creative writing

In the land of the evergreen trees up past Long Island Sound There are six stars that can be found. Like Texans or other statesiders you can find, We, the New Englanders, don't claim to be a special sort or kind. My land is not some great wild forest or a place that could even be the best. Each state and country is a football team on tv. Each citizen sat down to watch, not rooting with glee Then became a cheering fan by arbitrary habit and happenstance. Suddenly all sucked into a willing swirling trance. Your busy friend missed the whole last quarter but won some dough from you from the lucky bets made earlier.

Now Racing heart. Sweat cut by the misty chill. Running away with great speed.

¿Howling from far off cars, or wind? Street lamps and fullmoonlight just past clouds look like little rainbow stars, cause astigmatism. Barefoot on damp blacktop sidewalk. Chilly soles and toes hoping up and down. Each time toe hits ground yelp inside. So cold.

Can’t stop thinking of past hour. Of orange many headed-ogre. Of crashing noises. Must focus on escape. Instead of thinking, run.

Alert eyes jump side to side. Outlines of trees, all black. Some nearby lamps clothed in green lichen, but otherwise greyscale. No people and no monster. Only occasional rushing cars with starry headlights blazing their way.

¿Should I find place to hide? ¿To avoid and escape? ¿Maybe throw rock at car? ¿Stop it? Maybe stupid idea would cause angry driver. I stop running and panic on ground.


Nameless little cousins whine and my ear buzzes. Sitting at Christmas dinner with family. Honeyed ham. I quiet and alone at table. They chat with liveliness and seasonally appropriate jolly voices. Normal order of things. I even utter politenesses in my timeless monotone.

Each evening with this big family—mostly not real family since they only here at Christmas—as I saying, each evening with this big family chaos and noise. Brian don’t mind. I mind.

Everyone talking about honeyed ham and how their year been. Drinking eggnog. Good stuff, but so much noise. Not muttering under breath, because can’t hear own thoughts.

Brian and all demon cousins play with toy train. They loudest and worst. I’m watching everything and each buzz sound and each word sound lingers. ¿Why can’t music this loud instead?

Eyes open. Windows at least look quiet, but usually there’s snow at Christmas. Mom says I can’t leave room. Stupid.

Looking at peaceful nature in window. Something moves.

“Something moved outside the window”

Uncle Marvin chuckles.

Clunk. Orange slime smear on window obscures sight of tree. I get away from table and walk toward window. Big eyes appear in window. “There’s an eye in the window”

People look up and I start to run away from eye. I’m at other end of the room.

Shatter. Has six cyclops heads on ten foot body. Squeezes through window. Gross oozing tentacled thing. Dripping orange. Dripping translucent mucus same shade as pale blood. I run as it stands to full height.

See no other escapee.


Sickening. Tired. Just sitting on side of road and waiting for something to come. ¿Live through the night?

In short you should believe false things because it's more honest. Everyone believes in false things. It is less stressful and more honest not to pretend correctness. Really everyone’s beliefs do not objective absolute founding. So just believe some beliefs. After doubt worldviews have nothing. Since they are based only on assumptions and leaps of faith.

In short you should believe only in things you know are true, because it is more honest to do so. Everyone believes in false things. You need to cut them from your skull. Only beliefs with rigorous grounding have value. This is possible. There are true statements. Saying otherwise is sophistry.

All beliefs can easily be doubted. Doubting beliefs is just about the easiest thing someone can do. Positing a belief is much harder because you could be opposed. Humans are constantly critical creatures. At least I am a critical person. I can’t stop telling myself that my beliefs are wrong. I am afraid of being wrong because I am afraid of being stupid. I am afraid of criticism. Imagine doubting all of your beliefs? You can easily imagine this, because you do it everyday.

It is rather difficult to doubt a belief. Doubting beliefs is one of the hardest things someone can do. People die for their axioms. Those beliefs are next unshakable. People have strong faith. Faith is dangerous and can get other people killed. Faith is dangerous because it allows you to legitimize your past misdoings. Faith is irrational. I am not skeptical enough of my beliefs, and this makes me harmful to my friends, and the world. Doubting beliefs is like getting out of the warm bed on a cold day. Imagine holding all of your beliefs to make them immovable. You can imagine this easily, because you do it everyday.

People should tell other people what they believe. Honesty is important. You just have to straight up tell the facts sometimes. Other people need to have their beliefs challenged, because they are wrong and have not considered alternatives. Open their mind with a sledgehammer and a pickaxe. They need to know what you think. They are going to hurt themselves, or hurt someone else. You need to save them.

People should keep to their own beeswax! Hey! Keep those thoughts to yourself, didn’t your mother ever teach you that! You rude asshole! Honesty is important but you don’t have to speak all the time, because no one wants to hear you speak. Why do your lips keep on moving? You're just as confused and lost as everyone else. Open your mind with a sledgehammer and a pickaxe. You don't know what you're talking about. You could hurt someone’s feelings or make them panic by throwing irresponsible criticisms everywhere. You need to save your thoughts for yourself.

There was a small boy in an illiterate stumpy field. Are you the Pope of Rome? said a priest Trembling at curious words that seemed to shipwreck, He spoketh thusly the following tale and provided a list.

We shall not sleep. Fury—Souring—ever in pain. Perhaps one invades the bursting head? Far, a place loosely gripped in my hand in tangles of old alleys. A bay port with altitude and an Armada runs out of interest, and I don’t think these feelings in Catholic Quebec! I was a lumberjack turned sailor a wood hauler and weary worker… But they don’t call near the quay but a voice that laughed. I could find this cold in piles like twisted trees. The scenic solitude! Just showed the books the sums for that one! The Beard amalgamated crumbling elder lore at little cost. Keep also bowed down claims that cannot forgo except subjected cunt’s flames lick my cold constellation of forget. Will stagger not as much as it entered chaired from lower madness. Reeking of strange disuse... Guess I’ll quit now.

My most prized possessions from that time The nearest tome the seas the phantom of fires ablaze cobwebbed heap nothing axe without blade a gesture

“Jabberstach” said the head stricter To the lasses of latin who purduked her Something about the blue sludgidge That was bubbling the broke bandage That imprisoned the meanie’s claws Set by a healster following some goodity medical laws

The poppies blow, in form of god on high. Huzzah! It’s a gala day, for sincere performance, in fields, in veils, and drowned in tears. Mere puppets they must one day vanish away All over that motley drama, a toss of death’s dice. We shall not sleep within the lonesome latter years Yes everything is vain, even the scenic silence. Vanity was the good cause on that fateful day. Bunches of damp flowers and makeup by a con artist. Corpse with the isolated arm of the painted angels, all pale and weak. A funeral pall over a once many faced form We lived, felt friendship, and saw when the loss or gain is cast upon their judgment day.

Have you ever been reading a book, not understanding what was going on, then you come up with what you think is a correct interpretation, then it turns out to be wrong anyways? I have done this more times than I have read books in my life. I have also on many occasions not realized that my interpretation was wrong. I misinterpreted the book, without knowing it. This happens all of the time in philosophy, and despite what it seems, is not a problem. Misinterpretation is most likely a good thing for you, especially if you know how to use it well. It is a hammer or a wrench in an aesthetic toolbox.

Imagine you are trying to read a difficult work of philosophy filled with long uninterpretable unsmooth snakelike sentences that crawl at a snail’s pace. You are getting nowhere, but are energized and enthusiastic to learn the mysterious ways of the old philosophers. Suddenly you discover the truth in a eureka moment, and all of the meaning of life briefly connects with your life. You see what the philosopher is saying. The philosopher is putting an idea into words and you received the idea through the fog! You can see how the idea must be difficult to talk about, or maybe you think that the philosopher should have been clearer.

Later on reading the same book, the philosopher in clearer prose contradicts your mad moment of meaning. Now, you have no idea what they said. You feel hopeless and lost, because suddenly the wonderful idea you thought the philosopher said is contradicted. Your posthumous parasocial relationship with said dead philosopher forces you to abandon the interpretation, because you respect the philosopher’s genius.

Don’t feel woe! This philosopher is an idiot, or maybe they are actually genius, but anyways, they don’t matter at all! You were reading a book and you came up with an idea on your own inspired by projecting your feelings onto some writing. Maybe interpreting the philosopher has value in its own right, but you are not doing that. Therefore, you are an original creative thinker. You are a philosopher in your own right, and you have created a new concept, which is like a collage of ideas.

There is a fantastic essay by Eve Tuck called Breaking Up With Deleuze. In it she talks about her relationship with the dead French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. She describes her issue of attributing her own original thoughts to Deleuze’s writings. She describes how Deleuze’s idiosyncratic language, which is simultaneously both literal and figurative, took over her use of language and thinking for a while. She uses the metaphor of breaking a relationship with Deleuze. This is an example of this sort of useful misinterpretation, or philosophical clinamen.

The human brain is not meant to simply interpret information accurately like a computer, it also creates new information, and sorts out bad information.

Famous Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek says in numerous places that all great philosophy is a series of misinterpretations and misreadings. He even admits to misinterpreting Jacques Lacan in one discussion with Graham Harman. This is because the human mind is capable of creation beyond old ideas. Reading old ideas can be inspiring because it allows for reflection and comparison. It can be easy to find a new philosophy in the midst of an old one, by clearing some wild path of thinking that the old master had not explored in the hiking-forest of concepts. Maybe the old fool was blinded by their own pretty prosaic ponderings or the lack of time and memory to see revolutionary thought’s potential. Besides, a book that took every tangent imaginable would be a worse read, though these old philosophers often take tangents to satisfy their whims and fancies.

This whole phenomenon of good misinterpretation is common, because philosophy is an artform, not a social science.

Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead says that there are two forms of philosophy. There is critical philosophy, which attempts to find certain knowledge, and is afraid of being wrong. Then there is creative philosophy which risks being wrong giving it the ability to find new ideas that could be right. Both Whitehead and myself prefer the second sort.

Creative philosophy is better, because critical philosophy is going nowhere. Almost everyone in philosophy today agrees that Rene Decartes’s plan to base knowledge in absolutely certain foundations was over ambitious, impossible, and unnecessary. But many philosophers want certainty anyways, they just wish to be arbitrary with where they put their certainty. Critical philosophers tend to be obsessed with certainty, and tend to give up on the task of philosophy as a whole. So many philosophers are willing to hand the entirety of metaphysics, or philosophy of mind, over to physicists and neuroscientists who don’t know what they're getting into. A philosophical treatment of the human mind would not say “there is no mind” but would instead defend the existence of the mind, while admitting to not understanding the mind’s true nature. Philosopher’s can never pull away the curtain to reveal the wizard, only scientists and religions do that. Philosophers are doing something else, something more general, and aesthetically oriented.

Whitehead believes that philosophy is a creative exercise in general principles. I would also add concept creation as a central focus of philosophy. Historically many new sciences have emerged initially as branches of philosophy. Physics, psychology, economics, social sciences, ect. Philosophers create concepts in an attempt to be general, and this failing generality results in a specialized field of study that can be further developed. These failed philosophies are thus not failures elsewhere.

Philosophical ideas are often extreme and wildly speculative. This is not a scandal. This is the natural order of things, because philosophy is made to explore concepts without regard for knowledge. Graham Harman says that “philosophy is not a form of knowledge” which is in line with Plato’s famous “Philosophy is the love of wisdom” a quote that admits a relationship to knowledge without being knowledge.

Philosophers generate concepts that have never been articulated before, but still feel like they are a part of everyday experience in a deja vu sort of way. This is because philosophical concepts have to do with descriptions of all that exists, and naturally are based in the essentials of experience. In a similar way someone may find a phrase in a book which inspires an idea which was not originally in the author’s mind. This is creativity at work, not misreading.

Graham Harman suggests that philosophy is more akin to art than science, this is a cautious position that does not fully make philosophy art. I would go even further and say that philosophy is an artform that concerns the creation of general concepts, or concepts that can be used to explain all experience. There are problems with this definition of philosophy, namely that philosophical concepts are evaluated based on whether or not they are true, whereas paintings and novels can be fantastical. My rebuttal is that philosophy is in fact not entirely based on truth value. In the same sense that some art speaks deep truths of the soul, some philosophies are good at explaining experience. But some philosophies are studied because they are novel and exciting.

Think of Parmenedes’s deceptively clever denial of motion, and of the daring Idealism of Berkeley. Berkeley’s famous “Esse est percipi” could not be true, most people reject it on the basis that they feel like reality is real, even if they can’t explain why. When I first encountered philosophy I was drawn to any philosophy which could find a way to deny the existence of something supposedly universal. All of these positions are discussed to a certain extent, even though they are probably inaccurate to generalizations of experience.

In general daring thinking is better in philosophy, so I seek to stretch philosophy to be more daring. An artistic creative philosophy which lacks connection to reality can still have a positive impact, in the sense that other thinkers will need to be able to explain why it is wrong.

Philosophers should be more free to abandon their philosophical projects. Many philosophers think of their system of philosophy as if it was a child in need of perfection. Philosophers ought to be more like Spartans and abandon their kids in the woods. Most of them are flawed anyways, so a long standing defense of a poor system is a mistake. If you abandon the perfect idea someone else will pick it up, maybe a century, or millennia later.

Often philosophers will phrase original discoveries as being readings of older philosophers, or will make clear declarations of concepts long ago thought up in esoteric tomes of forgotten metaphysics and claim them as their own. Both of these are fine in moderation, but I would recommend that philosophers lean towards the self-proclamation of originality. If someone regards themselves as merely a reader of old men’s books then they are condemning themselves to tired chilly scholarship and endless cultish history. This would be demoralizing. Originality is valued in other artforms as a chief virtue, so why not philosophy?

I want to be a lobster with huge boobies but they’re penises. With the end of time we will come to find snakes without entrails Instantly they’re licking at my table, but pause when I demand loyalty. And their lightning sounds as subtle as a boulder without clothes Intimacy envelopes us in a basement below the balcony’s bolstering beams. Changing seasons, wreathes, rotting, you bring pudding forth. Together we investigate the donners of our holy place.

(poem made in collaboration with burntramen and liv)

literally my last post

should you give up things you love for the betterment of hunaity.

Person 1: Yes, because humanity is at risk

Person 2: No, because I don't want to

Pro: Yes. Love is a desire, and is not inherently justified in any way. Think of Mammon in the most recent episode of Helluva boss, episode 7 season 2? Fizzarolli is obsessed with competing in Mammon’s clowning pageant despite the fact the obsession is bad for him. By the end he learns his lesson. Give up what you think you love to be better for yourself and the world.

Con: No. Love and passion are the basis for morality, it would be ridiculous to give up something you love for a false idol. If you love something you’ll live for it. The whole basis of most morality is love because you love humanity. So you should always choose what you want most.

Pro: Maybe that is the case, but generally you can escape your love for something small. If I give up watching YouTube then I may miss it deeply, and feel nostalgic for YouTube, but ultimately I will gain more from leaving it behind. This is because nostalgia is misleading and rose tinted. Love isn't actually that good. You could gain a new love. But if something gets in the way of your love for humanity than you must always choose humanity, otherwise is suicide, because you are a human. Imagine if everyone did what they loved, instead of what was good for humanity. We would all die.

Con: What if it is too hard to give up what you love?

Pro: Come on. That’s a horrible argument. You have to at least try to give up what you love.

Con: What if I hate humanity and I want to let everything burn for my passion, and then die with it. Let’s follow the inevitable death drive to the end of time!

Pro: I don’t think you actually want that. You probably would miss humanity more than you would miss the object of your affection.

Con: No, I do want it. I’m not an idiot or a child, but you dismiss me as if I was one. People need to love the idea of their own destruction, and we as a human populace do as well. We have so little time on earth, why not throw ourselves to the fire, to die like a colorful firework, rather than a pathetic coal at the bottom of a campfire.

Pro: I do not think you are an idiot or a child, but you are a teenager without direction. Your skepticism of morality is because of your lack of experience. If you had lived life for as long as I had, then you would know why we need to love humanity. It’s impractical to kill ourselves, which is the alternative to love of humanity. Adults make better long term decisions, because we have experience living. Morality, order, and long term decisions go along with each other, whereas short term thinking is amoral and wild.

Con: I know my purpose and it is to love my object of love (YouTube) moment to moment. Children have more passion and creativity, so we are more moral than adults. Because love is the basis for morality.

Pro: We are going in circles now. But you don’t know your purpose yet. How could you? You learn by doing things, by living. In the video Frameworthlessness*, the father points out to the son, how you don’t marry the first framework, or worldview you meet. You typically hop from worldview to worldview for a while.

Con: Well. I’m unconvinced. I don’t understand what you are saying. I don’t think you get me either, I’m a little bit complicated. That video also argues that you should avoid worldview hopping too much, which does not help your point. Also it’s just as amoral and cliche as I am? So I’m going to stick to what I love! What do you love anyways that makes you so great? Loving humanity, such an abstract statement? How could you possibly love and care for all of humanity at once? Each and every person on the planet? Loving humanity is like loving god, you’re in love with an idea, not an actual thing. Maybe your argument is right, but I haven’t seen evidence yet. I’ll live my life with short term decisions until I learn why I ought to make long term ones, otherwise I’m just listening to you unscientific adults.