happy birthday

moving too fast

(not buckled in)

breaking

inhibited: a free falling of something felt

never uttered

for fear language will give way

- fail to encompass -

what seeing and feeling has become

inside a mind so sure

of things unchanging

like roses

and coffee

strong and silent

rich in legacy,

in hearts now breaking.

hoping: for relief, for beginning again

safe and waiting

in florida sun.

afraid to merge

"I keep feeling that people are becoming less human and more animalistic. They seem to think less and feel less so that everyone is operating on a very primitive level. I wonder what you and I will see in our lifetimes. It seems so hopeless yet we must keep on trying ... I guess we can't escape being a product of the times, can we?"

— Bret Easton Ellis (The Informers)

completeness: habitually lacking

if meaning is dependent on regularity and you make a habit out of communicating in ambiguous terms does the meaning your relationships become subsequently ambiguous? if you standardize superficial relationships, make the lines indistinguishable, and therefore obscure any potential for purpose or significance, will you somehow damage your ability to assign any amount of legitimacy to your interactions?

have we standardized superficiality of language by playing games and objectifying peoples wants (needs)? or have we always had that potential and we are now at the point in our society where social expectations and the abuse of this power have aligned to create the ability to segregate ourselves from all emotional responsibility?

by regularizing emotional competence we are isolating ourselves from meaning .. does that make sense? because if we hide within the intricacies of ambiguity can we ever really know what we are saying? I mean really know how we are being perceived? or are we walking around as perpetual strangers? estranged as a function of self-awareness?

i might be jumping to too many conclusions. or i might be psychoanalyzing. . you decide.

where the eye looks hardest

i've come to the conclusion that people (most specifically parents, college roommates, co-workers) take their perceptions of you-take the little box they put you in based on their expectations- and interpret all of your actions to fit within their stereotype. 

what happens when you realize what people expect you to be, see the box they have placed you in, and garner your interactions to fit into that box because it is easier than disappointing them and re-defining their view of you when they don't want to see it.

I used to think i could censor parts of myself to make other people happy, in fact i got quiet good at it. the result; there are exactly 4 people who know who i really am, and everyone else ignores the parts of me i never forced them to accept. 

so now the people that surround me at school and work and home don't really know anything about me and i am starting to resent the fact that their expectations were so much more powerful than my will to define myself opposingly in their minds. 

and maybe i wouldn't have this problem if i couldn't see through people so well, or maybe i would be more angry if i couldn't. all i know is that i need to be around people who can see every part of me, and being home makes me miss the people that really know me. 

and as a result i still don't know where my life is going because i so desperately need to cling to and simultaneously destroy this "plan" i have concocted to make all parties happy and account for any disparities in expectation.  

 

life X weight of the world^2

I've learned that people will only encourage you until things become too real. Because when things become too real they become unrealistic, there a flaws and glitches, and dead ends no one thinks about when you are setting goals. There is no potential to be disappointed when you have the implicit support and encouragement of those too blind to think they are protecting you from it. 

I think it is exceptionally worse to be protected from disappointment than it is to have a rational, realistic view of what is going on in your own life. Having this happen to me twice now i have come to realize that the only thing these people who claim to "support" me are doing is trying to "protect" me from my supposedly unrealistic aspirations. 

Ironically, people seem to try harder the more they are encouraged and are even more devastated when their so called supporters turn their backs at the last minuet and try to pull "i told you so" out of their ass. 

(because no one ever had the balls to tell you so in the first place) 

i can see this happening once - its a fluke a dream built in possibility and wrecked in unfavorable circumstance. But twice? and this time the only back up plan being the original, previously wrecked dream?

something is wrong and it can't be all my fault. because i know that there has to be something i want that i am good enough for. 

no one else has to settle to be good enough, so why should i? 

or do they? is that the devastation of growing up? is it that everyone, at some point, realizes they are never going to be good enough for what they want? 

where do you go from there? 

fearful symmetry

"He got it now, of course, finally . . . He would never have known the horror of getting what he thought he wanted. He could have spared himself and everybody else the cost of it . . . If there was a moral to the story of Martin Chatwin, that was it in a nutshell. Sure, you can live out your dreams, but it'll only turn you into a monster. Better stay home and do card tricks in your bedroom instead."

lev grossman 

The Magicians

  

of which they contain the most

from now on i am going to trust that some people are capable of taking responsibility for their emotions, and equally capable of communicating the emotions they are willing to take responsibility for. 

this is not to say that i am turning a blind eye on the way people make themselves feel, or the things they do because they are afraid (etc). but with this, right now, i am going to trust that being let in a little at a time is progress, and that eventually seeing a whole picture will be worth something. 

because i am so sick of being disappointed by people. 

in this way i will at least know the mechanism that has the potential to disappoint and be less afraid of its consequences. 

alright. 

sometimes the fall

i'm not 

able to comprehend

distance in the context

and inevitability of 

emotions,

revolving around expectations, or a lack there of -

of it for you. 

not it. 

like waiting to be kissed

- tagged

by your bruises 

running around with bleeding knees 

and aching joints

we're getting older - 

but not old enough, for you to believe

me when i say 

i'm not it; 

you don't think. 

tired, skin on skin, 

it's about time, 

laugh and a look, like you want me stationary

"you make me feel something"

not leading you 

to any safe place, there is no safe

count again

from ten. 

run, 

chase - 

you promise to tag, 

i'm not it? 

it for you

 How are saying the right things, and knowing what's going to be said, influenced by how accurately a person sees us for who we are? or how we want to be seen? And how does this picture of accuracy influence our emotions?

Does this overview allow us to trust our circumstances more? or to trust ourselves with the potential of our emotions less? 

In particular, how does this situation enable someone to heal themselves from whatever past hurt they have erected as a boundary?  is it even possible to help someone overcome what they have already told themselves is the problem? 

When someone processes things the same way you do, with the same amount of self awareness, is there anything else to do but understand and maintain this acute awareness? 

i think it's rare. i was able to understand another persons needs to push me away and pull me closer at the same time, what's more i was able to identify the mechanisms he used to do so, and fully understand what was about to happen. And this gave me an implausible sense of calm. not only, but comfort too. . there was safety in all of this knowing. (and his knowing i knew). 

it was also refreshing to hear someone admit that i at least made them feel something, and in this context it sounded like that was both rare and necessary. and maybe this shared understanding, and comfort in the negation of expectations, is what people need to connect with each other. 

I don't know if i know what happy without expectations is supposed to feel like. but i think it's a lot like this. something untarnished but inherently tangible . . 

because it's not about being enough for someone, or trying to love or lust after someone, it's about understanding someone in the way they understand themselves. 

and what freedom it allows in the silence between two bodies breathing mutually.   

trust me in the morning

could it be that we only maintain close relationships with people in our lives who are able to acknowledge the moments we experience as significant. Do those who contextualize a relationship serve little other function than to give these moments purchase? 

we look for support in those we are close too just as we look for validation that what we are feeling, experiencing, or remembering legitimate emotions in response to an event. what gives us this validation is the exposition rendered by an informed observer. 

so, a drunken, impulsive indiscretion on the surface is given redeemed purchase to the individual who realizes that this action is the result of 12 years of sexual tension and hypothetical expectations. 

here we are validated by those in whom we confide because they do not require us to justify our actions. Just the same however, do we have to justify our actions to the party of our inhibition? what if this person does not see these actions in the same context? 

how do we justify the perception of those party to our desire? is it fair to assume the confidant with sufficient exposition is considering the perception of the other person involved when validating our actions? 

no. 

as a result, is it then impossible to validate discretionary actions taken in or out of context? how do we redeem our sense of control over the evolution of a long standing relationship without this validation? 

is it possible to justify any action, no matter how small, without context or exposition?

in other words, can our emotions, experiences, and feelings exist free of justification? Can we experience emotions without context? and without it are our emotions valid?  

how does one validate the emotional evolution (or devolution) of a relationship without the awareness of mediating factors? It makes me wonder if any relationship can exist on its own without baring the weight circumstance. 

the days it's true

"the reappearance of the lady is a matter of individual taste."  - will goldston, tricks and illusions

what is the significant part of this ritual? is it the consistent reappearance after any amount of time passed? or is it the continued disappearance at the end of the night?

is there enough magic in disappearing in a puff of smoke to make the lady reappear only to watch her vanish? what is the sought after illusion? if you think of ritual/ relationships as magic tricks . . illusions . . then which part makes us re-enter the theater and buy another ticket for the same show? 

are we attracted to the subtle set up? the erotic distraction that draws the audiences attention away from the trick? is it the glamour of the act, entering the box, shackling the wrists? or is it the big reveal, when the box opens and she's gone, no trace left other than the memory of her once being tangible? 

and if the lady reappears before the curtain goes up are we disenchanted? is the assistant a mere tool to be beckoned to? waiting for her cue? or is she ultimately in control? because there is no magic if she chooses not to disappear . .  

truthfully the magic lies in the hands of those willing to facilitate it. 

or she believed

you are 

not 

saying what you think 

i don't 

know. 

barriers like m&m's . . rum 

classy and gluttonous 

like you and i 

consumption of

consuming each

consumed by 

the other. 

in low ceilings and re-run light 

we are 

always 

far from faithful 

nothing unacknowledged is true 

a code of reappearing 

disappearing, 

trap doors and basement stairs.  

knives through the box

curtain over the tank 

holding our breath 

until the lady 

(i play, i wait to play)

doesn't give the impression

of being. 

love me back

is it possible we focus so intently on knowing how good we could be for other people that we forget to demand other people be good for us? 

at what point do you realize you have gained nothing from any (intimate) relationship in which you have entered? about the point you realize nothing has changed .  . 

i could play this game blind folded with both hands tied behind my back -a fact i am less than proud of  .. i hate that i am not surprised by the indecency of human behavior or the faithless tendencies of anyone promising to love you. 

but what's worse is my fear that if i demand more from these people i will lose them. even worse is the fear of losing superficial relationships like these to begin with.

lack of confrontational skills? lack of other options? lack of ability to believe i will find/deserve something better? 

D.) all of the above

this road before

why is it that the only people who truly understand me on an intellectual level somehow eject themselves from my life? 

whether its running off to china or running away from a goodbye they all seem to be fleeting glimpses into a connection that i don't seem to be capable of sustaining. 

are people who get this close ill equipped for an extensive friendship? does their brevity serve a purpose? or is this some form of unconscious punishment i inflict upon myself. 

is the ultimate irony in this chapter my inability to maintain the relationships that i need?  

a written invitation

feeling good and feeling right are two different things. I think that we assume that the two should be mutually exclusive and we therefore try to force one to be synonymous with the other. 

good and right are not interchangeable feelings but they are both finite terms of compatibility .. at least separately? "right" is only environmentally and opportunistically sanctioned and can be radically changed by circumstance and/or priorities. 

"good" is a more superficial satisfaction, sexual or emotional satisfaction (etc) that is limited to hours/days give or take some .. but it's fleeting and non-withstanding in terms of longevity or even significance. 

so should we look for both together? should one develop before the other? or is there another factor all together that i have get to acknowledge as a priority? because really emotionality is subjective . . but then again isn't everything?

of course.    

this broken stem for you i loved

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.  - oscar wilde 

it's not though. 

what is the difference between ritual and habit? ritual (i still believe) seals love, but does habit make ritual redundant? is habit condescending? 

because isn't habit something we do without conscious thought? isn't habit mindless? in fact, habit, it stands to reason, derails the function of ritual. habit is then the antithesis of ritual - a way out. 

because if ritual seals love then said ritual becoming a habit would imply that the ritualistic behaviors are no longer effective in sustaining an emotion, therefore the behavior becomes second hand (thoughtless) while the emotions deteriorate. 

and is it our fault that we fall victim to habit? when the once fruitful ritual loses significance but the act remains how do extricate ourselves? and what happens when the act is altered, when something is added after the purchase of ritual has been lost? is that significant? or is it the final deterioration of the once ritual into a habitual action without consequence of emotion? 

can we consciously extricate ourselves from emotional repercussions by changing the habitual act so that it regresses to a time before the ritual was cemented? and if this is possible is it then possible to relinquish our willingness to form habitual relationships that are devoid of emotional faculties?  

but here

i have realized that certain people (mother) around me create limits for themselves and then try to justify these boundaries by creating limitations for other people around them (me). 

there is no reason not to go somewhere because you don't like the throughway, there is no reason to tell you daughter not to get her doctorate in NC because you aren't willing to visit, there is no reason you can't take your dog to the beach just because he won't pee in the grass. 

really. 

and what's worse is that these self imposed limitations are selfish, they are nothing more than a resentful, bitter, attempt at transferring ones boredom and disappointment at their own life on someone else. 

i don't need that. i need people who can be happy for me because i am breaking boundaries, not irrationally mad at me because i am not staying confined within in their comfort zone. 

i expect more than that from the people i'm surrounded by; the problem is i find it impossible to extricate myself from this particular relationship as it is one of the few that has no choice but to last a life time. 

ergo, i have no choice but to mutter under my breath like an immature teenager and sneak around behind the backs of those who should be the most supportive because they are too near sighted to see the bigger picture. 

holes growing in it

its amazing to me how relative our existence becomes in the face of tragedy. people search for a community when normalcy is disrupted, when the relativity of our untouched realities is extracted and defaced. 

how much of shared grief is a function of pretension? necessity? is this need for community an ingrained coping mechanism? is this how we cope with the disruption of complacency? 

is this what makes us believe we will never be completely alone? 

the ability to grieve simultaneously with those who have become all but strangers? or the ability to achieve simultaneous mourning for a time in our lives where reality seemed less aggressive; where we weren't strangers? 

at least pretend like we had one

it is interesting to think that relationships are an integral part to human existence and relationships themselves are so consequential because they generally come with an expiration date. what's weird then is that no matter how serious or casual the relationship our knee jerk reaction is to resist its ending. 

recently i have seen people pull away to avoid this anxiety over the conclusion of interpersonal relationships. the most common excuse i hear is 'well i'm never going to call you or see you or bother to keep in touch after i leave."

it seems like our defense mechanism is to react to ending with degradation, as if cheapening the significance of the relationship makes leaving all the more justifiable.  

this degradation, it has also become apparent, gives way to physical vices one part of the relationship would never visit (or revisit as the case may be) unless there is an imminent ending. 

the potential vulnerability appropriated by endings gives us both cause to rebel against significance and at the same time give more significance or greater degradation to a relationship by taking it out of the emotional and into the physical realm. 

even if this physicality is not realized its inclination is significant with reference to the  rapid evolution a relationship endures in its last leg. 

and what does the ending do in regards to the relationships course up until that point. is a relationship given more purchase because the ending is sentimental? or less because the relationship is cheapened by a cowardly exit. or is sentimental physicality, or the desire for it, the ultimate cowardly act because it distracts from the reality of ending? 

truer at a remove

maybe it's when people reach out for each other in times like this that we experience "enough", fullness even - strength in shared helplessness. we cannot fix one another but maybe the want to soften the blow is the only band aid we need. sharing silence - or the meaningless lack there of to lighten the atmosphere. 

reaching out with simple existence, just functioning in the same air of circumstance.  

it doesn't seem fair that we should have to see people close to us suffer through circumstance. people who should be closer to us and the people that are closer to them that need to reach for someone. 

and maybe in that reaching people share enoughness. in the presence of one another- in the simple act of needing because they know not what else to need, maybe people are enough for each other when it is not expected, when we least expect them to be. 

maybe thats why we are here, circling each other constantly, to be enough at the moments where everything else is out of step. to be a constant in the background and feel what they feel, feel what they wish they could feel,   to be enough when they think nothing could fill them out. 

how do you explain grief for the fringes, for the bit players, and for what they do to our own players. 

maybe that existential grief is proof of the fullness we find in each other. because everything is truer at a remove - 

without desire

its not that it's not me, it's that it would have been someone else had i left. it's the not being enough, not being even an inkling, that its impossible to walk away from. 

something about sober thoughts in a different state, something about my not liking my body enough to make things work. something about a lack of something else. 

knowing that if i had left it was going to be someone else, no matter who was in the room, and knowing that that someone else would have faked innocence in the face of substance to get ahead. 

because it's not just one night and too many beers to me, because its 11 years worth of might be and maybe's, because i'm not enough, or not right now, or not ever because i'm too close. . because i'm not ever anything that they need. 

thats why i won't be ok. atleast not tonight. 

what it aims to preserve

if we make up patterns to gain control over situations that are out of our comfort zone then how do we know if what we are feeling, or perceiving, is real? do we make it real by acting in accordance to this perception or do we make the situation less tangible by distancing ourselves with needed patterns and insinuated emotions? 

can our perceptions be right in one place and wrong in another, even with the same person, because of an outside player? can a disturbance on one end disturb the overall if the environment has changed? or has the environment been instituted in the first place because this other party was looking for a pattern set by that same outsider? 

do we place ourselves in situations to look for patterns? and can two people be looking for two completely different designs and still find a common ground? can we even see the others ground from where we're standing? and if we can and we acknowledge it is that a pattern too? or does that disturb what we were already looking for?

what if we are looking for the same things but in different patterns and maybe all it would take is looking at where we are at face value instead of trying to substitute it with the patterns we are so used to seeing? 

is it possible for us to take things at face value, with no expectation, or want, to see something that may or may not be there? and if we can is that when real person to person connection takes place? or is this when we miss each other?

can we find each-other through the holes in the patterns we are trying to find? and if we happen to look through the same holes at the same time is that when things catch? is that when we can both fathom things working, if even for a second? 

before this outside player closes the hole and makes the pattern complete? or are we only affected by this outside player because we feel obligated to be? because we were for so long. and acknowledging their lack of power over us would be breaking a pattern that we find comfort in? 

or is this whole game a pattern in itself? and by this pattern becoming reliable and expected we never really see someone for who they could be within the context of our own life. 

and how do we break this pattern? 

just with

If familiarity is a function of environment, and liking is a result of familiarity with a person, then there must be a certain amount of time where liking can turn to loving. But once that time has passed, liking will remain stagnant or start to decrease. This "threshold" (or time limit) must therefore be measured with consideration to environment. Also, If a certain amount of familiarity is essential for love then it may be possible to sustain love by re-familiarizing one person with another through a change of environment. 

familiarity -> expectation/anticipation -> ritual -> love? 

or maybe:

familiarity -> expectation -> ritual (disappointment) -> like

familiarity -> anticipation -> ritual -> love

so maybe the key is not predicting what a person is going to do and being disappointed in their not coming through but instead anticipating what someone will do and being happy when they surprise you by being unpredictable. 

now thats a concept. 

empty peace

"Still, there is no law that says all decent things must be permanent. Perhaps (intimacy), itself, like beauty, is temporary, and no discredit attach to impermanence." 

g. maguire