0 com

Fact

Here is a fact about life.
IF you live your life without surpassing those before you, or helping others, or live without either of those goals or bring them to fruition, then you are as good as dead.

Die.

Your presence on this earth is unneeded.

26, that's the age. If everything that is delusional and crazy does not come into fruition, then I am as good as dead. 26. 7 years

The first step in becoming immortal is becoming not human and throwing away the limits which make us human.

0 com

linger


Childish to say the least. I remember when I thought that knowing meant understanding, and understanding was so central to being wise. It's much of a naive thought now, but I still do not understand the other side of that argument. What does this understanding serve? Needless to say, many have not understood or really taken the value of what I wrote below. Read the radical lingering rejection:

The rose is perfectly what it is: an undying metaphor used to remember the dead, to express beauty, corruption, love or anything else that fits the occasion. Delicate and fragile, beautiful yet deadly, and altogether perfectly resolute for what it has become a symbol for, the rose is eternal.

On a cold winter day, I sat down on a bench in Descanso Gardens and I studied a rose. I sat there for a bit, and then I left. But what actually happened was that a moment of epiphany dawned on me when my gaze collided with the ephemeral beauty, and saw beyond the rose to see a metaphor of the human mind. But in all reality, I looked at a rose, stood up, and left, because abstractions don’t exist in a concrete reality.

But what happens when a young lover gives a rose to the girl he always adored? Or when a son lays a rose upon the gravestone of his mother? Meaning is given to an utterly meaningless plant, and the rose blooms into a grand gesture, becoming a vessel of language. When I studied the rose in the garden, I saw a rose that had no meaning, yet could imply meaning on a totally separate level of insight. Just as the eternal rose can be as brisk and undaunting as the morning sun, multiple dimensions of depth give way to a new meaning of understanding.

There’s a word for people like me, people that see both the fleeting rose and the undying metaphor, and come to accept that both exist where such harmony is impossible. It is the same word for people that see every weakness in education, yet pursue the elegant door of opportunity for knowledge and the growth it poses; the same word for people that see the sophistry of cynicism and yet still try to dig deeper for some abstraction to operate as a meaning for every ‘why’ that appears. A paper swashbuckler. A pacifist cavalier. A reverent libertine. A selfless egotist. A happy idealist. That’s exactly what I am: a paradox.

I saw a paradox in the rose. Although there was no literal symbol in it, I abstracted it because literature, culture, and the minds of people beg for meaning, even if it is paradoxical. Just as the rose is nothing but a plant, the pinnacle of all humanity’s achievements is nothing but words, paint, numbers and noise. But words, paint, numbers and noise are all we have to live on, because out of that chaos, literature, music, math, and art are born.

School hands me a palette of rough materials. I call this knowledge. Physics formulas and SAT vocabulary are typical examples. But more than how much of this knowledge I simply retain, what takes precedence is how I understand its mechanics and use it to transform and progress society. Just as I take the rose and fashion it with bits and pieces of implication and create wondrous meaning, I give this knowledge breath by molding and funneling it into my everyday life. In the future, I may take the formula for Power and apply it to a Dam in California to conserve water. I may take my SAT vocabulary and write a book on the discourse of nations and the fundamental need for cooperation between states to create global unity. At face value, it may seem knowledge has little meaning because facts and theories alone have no power without initiative, but this knowledge can have tremendous power. Understanding that this knowledge holds great influence, sometimes bringing civilizations to their peak, but sometimes destroying others, gives it a fresh sweep of significance. Metaphors siphon worth and progressiveness in an otherwise bland palette of knowledge. These building blocks of my perceived intelligence are what make me a conscious being, capable of changing and propelling humanity for the better. Now learning is never the same. As my palette of knowledge increases, the portrait I can paint becomes more and more progressively brilliant.

When I sat down on the bench in Descanso garden, I heard a voice. The rose asked me, “Am I beautiful? Despicable? Shallow? Deep? Mystifying?”

I looked it and replied, “No, you are just a rose,” stood up, and left. But at some point of understanding, the rose becomes a rose no more, but everything it needs to be, and more.

...

It's a nice thought, I suppose. And I thought I made it so straightforward heh

Common application.. pwah
0 com

shoot

If I could take a bullet and a gun to every asshole that broke a heart, maybe I will. But that would mean that in the end, only the bitches who got their hearts broke would be left, and the girls too nice to say no.  And also the fellows that never have even traded their hearts for anything. And it will also mean shooting a couple of my friends. And honestly, hearts break all the time, that's not a cause for death. Maybe for a moment, and for a time, but time usually heals things, or at least it feels like it. Feelings dissipate and people fade.

Maybe I'll do it in a calculated fashion. If this person broke x number of hearts or more, then he or she goes. Bam. People don't change that easily, the curve will probably continue the same rate. Is the world better off without the person and so many hearts saved, or better off with the person and so many experiences learned? I don't know.

Die, just die, it's an emotional response that can't really weigh out in the vast scheme of things. Is a broken heart better than a broken spine? Of course. But better than a broken arm? Maybe not. So a broken heart lies somewhere in better a broken spine and a broken arm? Probably somewhere in between a rib and a punctured lung. If I felt like a lame optimist I would write something like, "time heals both the rib and the heart, and they end up stronger at the end of the adversity." But fuck it, it's not true. Broken hearts can sometimes only do a fragment of what they did before, and everyone knows it. That's why maybe I can just get rid of the cause of the broken hearts if I took a loaded gun to every asshole's face. Would the world be a better place? Then people would really understand love be better to the people around them. The new world Kira, doing all for the sake of love, and teaching others that breaking hearts is no good.

If people didn't burn bridges properly, then psychos like me might just snap and take the bullet to the person's face and blow their brains out on to the cold cement instead. The trigger moves back an inch, and their lives, sins, and transgressions cement into their souls. No retribution. No nothing, just get judged by me for the things you did. And fuck a sorry, sorry doesn't heal things. Assholes and bitches just being too hasty and liking new things and forgetting old loves, maybe it's a sin to die for.

You're dead to me. It makes sense now right? The metaphor takes the place of the physical bullet. I could think of a couple people dead to me. They might as well just die tomorrow, and I wouldn't blink twice. That idea exists so bullets don't have be fired. People would go mad without that sort of option. Imagine the ruckus and remains of all the half living souls in a person's brain. They just sort of crawl around, and plead for mercy, but who knows, maybe they are better off dying slowly. Sometimes the bullet is the mercy. But, for the sake of explanation, I'll take a gun to every assholes head, for the people can't do it themselves.

And then maybe I'll shoot myself in the face.

because of the guilt of the travesty I've just commited, of course

not really because I'm an asshole.


0 com

wow

I just realized, wow, I am fuckin cool
just... wow
0 com

fuck em and let em burn

don't make me daydream


0 com

love is


Is love but a rosary of hours, lonely devotions being slowly counted until repeated and worn out till the beads no longer seek the light of day? Perhaps it is much more like a bird's life, gay in the morning, restless all day, tired at sundown. Or maybe it could be likened to cyclical reruns of played out emotions, binding those caught in it's grasp in a never-ending time loop of unfunny and mundane gaiety and then distraught. It could be much more biblical: patient, kind, and forever. Yet, outside the dominion of the divine, it seems to be one of the many thieves and rulers of the human heart.

Who is to say it even exists? In a Satrean teenage angst, I could say that love is non-existent, that what people have been portraying as love is nothing but a foray of electrical currents and hormones. The heart, as Galvani has shown, is nothing but a foray of biochemistry, signals of the electrical nervous system. Is that why people are caught in the current of that electrifying heart stopping gaze? Just joking, it's lust, there's nothing really desire than my desire to fuck. That's how some people have been treated, nothing much than a good fuck, where the thing that is called love is based upon hedonistic and unenlightened desires. Maybe shitty parents, bad life at home, terrible first love, I wouldn't know, that's your business.

Or is it because of the loneliness? Sometimes for people, where communication breaks down, loneliness takes hold. Full attention from just one person is more than enough to fill that cup of desire for attention and affirmation of one's esteem. For the weaker willed, love is a vain feeling, and most of the time a struggle to prolong irreconcilable differences. A childish attempt to keep afloat a sinking ship. "Don't go, we can make it work". Idiot. Crow. Don't kid yourself, that's an excrementitious relation.

However, feelings are almost impossible to put a pin upon because the human is always caught in a state of duality, a constant anxiety of dual existence: one that is fleeting, and one that is eternal and long lasting. The two opposite sides of the spectrum are a quick fuck from a ho and a marriage without divorce I suppose. If each person takes their position on this spectrum, the conflicting viewpoints on love and relationship would never work because full equality is difficult to maintain. Which is why they almost never do. When two people come upon this idea of affection for each other at different angles, problems occur.

See, the loser of a relationship, the loser of love is always the person that sits that the far right of the spectrum. The person that feels deeper emotions of anxiety for the other person, the person with the care that is deeply seated in selfless desires. The one who is more vulnerable by letting him or herself fall is the loser. The irresolute win. When a heart breaks, it never breaks even. This is because at the breaking point, the one on the right of the spectrum has much more at stake, and consequently much more to lose.

Isn't that a terrible compromise? How can the person who is more genuine in his or her emotions play a game such as love? It is not sensible. The slut wins over the nun, and the player over the priest. It's a really fragile balance of push and pull that the people involved have to maintain. The further each is from their spectrum, the higher the resulting tension, and usually the worse the consequences. It goes the other way too: the closer each is to each other on the spectrum, the greater the chance of a successful relationship. Sluts ride with sluts, and the holier with the holier. Assholes are assholes because they are further on the left side of the spectrum than the other side involved.

Doesn't that make this game liken to a gamble? You roll the dice, and if you and if the other person involved lie on the same inch of the spectrum as you, then eureka! But how often does that occur? And don't forget to throw in the other variables. Personality? Aesthetics? Proximity? The list goes on and on. Some people gamble and gamble to no avail. And each time a person gambles, a little chunk of the heart is put at stake. The little pieces are gambled and lost until at some point, there will be nothing left to gamble, and consequently nothing left to measure on the spectrum of reciprocation. Kill or be killed, these people are incapable of sustaining a long relationship.

This concept extends further than just the relationship. On a personal level, one of the reasons I have discovered for my reserved nature is based upon this very idea. I remain closed off to maintain invulnerability to being taken granted of/ignored, because I am afraid of the spectrum. That's usually why "I just don't give a fuck", because people don't understand the spectrum (forgive the blanket statement) and are insensible to the trust and reciprocating obligation. Sometimes I am reckless and mindless of the rules. Sometimes I am lucky, sometimes I am unlucky, all depending on the circumstances.  Whatever, sometimes I try to roll my dice more carefully. But forgive me for the digression, this post is not about me.

What do I mean by prating of love and such things? It's a godforsaken topic, not meant to be thought upon by the mortal.

We wine, and then we dine on corpses. We lie together, and eat each others flesh until everything burns into a crisp ash, and the smoke dissipates into the thin air. Be loved beloved, and watch the clockwork work its way as it does.
control intonations bridges instant portrait

Remember when we weren't strangers?

0 com

do u liek drugs?


Her eyes were cold, soulless and empty. Her skin, vaguely discolored, and her aura distanced and distraught. She had a sad, mismatched aura. And the way she talked, goodness. She talked corpses out of her mouth. Her speech was dead, to say the least. Her mind seemed somewhere far away, antiquated. Maybe in a different place and time.  Maybe in the Middle-fuckin-ages. She talked about Beowulf too. But as terrible as the subject other speech was, it wasn't really that. The way she felt about the subject, the way she was so immersed in such a trivial and obtruse subject. If I cared, maybe I would tell her, "come back to the 21st century". But I don't. She talked heroism, but her figure was aged and decrepit. She talked glory and interest, but she was a sexing-geometric-shape aka she was a fuckin square. Meet my english teacher for English 10A.


Labels