrated selfhood.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 50)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 50)

This mosaic of aphoristic fragments weaves together a fractured but thematically coherent exploration of psychological paradox, cultural critique, social absurdity, and existential unease. The tone oscillates between satirical and mournful, sketching an ecosystem of moments that resist cohesion but nevertheless resonate across shared anxieties. Much like a mental scrapbook of dark epiphanies or notecards from a late-night writing binge, the speaker captures flashes of insight—some poignant, some perverse, many suspended in irony.

The fragment “the second suicide attempt has rendered the first no longer laugh-worthy” sets the tone for the destabilizing honesty that pervades the text. Several entries revisit the subject of suicide, addiction, and mental illness—not as polished narratives but as subtextual residue of the human attempt to find equilibrium in the absurd. Similarly, “the raw reality, that you are an addict, clearest to you while high,” strips recovery discourse of its usual optimism and instead reveals the acute awareness that sometimes emerges mid-spiral.

Social alienation recurs throughout, from “isolated from others because of questions they pose” to “still angry, going on four decades now, that he falls under six foot”—the fragments confront the reader with the persistence of childhood shame, unhealed bruises, and adult defenses. Gender, sexuality, and performative identity are also critiqued with a subtle ferocity: “why is it that when a guy comes out as gay he must… take on that swagger… of a black girl from Atlanta?” and “first fake breasts became default—and now autotune?” suggest that identity and aesthetic performance increasingly merge in bizarre, consumer-driven symbiosis.

A current of anthropological and environmental observation pulses through lines like “nonhumans crafting their innermost sanctums... out of our cigarette-butt trash” and “landmines detonating here and there long after human extinction.” The speaker seems as interested in the long view—the patterns and recursive dysfunctions of civilization—as in private anguish. But even this is treated with suspicion: “whether from denial, hope, a need to birth—art production still runs rampant in the face of collapse.”

The fragment form invites close reading and slow digestion. Rather than issuing a thesis, it holds up a dark mirror to the reader’s own associative habits and moral blind spots. The result is a kind of “negative theology” of contemporary consciousness—a theology that doesn’t propose salvation but instead records its absence with brutal fidelity.

Meta Description:

A mosaic of aphoristic fragments reflecting on psychological instability, cultural performance, commodified identity, and existential fatigue. Bleak, ironic, and startlingly lucid.

Keywords:

aphoristic poetry, fragment mosaic, addiction, suicide, alienation, cultural critique, gender performance, late capitalism, identity commodification, environmental decay, psychological realism, postmodern despair.

Read More
MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 49)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

MADE FOR YOU AND ME 2: hive Being (Stanzas 2017--part 49)

This collection of poetic fragments presents a kaleidoscope of existential themes, moral quandaries, and sensory experiences, woven together with a keen sensitivity to the human condition. The fragments explore a wide range of emotions and reflections, from guilt's inability to alter the past yet anxiety's power to shape the future, to meditations on solitude and the nature of inner dialogue, whether directed at oneself, God, or the echoes of great thinkers. The recurring motif of death, both as obsession and as a weakening preoccupation with age, adds a haunting undercurrent to the reflections on life’s fleeting joys, such as the softened resonance of singing in a shower or the awe inspired by starlight.

Some fragments examine societal constructs, such as the commodification of female empowerment through hypersexualized displays like twerking, juxtaposed against deeper yearnings for authenticity and connection. The moral complexities of modern life are also foregrounded, from the dilemma of a drug dealer refusing to sell to known overdose victims to the self-conscious paralysis of potential lovers afraid to pursue intimacy. These pieces interrogate the human capacity for self-deception, as in the ability to rationalize rage or find meaning in nihilism, while also celebrating the beauty of small, universal moments—the reverb of a cathedral, the tickle of eyelashes, or the stark wonder of the night sky.

The fragments engage with weighty philosophical questions: Is declaring one’s love of life an act of hope or genuine contentment? How does an awareness of mortality shape human generosity, creativity, and relationships? The tension between bodily and cosmic scales emerges in striking contrasts, from pole dancers' athleticism to the immensity of being star-stuff. Meanwhile, the sensory world—whether through the echolocation of blind humans or the silence in a music performance that amplifies ambient sound—grounds these abstractions in tactile immediacy. Together, these fragments are a compelling meditation on human fragility, resilience, and the persistent search for meaning amidst chaos.

existentialism, mortality, solitude, guilt, anxiety, sensory experience, inner dialogue, commodification, female empowerment, death, starlight, reverb, cosmic wonder, moral dilemmas, self-deception, pole dancers, echolocation, cathedral silence.

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?