fuck____i'm_not_supposed_to_love_you curious toys he's just a friend a really good friend a close friend to me, like a brother but tonight... in a different light he was more. holding doors open did he ever do that before? i never noticed until today... maybe today was the first time. i'd tell you if i could. he's just a friend... he's just a friend... now say it again... once more with feeling HE'S JUST A FRIEND he's just a friend he's just a friend ::cough he's my best friend's exboyfriend cough:: jigga what? jigga what was that? that last part right there. hmm... =X keep it quiet. . . pausing to reflect. . . thoughts to collect . . . attention to redirect . . . keep it quiet. i'm keeping quiet. it's all quiet. light taps on my keyboard... replacing my tremoring voice. letters, words...but no noise i'm keeping it quiet. FUCK...seriously....i'm not supposed to love you. thinking out loud, talking to herself 020921 ... blown cherry you stood there laughing at me on the worst night of my life enjoying my humiliation and shame and pathetic tears and very much the cause of all such degradation I'm crumbling in my own hands 021111 ... Rhin i woke up this morning, and really didn't want to leave the cloud that is my bed. i had been dreaming of you. it felt too real...the feeling, the smells and the sounds. i hate dreams like that, but this one was different. my first thought upon waking was the realization that i'm still in love with you. however, maybe i'm not in love with you. could it be that my dreams are beginning to cross over into reality? on any other day, i hardly even think of you. to be perfectly honest, you are not good enough for me. you never were. why these dreams then? maybe i'm remembering how it felt to be loved, and i'm searching for that feeling again? somehow you are becoming involved in the process. what if i'm wrong? what if i made the biggest mistake of my life? it hurts to think of you. i'm so confused now. 021111 ... squint There are a lot of things I'm not supposed to do. 021111 ... dankman no one's ever perfect you do and say the right things, keep everyone appeased. Then one night...late...too many bears, maybe too many bols. The light makes her eyes sparkle just a little different, and fuck! You got your ass in a situation. Why did I look at her like that? Was she looking at me, like that? I'm married, why do I need to look elsewhere? I'm in the perfect situation, why is she so desirable? Never go through the motions. Feel real passion. Feel real desire. Feel real love. And then feel real pain. I want you more than anything I've ever wanted. And the selfish bastard that I am is not selfish enough to forsake my children like my father did to me and my brother. So you wonder if that little change in routine makes a difference? Let me tell you it is life altering and so exciting it gets me off. But to fight with the deamons of passion and pride of doing the right thing are a difficult battle. And I hope I choose the right path. 021111 ... reitoei well, i wasnt supposed to seduce you. 021112 ... unhinged i forgot on off you me yes no that is the order of things. 021113 ... Syrope i told myself this, so WHY did i tell him i still did...because he's gonna tell you. i didnt want you to assume what you did about me having no feelings for you, but this could turn out to be even worse. im tired of getting hurt. 021114 ... girl_jane It's a mistake I think I can live with... 021114 ... Jarec but i still do anyway 021116 ... littleidiot you drive me crazy sometimes. and sometimes its the good-crazies, but usually its the 'what-the-fuck-is-going-on?-crazies.' and so... i think i've come to the conclusion, that i shouldn't love you. that i'm not supposed to. but i do...because it sort of makes life difficult, makes me mope, pace, shout, cry, analyze, write-a hell of a lot, analyze some more, and it makes me do stupid things. and...well now its even MORE complicated.. you've brought in this whole new dimension and i'm so torn between two emotions that are both telling me exactly what i should and should not do.. and they're both right. i am, after all, a silent drama-king.... i realize that. 021119 ... persephone It means that I have broken down. That my life can no longer go on as planned. I am a cold-hearted and unloving bitch of a woman, who never needed anything but herself. The fact that I love you makes me sick. Makes me want to put back all the feelings that just came puking out of my heart. Fuck you! You broke my code. NO one was supposed to do that! I was supposed to be alone die alone Alone and untouched And yet I am sitting here, thinking about you, and loving you in that everlasting friendship-beyond-sex-but-with-great-sex connection that everyone wishes to experience. But what if I am wrong? Then I can continue to run away and shield myself with superficial and purely physical relationships. Oh if only I could do that. Maybe then this wouldn't be so scary? 021119 ... IWishICouldGoWithDavid Lucky for me I don't. Yet. 021210 ... morphine. the veins in my forehead are throbbing. 021211 ... sixteen its too hard not to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 030624 ... crimson you weren't supposed to show up when you did 030724 ... ClairE Isn't it funny when you look back and realize the signs were so obvious? I tell myself I can't do this. I tell myself this is real. I ask myself, Is this real? I tell myself, Don't do this. I tell myself, If this were real. I realize, These feelings are not always here. Do they have to ride with you forever to even be counted, or are they allowed to sleep? I tell myself, It is not allowed. Everyone else is silent. Everyone else seems to say, This is not real. I want things to be funny now, lolling just behind my shoulder, turning my head and having to look back to see and remember. 031021 ... Somebody That I Used to Know After all these years. 080129 ... dsfgesgedfrg Questions play upon the character of something that is not known; a secret of the genius, wherefore the answer to a question surely is nothing more then the admission of what is not known, that is the particular secret of genius, by what is known, be it some law of the intellect, that is an operator between some other knowledges, or those knowledges themselves, in operations of themselves, in that exigency of their merit. The character of a secret may be so defined as some correlation between knowledges that "term" the secret by an event; the event of "admission" whereby the secret is "supposedly" revealed in the event of it's transduction into the world of discourse, and by the laws of reason and that reasoning upon knowledges taken place, to be given that privilege of coming to light, though of which has merely been "charactered" in the way in which the genius plays the roles of creation by establishing the created as the term of one of it's secrets: the potential admission of it's correlate wisdom in the placement of things. If we have a dog and a ball we have a correlate potential that the ball will be bitten by the dog, given the requisite operators connected to either concept. The question: what will the dog do with the ball has a certain character, that may be written out as those correlations between the ball and the dog and the operators of either one of them. What we have is that the gap in our understanding is filled by an admission of something external to the situation of our understanding but which is somehow a part of us. What is not known can be "Charactered" by correlating knowledges to force spontaneous emergences in the gaps our understanding, in the process formerly being demonstrated. A question, being nothing but a yet concluded correlation of knowledges, surely is a character of a secret in the same way an answer, which is but a concluded correlation of knowledges is, an admission, does. A secret is simply that which is not known: that being which is known, knowledge. Therefor I know a ball is round, simply by virtue of it's admission on our discourse, as an axiom, but I do not know how heavy it is, saying that I have yet to feel it: the secret is merely that which, in the classical sense, has not been subsumed out of whatever obscurity. In the process of asking a question we may formulate the character of what is not known by correlating knowledges, operators, and admissions within the question; this allows us to reach behind the question into a spontaneous fulfillment of it, while also transposing the characters of secrets out of the futurity of the answer to the question. The answer terms the secret by character in event, or the "admission" thereof: the "secretizing" of a question, by correlating knowledge, operators, and admissions within it's own syntax allows us to term the character of the secret by our lack of wisdom. By abolishing wisdom in this process we can employ the rarefaction of genius in more creatively oriented philosophies. The process is, in a sense, that spontaneous fulfillment of possible things. The character of a secret is irrespective to the worldly possibility of things: yet for because what can be is foremost appointed by the possibility of what is not known, what is known being already that influence of what is, in the world, namely the lives of men that be, the world will inherit those seeds of it's consequence from always that which men do not know; the secrets of their genius, being brought up in the appurtenance of that contour, bearing unto the world whatever shape it has. All that we know are either admissions (conclusions) or the processes of admitting something (questions): we will never know exactly what HAS been admitted, nor will the question reveal the secret it eternally shall hold. But in questions do questions spontaneously fulfill themselves; the character of their secret being used to, foremost, construct the question as that correlation of knowledges used to propose it's semantical relevancy, and, secondarily, allowing for the further investigation of that character into the potential for meaning or worldly meaning. That which we do not know is irrespective of those things we do; the characters and the laws of questions and answers, or to be specific, those characters of questions and those laws of answering. Can we philosophize backwards? - by abrupting the question to explore the relevance of one factor of the question to another; in a "characterization" of what we do not know, instead of directing the overall semantic discourse towards a centralized philosophical tenet or scholastic prerogative? Where the latter will lead us to answers and the concretizing of answers to establish systems of philosophy, will the former possibly remove one from those concretizing systems by avoiding the answer and yet hanging the question in a perpetual suspension by exposing it's total internal relevancy? The admission of a conclusion in philosophy is exacted by placing a focus of the question upon a suspicion or philosophical law: in the process I describe the focus is from facets upon facets of the question; the relevance springs from within the question itself in relation to the established philosophic lexicon instead of from the question into the law. Example: What is the relation of time to the brevity of human life? Characterization: human life and brevity; whereas the brevity of an insects life is considered by a man, the brevity of a man's life is also considered by men. The life of man assumes a brevity over itself while at the same time the length of time taken to assume that this brevity is a suitable area of concern for him has peradventure ran the entire length of the man's life. Surely one's own life is the greatest length of time he can imagine, so how does a man call his own life brief? By exploring the relevance of brevity and human life and avoiding the centralized subject of "Time" in itself, a more creative answer has been obtained for the question. [The Schools of philosophy have made philosophy their subject; the school as a study upon philosophy in the hope of describing a particular thing philosophically. The Philosophy of things or metaphysics of presence as the School's teaching: the philosophy of a thing as the ontotheological subject class. Consideration of personality as the true and eventual subject of philosophy: the quality of personality as subject to the internal relevancy of philosophy as described above, whereby the internal relevancy of the personality may be explored by utilizing the above system on the variable humanistic schools.] The laws of philosophy interpret for philosophy the territory into which it may venture unto without calling itself by any particular name; religion, law, the concern with diet, and in what fashion it may thereof play. The entirety of the history of Philosophy may very well be thought of as this sort of philosophic pre- determination, these "returning to-s" from any particular school to the relevance to philosophy in the general case, where also the will of man has chosen what territories that have by philosophy been determined as habitable to the inventory of mankind's conspectus, or have designated to what school a particular facet of man may be so reduced to, that philosophy should play upon, of which also has given philosophies those things of which to play; those checks and rules with which the game of philosophy is most desirably played. It is not easy for men to separate the determinations of their personalities from the determinations of their philosophies for this reason, whereof the human mind itself, being situated behind the personality, is rather uniform, and finds meaning through relevancy and degree of relevancy rather then any focus or concentration upon "figuring out something" or logocentrism and the search for truth. [Ludwig Klages in Charactology: We must stand opposed to (“gegenüberstehen”) that which we would understand; this is a necessary condition of all cognition, as the name of object (“Gegenstand”) irrefutably proves. We remain within the metaphor (which in fact is more than metaphor) if we add that the survey is hindered if the object is too close and that philosophy rather demands a “distance”] Therefor the schools of philosophy have distanced themselves from philosophy that they might refine it to any particular study, that with a unique name has compartmentalized all of philosophy to some exemplary manual for a subject; has made use of all those variable maneuvers of reason, to so exceptionally describe it's given subject. But this tells us nothing of man. If we must study man we must not elevate the schools out of the reach of philosophy, as a general system for describing particular things, but we must elevate philosophy beyond the personality of the philosopher, to study that personality, and thereof study the personality of men as it has somewhat quantitatively, yet not qualitatively, been proposed in the academy. 080130 what's it to you? who go blather from