Thursday, April 30, 2009

vehicle of relationship

i am not solely “reactive,” but i do not have the best alternator either. so at times it takes a push here and there to keep me going. which is usually too much effort for the standard human – it appears.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

things are until they are not (or something else)

the above "title" is what i am, a part of what i am, the whole of i am. but the madness-tangent (that is completely abstract “a point of view”) also creates something inside me that has me rendering, or committing to tangible form, the abstract. i do not do this through manufactured purpose or cause. it is an instinctive compulsion. for lack of better words or abstract communication i am an “artist.” i am made so by all that i am. being an “artist” (or what i like to refer to as “person of expression” or “expressioner” {not expressionist since that word is already taken and thus poses potential confusion}) is result, not occupation or hobby or preference. perhaps those ideas can be represented as well coincidentally. the overlap causes some muddiness or confusion to the awareness and communication of the ideas represented here or in any of my(or my the relative type of human i am a sample of) byproducts(expressive forms of the senses or sensibilities).
i am an expressioner, and i need no explanation, title, or demand understanding; however, in being a human with this expressive observatory attribute the resultant byproduct of expressive bits either in static conventional, unconventional, or recognized-convention works (but widely known and considered as “art” works), all that i am is what is. is what has come to be as a combination of all that i represent by what has contributed and influenced what has gathered(in experience or otherwise) within me.
i am a representation of element and time and evolution and eventuality conclusions, static fragments and segments falling away through change and continuum. my mental dynamic (instinct intellect and intuition – intuition being a dynamic of experience and knowledge and also where wisdom is derived from) creates me interpreter. interpreter of what i represent collectively but also interpreter of the continuum. [side note: continuum interpretations can only be experienced first-hand however, much like freshly homemade tortillas, bread, or other things with a quick oxidation, decay, or change factor.]
and so, what i create in writing, in saying, in doing, in being, is simply what is. to use a popular (but inaccurate phrase) “what needs to be.” this idea seems to apply to all humans and, ultimately, to all in known existence.
and the reason for this writing is to address questions and issues or circumstances i’ve observed. there are beliefs or perspectives that unwitting/unintentionally limit or confuse “results” with “intentions.” the results or the work or the product/byproducts are static forms or indicators (at best) of the source “interpreter.” the interpreter may be human, or nonhuman, or some type of dynamic that “produces.” understanding and specifically understanding “intention” comes from the source. the closer to the source the more direct the understanding may be.“art” is what it comes to be, whether guided by purposeful reason or intuitive feelings. art is expression, even beyond what is conventionally, commonly associated with, or accepted as “art.” “art” is a byproduct of the human dynamic. the idea of “expression,” however, lends to an attribute that transcends mere human activity. so “expression” encompasses or represents the abstract. possibility and potential are limitless there. and since humans live with the influence of the abstract (our minds being enabled with abstract thought) it would seem that static forms would not be so attractive as they have continued to be through our known and relative history, but they are. organic and changing beings perhaps like static forms because of their consistent nature and relative comforts attached to those associations.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

the present segment

i muddy myself with the conclusions of others. i seem to forget, whether easy or quickly, what i know or have experienced and thus "lose myself" to other's ideas, endeavours, moods/attitudes, beliefs, etc.*; i seem to forget that humans are relatively predictable in foundation or base patterns, especially those things heavily influenced by instinct or biological elements. i hope to be able to embrace this awareness more fully than i currently do. i continue to ask questions and search for the relative answers that enable me to connect to existence, myself, and most importantly, to others.
i have to remember of the “state of present,” meaning that what someone(thing) is will not be anything different for any given sample of time. continuing forward, the individual “state of present” may be influenced but there are curves (histogram/chart) involved in this “model” of thought. that given time the curve of influence or change increases. there are exceptional circumstances where the curve would spike or have an abnormal path as compared to common or average results.this idea goes for myself as well as all others and elements in existence. embracing this truly has been elusive. but i feel the awareness coming continually.

*humans and mainly, all culture and aspect of existence is interesting. i lose myself to that easily. wonderfully overwhelming.

it seems what i'm reacting to is related to the following: "to expect otherwise than what is present is nonsense." i believe, perhaps some other person like einstein (or was it sherlock holmes?) that said or is associated with saying something similar.


trust, likes, influence, and control.

amoung many, if not all, things in existence (apparent to our abstract mental workings) the words listed previous are not under our direct influence and certainly(based on my observations and experiments) not under our direct control. i believe that we have a certain amount of influence over our life (both direct and the resultant indirect influences) and that range of influence is what we know as action or the results of our actions or behaviour. this range is what we see as what we “control.” but this range is only a small portion of all that influences the attributes of our lives and ultimately of known existence. we do not “pick” a favourite, we can recognize what, on average, we are attracted to or continue to come back to. the resultant conclusion can be considered what a “favourite” is. likewise we do not assign trust. we cannot decide what we trust or not. we can, however, decide to gamble that what we perceive or want to perceive will be true. thus we can “assign” a false label (“trust”) to our gamble. when we say “i trust you” or “trust me” the common idea represented is that true trust will be “given,” but ultimately what is represented is a gamble.
again, this is not to say that we have no influence on our lives, that predestined fates have already been laid for us and we are simply “going through the motions,” we can take responsibility for and employ direct action/behaviour. it is simply the awareness that what we are acting on has been influenced by more than just our own thoughts or “controls,” and to a higher degree than we are usually aware of or would like to admit or embrace(accept).


expression will out. for some more or less. for all, a constant. how expression manifests is seemingly infinite to human perspective. expression is what i react to. it is what i feel. i have not decided this. it is me. and this is not to say i am not responsible for my actions or being, after all i am aware of the context i exist within; the segment of time and it’s attached realities. i feel the changing relatives and temporary constants. i am sensitive to the cultural-all and existence-entire. i find it difficult to carry-on with argument because, to me, “it”(argument-if anything) is about understanding. our state of awareness and it’s abstract nature is enabled to connect through understanding; understanding and not “being understood.” so while i do not see the relevance of “agreeing” or not or in winning or losing an argument i do, however, see the goodness and relevance of understanding and learning.we each keep our own universe, in other words “reality” or understanding, perception, or point of view. the integrity of our gathering, the benefit of what each of us are (especially to the social-group-entire “humanity”) is lost when we alter our “core” to accommodate one another. this has nothing to do with natural/balanced enhancement of the core through experience or the idea of “compromise.” because compromise takes place in the topical layers of interaction with one another, all the while the core remains true to the individual’s experience, “gatherings,” or ultimately, who that individual is. i do not feel anything for self-sacrifice* when it affects the core. because ultimately that undermines the individual’s benefit, ultimately resulting in a detrimental outcome (whether subtly or prominently realized/recognized) to the original element that the change was enacted for.

*total sacrifice (committing oneself to something, the result of which is expiration of the physical body to whatever extent aka “death”) does not alter the core of the individual as does self-sacrificing. total sacrifice destroys the known physical incarnation of the core, but not it’s abstract mental integrity.

"art needs no explanation"

better worded as “expression needs no explanation”

is a truth. of course, dependant on point of view or perspective.
the negation of the phrase comes from the identification of this fact:
that for the person who understands that which the phrase represents does not realize it through that phrase. and in the compulsion to connect and share this with others results in an awareness that says: if one needs ask, then one is not aware or that, for whatever reason, wants to know or connect or become closer through connection to the idea or entity that the question arises from.
the phrase is pointless to say because those who know it don’t need to be told it and those who do not will not understand it.

current sea

there was a blur on the road
i reached out to consume it
my teeth scraping against potential
my eyes blinded by the passing vehicle
of madness
i managed myself from within my own cab
the thread strips past tension
driving in fog I blind myself with inexperience, i am not ready
a reflection of my own irregularities.
it is my own exception i see.
reminding me of what is best
self-contained benefit.

decorated mahogany

i have with me
a special philter
that strains delicious texture
i cannot escape the results

Saturday, April 25, 2009


i was standing one day.


being boy
being man
a fantastic
end to end

awesome slapped forehead

i was happy.
then i smiled.
you’ll never guess what happened then.


Friday, April 24, 2009


upon careful considerations and hideously schematious thought i have comb to the apparency that i am felt and not upholsteritic brocadesh. a batting-sheaf of fiber spun from an eyeless shed. wict upon a backyard-niche knob-spindle, leafings tuct and shod-in brindle; colours whispt through wily twists.

schematious [skee may shus] (means to think too hard on something, thinking in static forms, thought based on fact or knowledge rather than experience and wisdom, one-dimensional thinking, it is also a derivative of scheme or schematic.)
apparency (a derivative of the words apparent, transparency, with a little bit of the word “appetency” in influence, this means something that is discovered but feels familiar as if one has already known this, i have used this to capture the expression “figures” or “it figures”, it can also mean a wasted effort on something already known but in this case {and usually} something that had to be discovered again for confirmation)
upholsteritic (means a mental filter an individual is aware or not aware of but who has created it for themselves, as opposed to having the filter imposed on the individual by another- by whatever means that may be.)
brocadesh [bro kay desh] (is a state of mind where the mind is overwhelmed by convention and/or social purposing(programmings/conditionings. where brocadesh is intellectualism or thought{knowledge}, felt is intuition or wisdom)
wict [wikt] (is a careless, but purposefully so, rending of something; though i have used this coin on mindless rents.)
whispt (is a derivative combination of whisht and of wisp – it means to take away or remove in clumps or tufts, to make a vacuum through haphazard or slipshod ways)

tempered balance

on the 13th of this month i was thinking about what it is to be sane or normal. what is degenerate and pathological.
it seemed that two main themes or factors were necessary to define the average/standard/normality: 1. normal is whatever way most people act or think. and 2. normal is whatever largest group(or group with the most enforceable power) of people agree upon. this second one is subjective to what people will actively agree/act upon regardless of what they really think/feel.
what was normal 8,000 years ago is not necessarily true now, so time and possibly evolution are not a consideration to the minds in thought during the time of my observations (thus – my lifetime). though, evolution takes a lot longer to change things, cultural evolution changes much faster whether forwards, backwards, up, or down, or otherwise.
even 50, 25, or 10 years can produce much cultural or social change. the basic minds are still there. latent potential behaviours still exist. bigots, extremists, chauvinists, and revolutionaries remain, albeit dormant but the essence, the foundation is still there. these types of people make up the human “medium.” and they are a pliable malleable medium of humanity. to varying degrees dependent on their layer in or away from the core of the human average.
this majority of human kind heavily influences the area known as conscious thought. which is where culture and philosophy are; where laws and rules come from. where tact and integrity have been honed.
whether positive or negative, right or wrong, detriment or benefit it all is managed by the dynamic created by the majority rule. this is where nonsense enters. this is the madness i imagine many of my kind to have talked about in their passing*. but it is the state of things. the mind is already an abstract-laden/latent device. product of evolution as i believe it to be. some kind of byproduct of survival or necessity or a direct development of device to aid whatever it is that prompted its existence. the mind that is aware and observant, the one that never stops learning or questioning (can’t stop questioning) is a mind folded with abstract istch; tempered between considerable oblivion and planar temptations. this mind goes everywhere known to all others. not isolate, not specific, not static, this type of mind rubs boundaries clear of suit**. it is a naked skin absorbing and sensitive to all rhythms. not coarse, no course. not callous, no callus.
free of purpose and reason and so much thinkings yet bound by physical means**.

*meaning, “of life” of moments but with a touch of allusion to death
**alliteral pun on the word soot but meaning “suit” as in conventions and things worn or that wear on us
***every definition represented in this usage

in other words

considering what is meant but regardless of, when someone says “trust me” it is a gamble or chance they are actually asking you to take. trust is not something that can be chosen, applied, or given. trust is created by experience and outcome.


an argument exists whether or not it is articulated well. debate and judicial outcomes have static purposes. beyond those agreements and parameters established, arguments cannot be won, they are reference points simply established to promote understanding, communication, and ultimately connection of human kind.


when someone says “should be” especially “you should be,” they are ultimately referring to an ideal or a recognized convention(to whatever degree); all are abstracts. language is a tool, however, i believe there are many people the world-over that do not fully grasp the concept. they are perhaps aware of the idea of language as a tool, they may even remember it being told to them in that exact way. but the main language(s) that a person uses to communicate are a constant and thus susceptible to being taken for granted. the same could be said for the ability to breath or see, move limb, or even the state of occupation of the being we each articulate and live through. all easily forgotten because of their constant presence.
we are enabled. and in the madness of possibility we recognize the similarities, the familiarities, the relative constants, and other forms that give us the ability to connect with one another and to share-and-understand what we have become through our experiences. we connect with each other much in the same way that all matter tends to connect- and we thrive by that.

thus, how are humans-entire to react? to be? what is our “true” nature and what is false? ultimately i cannot believe in true or false, there is only “is.” “is” being the result of what we all are and continue to be. for convention and human cultures this does not admonish or provide excuse to behaviour or actions taken, it is an observation that seems to attempt to escape the confines of human fussery and controls; that is, it is my mind feeling something that is outside of what it may understand.

it is funny (makes me laugh) because i am trying to understand my own differences from others; at least in what others allow to be shared with others. i have this feeling that there is much that is hidden from general-show other than the obvious things we each keep private. for example, one of the most common things is for people to clean-house when company comes over. not just tiding up, but actual overhauls of their normal arrangement of things. once company is gone, there is the reinstatement of the old setup. what!?
we all remain separate because we each generally have a sense that only we act or behave or feel the way we do. and this is mainly promoted by the fact that we have little opportunity to observe what each other does.

the majority dominates influence over the rule. the phrase “one person can change the world” is relatively false. to better capture what i believe to be the root feeling behind this phrase, the phrase should read “one person can influence the world.” because the word “change” seems to be taken, by the average person, as meaning “substantial control” (or what i call direct influence). and i have not observed where an individual of anything has that attribute/ability. an individual only has a small percentage of influence over their actions/life. an individual entity can be afforded a position of heightened influence by the contribution of the other influences of existence thus giving the individual more apparent effect in their realized performance(actions).
reality is what we make it. in culture, or in “the group” reality is what we all agree on and live by.


the off-white eyeless
covers itself
in black
hides its crumb-and-partial
within the blend of reality
the warmth of real
its thoughts
dissipate under mud
befuddled and bag
so it dons a
dicer that jumps saturate notions
unmolested balanced thinkings
until full
these impassioned coverings
hold reason and purpose from
obliterating the eyeless’ balance
a filter of sorts, preventing
nonsense from overtaking

harmonics and gestures

i was thinking about how other words enhance what the main ideas/words identify or represent. not that this is indicator or barometer, but that i notice that those who i find rhythm with (not implying exacting alignments but relative ones) are compelled to enhance in the same intensity as i do. not necessarily the same style or cadence but the same “warmth” “tone” or “temperature” regarding the level of intensity. and i have to say it this way because levels are abstract ideas. constructions we devise to frame segments of reality so they can be viewed for a time by our awareness.

i was also thinking about how my “relationship model” helps me to visualize the relationship of humans and this “awareness” layer i’ve found myself involved more heavily in recently. that perhaps it is not that certain humans (core “medium” of our species versus all subsequent gradated layers to the outer fringe layer(or boundary/existence/influence of our species) have a genetic statement that is ideal for the “awareness” but that they have a genetic statement that enables “phrasing” of sorts or that they have the atomic/chemical/genetic properties that enable a enhanced connection with intuition. or in other words these people, on some chemical or atomic level, are able to utilize intuition more easily/effectively. intuition meaning not only the gathering of experience-entire, that we receive in time, but the capability

this theory does better when testing what i have gathered. that there are gradated levels, that all humans have what evolution’s genetic “current” includes by default. that there are abnormalities/exceptions, to varying degrees, that change this default. that for the most part the default holds true to the medium of our species. this medium is the body that sustains our existence. a relatively “stable” vehicle that allows for the trials and tribulations of existence and survival.
so in each category we can devise there is a microcosmic presence to potentially nth degrees. the more humans in each category, the more testable the presence of these “categories within categories” or microcosm. so within the grouping of people, i or any human finds rhythm with, there may be a high variability of type present in that group. not to insult the understanding that diversity is an element of our nature. indicated by the state of our continued existence, survival, evolution. diversity is a relative and constant attribute of living creatures in our known observable space.

but this goes to explain or identify or make aware the state of variable prevalent even in those areas of human intellectual structures (laws, traditions, practices, etc.). that is that even when we think nothing is changing or is diverse, it is; and not necessarily in latent form, but perhaps not so recognizable to the indicators used in associations, labels, and conventions of the “human stable”(medium, vehicle, or main body)

observation statement

it is notable that “expression” is a separate element/idea from “making a living.” that the value of appealing or being understandable(stood) by/to any other person (to whatever degree/size that may be) is rooted in the abstract cultural device: “making a living.” “expression” is innate, existing as a separate characteristic from “making a living” (or ultimately “survival”).

this came to be written from my thoughts that expression and survival are separate. that it is human culture, or abstract devices(thought, conventions, rules, etc.) that merge the two.

an example of the way i think/write and at times speak

“tcotz prompter – jots that inspire or spark depther ideas”

originally the above was a descriptive bracket i wrote in one of my many write-trappings trying to capture the idea of something that renders or realizes abstract thought into a tangible form. but in this case, a writing that attempts to grasp what it can from the abstract, maintain that abstraction in feel, but at the same time represent essence without too much loss in translation or interpretation. and mainly to act as a sort of buoy of these intense saturate abstract forms. i do this because otherwise the overwhelming level of idea and emotion would obliterate any inclination to represent any of it in the tangible word, and thus, not share any of it. and “it” is my gathering-entire, the resultations in continual creation and interaction and explosion within my mind.
i did not want to word the above phrase “ideas that are deeper” or “ideas with more depth” – i had to write it with the adjective before the noun: “depther” and depther was the best feeling, looking, etc. word i could discern from the saturate cloud of intuition i find myself in.

the saturate cloud (of intuition); awareness, knowledge, experience – these things become clearer in time. it seems that what we are already is and that we are a kind of lens being turned and turned, focus becoming clearer all the time. but we are not static nor is existence and so the process of focusing continues as the depth of what is present(introduced and current) changes.

with our intuition, that is, all that we are in the continuing segment of awareness, this same saturate cloud exists. given more tools in the way of experience we have in us the ability to know this cloud. thus it becomes “clearer” to us. the cloud is still the cloud, but we know it more and so do not need singular forms of recognition of explanation to understand. we are enabled to “see” in the cloud, to know in the dark.

the mis's of nomer and conception

[a thought about the mis’s of nomer and conception – or the difference between agreed-on definition and contemporary cultural usage]

can i believe in the idea of “movements?” i see it(the idea or contemporary understanding of “a movement”) more as the attributes of many individuals rhyming enough to remain together for a segment of time. thus creating a new dynamic (enabled by the clumping) that creates relative unified outcomes or products. the way i see “a movement” to be received or understood as, by the average of people i have been afforded observation of (directly or indirectly), is an idea that removes the individual as importance. saying that the movement itself is what ultimately enables the individuals to belong and not that the individuals’ collective dynamic is what enables the movement its existence. to me the “movement” is a byproduct indicator of the human social group, especially of the successful nature of clumping and grouping: the effect of a house of mirrors.
eventually/usually it becomes a general practice to forget the human connection, the individual value, for the sake of the now idealized idolized “movement.” then, the articles or attributes attributable or associated or identified are turned into guidelines, tradition, or other static forms of delusion. therefore forsaking the wonderfully (enabler of all that we know – personally, of existence, or existentially) chaotic state of variable and diverse matter and existence.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

coins in my pocket

here are some words cobbed and continue to be used by myself. these words also give example into my love and articulation and molding of the word and letterform medium, and that i consider and hope to enable others the awareness that, all is expression, art, and abstract. all is what we make it.

cob or cobbed (created by necessity or evolution. allusion to the acronym “cbn” “created by necessity”)

occulatim (done as observed or seen – derivative of verbatim, created from necessity since the situation this word represents occurs within my observed reality often)

allusional (cob to accommodate the way i use the word “allusion.” but also a blend of both words “allusion” as well as “illusion” meaning something that is not what it appears or is not as familiar as would normally be for what it is mainly because it evokes or seems much like something else entirely)

mcotzinn [mzoshin or mzosheen] (the “gibberish” i speak. my language, especially that is used in place of and when normal and known words/language feel inadequate in expressing emotion.)

759/735 - "795" means "art." "735" means "photography." (homage to the library and its dewey decimal system)

canopitych {cob derived from "multych"} any amount of paintings or (art)works comprising a singular attempt at rendering an idea, capturing emotion/thought, or creating a language for the "voice." this may or may not be similar in style or effect to diptychs or triptychs. it just means that more than one relatively solid(tangible) form will be used in the capturing of the expression. it does not imply or necessarily mean that the mulitple items will be relatively near each other in physical space or time.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

human cell

given time, the average of what you know about me will be enhanced. this, i believe is relatively true with all experience. with some personalities(humans) it may seem that you "have their number" relatively quickly, and for all intense and porpoises what you know may be all that need be known for the given relationship/context or for society to remain in aggregate. but ultimately i believe humans are layered. these layers of mental attribute(not including the nucleus, which represents the physical individual) can be thought of as having depth (closer or further away from the nucleus) as well as having temperature, density, texture, movement, structure, etc.
the attributes of known existence are so wildly variable that this "relationship model" or "model of influence" evolved from my own theories, observations, and subsequent experimentations and tests.

human layers may be revealed or not dependent on the layers of others they come in contact with. so while we think we may know a person(to whatever level of familiarity or bond existing), there may be layers that have not connected, thus those layers remain latent to our awareness.

i say this simply because i wanted to give this blog some cohesion to me. if you know me, i change things where i can. considering all that i have available to me, all that is within my means (perceived or actual, indirect or direct), influences, and environment i continue to be a result of who i am.

the inspiration for this blog is so that i can post raw forms to. society has its nonsense. one thing of which is that, as humans, we think and have feelings that do not necessarily harm anything but that do not blend well with establish forms, conventions, laws, tact, acceptability, culture, etc. but what does this suppression create?
the "given," the understanding that each human speaks from their own perception, reality, experience, universe, etc. is not a popular or commonly realized notion. conclusions are continually jumped to or derived from what is heard. instead of being open to understanding "listening" most people are quick to judge, label, categorize, or attempt to have themselves understood.
experience is a partial source of this. experience is helpful but an unbalanced dynamic of "instinct, intellect, and intuition" will turn experience into detriment. this causes humans to second guess, assume, take for granted, or to otherwise subvert "wisdom." wisdom being what i feel is a combination of or the dynamic of "instinct, intellect, and intuition." wisdom is built with knowledge/experience or "intuition" and it is influenced and directed with intellect but ultimately enabled by instinct.

so i want to contribute my direct thoughts as i've managed to render them to these digital forms presented here. contribute them without the nonsense ramifications or unnecessary protocols of society-proper. red tape rubbish!

humans have survived within the existence of the "social group." society. culture. but at the same time, i consider culture a tool. and perhaps humans would be better served with changes to these ancient conventions of ours, these formalities or traditions. maybe not. i also have a feeling that, given our current evolutional state, that our minds return to relatively similar ways of thought (regardless of cultural conditionings, conventions, trends, etc.).
so perhaps free sharing of thoughts, not necessarily "full disclosure" would help us connect with one another. it is connection that i feel most. the social group has thrived and been made of this and i know that i definitely thrive through connections with others.

so let me state the obvious: what i say, especially here on this blog, is made up of random thought, observations, experimentations, theories, crumbs of thoughts, notes, moods, frustrations and delights, and all other manner of what each of us create within our minds. we cannot directly influence control over what we feel, what we think, we can however influence direct control over our actions. keep this in mind when reading this blog, or when you receive the "interpretations" from any other human.