Some miscellaneous writing


Well-known member
Oh, this seems like a fun place, to throw

I write a lot, some folks have commented here that I am a bit verbose and obsessive. So here is proof that they are right. ;)

My big Scorpio/5th house a-bomb doesn't help.


Well-known member
He wrote his dreams down backwards so that he would not miss a thing.

But then he'd send them to me that way,
all mismatched, and f*cked up,
eternally opposite,
leading to the beginning
the moment of falling fast

Have you ever read a letter back to front?
So it starts from the goodbye, the love, the yours, or sincerely, or since early,
which is the whole point of the letter anyway.
You work your way up thru family news, weather pleasantries, hello greetings, finally the date.

Like stopping sex.
Sex stopping.
You refrain holding hands, from clasping to fingertips
to hugs with cheeks and noses touching towards pretending to be asleep first, to hugs
and lastly to the tiny wave, so much like the first that drew you in;
"Why yes, it's you, hello, you've finally come."

Like hearing a great book report on a novel and its ending.
You buy the book, start from the start, edge towards what you know.
Though in this particular example you don't mind much, you're just grateful, and ready.

Much like it being April
yet we know the summer already.
Later, we'll tell it,
"We rode bicycles, we were very poor
there was so much to say."


Well-known member
It occurs to me it will always be like this. No matter how far I get, he will always be that thorn in my side, a sad, haunted memory brought to life; looking at him and remembering is like looking at an old photograph of a person who died too young.


Well-known member

The thing is, I always imagined it like this.

The awkward little tomboy in suburbia with the dykey haircut and the mixtapes and the weird way of writing always thought: this is all going to get turned on its head one day. You're going to wake up and not know what town you're in. People are going to paint pictures of you in their minds. It'll be days and weeks until you sleep in your own bed again. Nothing will be normal or predictable and it'll be just what you wanted.

I've never heard the kind of raw, naked suffering in someone's voice as when I listen to myself in the car with him. It's solipsism in reverse. He has to pull off to the side of the road in the rain to keep from f*cking crashing. It's that bad.

I see people running across subway platforms to say hi. I see people handing me keys to their apartment without a second thought. I never thought it was possible to go three full days without eating but I just keep on trucking. Actually, beer counts as food. So never mind.

The only way I stay sane these days is to watch it happen like I'm someone else. I can cheer myself on thinking it's not me, saying go on, you're okay, this is you figuring it all out. What a fun story this is. The characters are all so charismatic.

Westbound, BQE, 9:30pm. I astound myself - thighs crossed, tight jacket sleeves rolled up in the humidity - how naturally this all comes to me. I guess it's all those years of subconscious practice. I always thought, as alluring as it seemed (the uncertainty, the risk) I'd never be able to handle it, I wasn't strong enough, I cared too much. Now I have no choice. The thing is, it wouldn't be happening if I wasn't capable of it. And like Bikram says, if you can, you must.

New York is the f*ck buddy I thought I got rid of months ago. I didn't need his extravagance anymore, I had someone else to captivate me that way; the volatility too, I had that in spades in him.

I loved the way he'd strip me down like a whore in a bar bathroom. That's the thing: it's hard to hide things in the city. Many folks think of it as a place of anonymity but that's quite untrue. Conversely, you can hide anything up here, in the vast, silent spaces in between.

There are few things I've loved in this way. Really, just these two.

Honestly it's awful.


Well-known member
I dated a guy once who had an uncanny knack for photographing me at my


Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
If you want to post writing and get more readers and not have to censor stuff, you could post on dA or a writing site. (I haven't found any good writing sites yet.)


Well-known member
:) I have a journal on a private, paid subscription-based site that I post most of my stuff in...I just thought it would be fun to upload a small collection here since, over the past 48 hours I have had at least half a dozen people tell me "Wow, you sure do have a lot to say." LOL.


Well-known member
i used to slowly pick on math over time using contextual logic.

The possible misconcepted function processed over other misconcepted functions
at a ground level which isn?t there, innumerable times to recreate
actuality confines to objectivity as almost-completely other than

Univocally, A equals A [equal is a transcendental signified], but it?s
lost in transcendental signified and A equals B or ?A is approximate
to A? for incomplete and synthetic usage.

From the standpoint of ?everything is a text?, each word and context,
also the ?word to a context? is a project apart from the project. This
goes into infinite regression in all directions along with its
reciprocalities and parallels. The parallels are ?lesser?
reciprocalities and the reciprocalities are ?greater? parallels. The
antifoundation and appropriation that stands in the place of the
conceptions of reciprocals/parallels are lost at corners such as: pure
heterogeneity, pure homogeneity, precarious logical formulation of
arithmetic concepts, tautology with false sense in the absence of
sense, etc

Since infinity can be counted to given enough ?time? eternity, the
logical propositions are there, hyperdifference is in opposition to
?one to one? correspondence since what is beyond infinity sum total is
not countable. The ability to count one to one is a pyscholocation
that matches it up within precarious preset institutions that have
culminated to align into correspondence, this doesn?t mean that they
will always be paired up even if the course of eternity matches them
up inside the system. They can only be taken as useful throughout the
entire course. A concept where this would be useful is if the universe
spreads apart so far as each element is divided for infinity, then the
regress back into nothingness, or a structure that is laced together
without physis, wouldnt correspond to anything else in existence, or
each irreducible element if there is a possiblity of such a case,
which is outside the system of division, wouldn?t have any connection
to any other element, since there would be infinite space in every
direction between them.

mathematical concepts go as far as the implantation of the rendering of the spatial location, they cannot breach the bounds of the system, that is capable of going further theoretically into the location, many things are known prior to witnessing if a person has the institutional estimation of the area that points to elementary sections of the location. there are many constants at play in the eradication of a mathematical structure, such as causality, which in turn produces change, which in turn then produces the basic classical determinations of speed, distance, momentum, velocity, direction, spin or skew which is a very obtuse manifestation of spin, but if a classical system is micronized enough, which is where the study certainly started from more or less, a moment of discontinuity happens, where the referentials of these measurements cannot be embedded on a grand system, thus the classical determinations are micronized in reference to the components themselves with little horizon of the pass into the sister measurement system of the same functions. it could be said in realtime, that there is infinite space within the two measurement systems, and the phenomena that is in between is specificity of spacetime itself which includes the functional prerequisites of every constituent makeup in the detectable vicinity. thus an ambiguation and oversimplification has to occur to link the middle ground of the movement of a human or another entity. there is infinite space between the systems because they are phantasm reductions of spacetime, not spacetime itself, the first measurement system is merely incapable of certain phenomena ranges, eventually it breaks on a much larger or much microscopic scale, or if the progression of any certain function such as speed breaches the limitations of the systematical holism where the function is the part. what happens is a transfiguration of the phenomena as a transfiguration of the function of speed, where the mathematical conception of the phenomena ceases to explain its activity. usually what happens is a symbol of infinity in the place of a numerical calculation. these infinity components in physics that get inhibited are not always laymen mistakes, or an actual infinity. it is a rather a gap within the homology of the measurement system, an entry into an unforeseen occurrence. the middle ground is the homology of evolution, the process of the structuralization of spacetime, rather than ulterior inertia based on the decision of a human, or anterior quanta reactions. there is no function that could explain the massive differentiation of spacetime from elementary parts. a case like string theory where their inferenced base conditions have to be more differentiated, and universally existent in order to provide an explanation for the differentiation of the subatomic level. the uncanny part is that a layer behind subatomic phenomena is warranted to provide an explanation for the differentiation of a level above subatomic particles, without an absolute encapsulation of the true differentiation of existence, while quantum theory cannot explain the structuralization of a human. rather, the proposed probability base is proposed to produce enough state of affairs to hypothetically encapsulate the differentiation of existence if the number set is processed. this explains the disjunction of quantum theory, and the large number of theoretical solutions for the link of quantum theory and GR. only a small amount of existence is encapsulated within the sprawling hypothetical solutions. the differentiation of space is close to reaching the number of infinity. for example, the surface of a rock is utterly delinear, but it is reduced to a close enough quantization. infinity is the end of all measurements. that is why it is more viable to think of a physical theory of everything as a tunneling from the measurement system of quantum mechanics to GR, rather a revolution of the mathematical system used to measure instead of the excavation of infinite space. the measurement is hindsight from the functions and qualities that could be derived to exist within entities. for example, the amount of neutrino decay a human releases could be estimated from an average of measuring several humans with close enough characteristics, but in order to calculate the exact amount without simply testing the human in vivo, there has to be a knowledge of elementary molecules and configuration that the human contains, this number would still yield only an estimation.

but then i realized that someone else already did limits. i would have to do something much too radical and in the center to even get close.

what i seem to be doing there is playing with the uniqueness of form and pinning structure with different kinds of infinities. im not sure. well for the uniqueness of form thing its impossible to ground mathematics non-platonically because forms take on a resemblance of a correspondant, but they have undecipherable uniqueness around the edges. nothing is platonic for example, so we can only ground mathematics fully in platonism.
there is a possibility that the uniqueness of form does have a particular regression of hypercomplexity somewhere inside formation. at least knowing how to calculate hypercomplex regions posteriori.
Last edited:


Well-known member
:) I love the fact you responded this way.

I'm not even sure if this was entirely directed at me but w/e haha.

What you have to say is very erudite and thoughtful but way too linguistically garbled and overcomplicated.

Basically what you are saying is that we think of things a certain way because we were taught to. Or, our system language itself makes it so. This follows for complex concepts but is also backwardly compatible to the point of including very rudimentary, almost seemingly infallible thought structures. Like 1+1=2. Take quantum physics, which "proves" that in fact 1+1 may not necessarily = 2 and that in fact sometimes 1 can = 2. (Schrodinger's cat anyone?)

Still, math is infinitely comforting in its ability to explain and justify itself. :)


Well-known member
yeah thats similar to what i thought in the first place.

i just had some intuition similar to nietzsche where he actually wrote that there is no causality in a book.

if you look at causality closely the actual make up of it at every point it seems like what i called a "cryptotransfer". like just try to see causality in its bare process, but also fundamentally in a system.


Well-known member
I'm too tired to look up the precise definition of "cryptotransfer" lol, but the first thing I thought of was genetic mutation. "Systemic chaos" is not an oxymoron - the random has a very distinct purpose and follows the same type of rule set as other more predictable phenomena - they're just different rules. In terms of evolution, there is no causality per se except in hindsight. But that still does not negate the fact that the random does not very dutifully fulfill its purpose within a very observable system.

...At least is what I think you're getting at, lol.


Well-known member
From earlier...


I know that I like you
because when you wear that blue shirt
I have to look away.

When you butter your toast so slow
I just want to shove it down your throat
for the shock value.

I know that I want it
because when I see myself in the bar bathroom
mirror I'm disappointed not to be
a big black horse.

What if every book is nothing
more than an attempt
to soften the blow?

Let me be a clean dress hanging
from a line above south Brooklyn

and please, when you do it,
shuck me like pale sweet corn.

Leave my outsides on the porch
when you take me back inside.


Well-known member
kinda drunk

foam unearthed from a distant hymn
white corridors of wet chemicals
rays culminating perfectly apart
from the center
frail air sponge in the space of the
smallest bubbles
she falls over on a whim

tails scurrying beneath the sea
lightning bolts switching
around clear paths
they resemble a dolphin echoing
on infinite currents
sound scavenging for its uterus

pale tones where do they not reach?
scorching calculations, concentrated
for the precognitive sought of the
incarceration of the future

so useless, so infinite
the weather, incandescent plasma

down by the basin and over
a honing green mountain
a mountain that is green where
the trees and grass are not located
are the persecutors, my soulmate
and the ultimate castrator has
always won

we'll all see it then, pillaged,
and pretend that we made it

the floor will rupture, and martha
shaw will embrace the cunning orbs,
that frolick after the rainfall
the imposter lacuni of
the landscape

and the new born will
cry for the accompaniment
of the complicated mother
the newborn will twist onto legions,
secured legions beyond the
horizons and timid embodiment

for once, servility,
what has haunted the man
in the corner looking out
of the drenched window sill
will meet his contemplation
Last edited:


Well-known member

heres a site i learned from before. i took the stance of "playing with words" instead of trying to say something.
the back of "of grammatology" says no ideas just the words themselves
then i gradually became suffused with the "useful and practical" in writing

what can possibly help you out is to build more logical stucture lines to captivate the reader on the intimate life process. maybe take a bit more of an informal type of sequence code which is mostly in the background for development and suspension. as well as more subtle literary devices that heighten the aesthetic of the life aspect. its really about experimenting with different apertures then being able to synthesize parts of these in a mature aperture. many poets stay near similar ground once they have something, and sometimes they do take steps back with the new things, etc. i guess it is kind of like the whole painting aesthetic one has to develop new forms of language.

also perhaps when you culminate volcanic moments try to find an outlet in a more metaphysical or culturally relevant out. it can also be an allusion to something else from a small thing, but the point there would be to tug a more rudimentary part of the mind.

playing with words approach is fine. people talk about how poets are actually the larval stage of the potent cultural center. if you look at music lyrics its really watered down semi-poetry. then if you look at philosophical ideas someone already thought about it in a poem. someone mentioned that most of derrida's philosophy ideas are already in Borges.

reciprocate the 5th house with 11th house, more idealistic intonations inside the expression. reciprocate the scorpionics with venus as well because scorpio tends to be coarse. it just helps if you put lighter or harmonizing accentuations in between being deep or seductive.
Last edited: