try to find the black dot in this image below...
*taken from www.mentalfx.com
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
psychedelic trip
need some psychedelic trips lately?
try to find the black dot in this image below...
*taken from www.mentalfx.com
try to find the black dot in this image below...
*taken from www.mentalfx.com
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Monogamy Thought
Is it natural for human being to be monogamous?
The answer is, it depends. It depends on the definition. There are two definitions of the concept of monogamy itself, at least according to the encyclopedia I read. First, monogamy is the practice or state of being married to one person at a time. Second, it is the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time.
If the question is applied in the first definition of the monogamy, I guess the answer will be, yes. However, we have to be careful in using the word natural, though. Natural means something that is existed in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Meanwhile, the concept of marriage itself is actually a society-consensus concept. From the very beginning of humanity, the concept of marriage itself has always been related with the social structure or organization of the society. The marriage, formal union of a man and woman, recognized by the society law, is actually needed in order to accord status to the offspring, so that there will not be any disorderliness in determining inheritance or patrimony. In other cases, marriage is carried out to unite two disputing tribes, or countries, or even clans. Catherine of Valois was betrothed to Henry V in order to cease the dispute between England and France. Marie Antoinette was married to Louis XVI in order to consolidate the relation between France and Austria. Nowadays, in modern society, marriage is needed, again, to accord status, to secure identity. In the society, your identity is something that is crucial, something that is used to define and address you, to delineate clearly your position in the society. Marriage could grant that status, the legalized piece of paper sets clearly who’s the husband of who, who’s the wife of who and who’s the father of who, and so on and so forth. Thereby, that person’s dot is clear enough within the map of the society. From that we can see that the concept of marriage always related with the society, meaning that it is not inherently natural in the characteristic of humankind to have that kind of agreement that recognized the bond between man and woman within the society. To love is a natural characteristic of mankind, but to have a socially recognized relationship is a concept that was made by the society.
If monogamy is defined as the state of being married to one person at a time, it could be said that it is actually natural for human being to apply the concept. If the purpose of marriage is to accord the status of the offspring, to consolidate the disputing parties, or even to make a love-based relationship between man and woman socially recognized, then it could be said that monogamy is the most suitable mode to achieve the purpose. With the concept of monogamy, those purposes could be achieved properly and efficiently. In order to accord status for the offspring to avoid disorderliness in determining heritance or patrimony, a single partner is the most efficient and proper choice than having more than just one partners of marriage. More partners would lead to more complicated position to determine the exact status of the offspring, let alone to determine who has the right to inherit what and so forth. Of course it will be possible to be done, though, however, it is definitely more complicated to achieve the main purpose of marriage by having more partners than just having a single partner, so we can see that monogamy is indeed the concept that is most visible in achieving the purpose of marriage itself. When a concept is created, it is usually created because of some purposes or some targets to be achieved. If the concept of marriage was created to achieve its purpose to accord for the status of the offspring, then we can assume that it is natural to be monogamous, because it is the most proper and efficient way in order to achieve the purposes meant.
The same case as well occurred if the purpose of marriage is to consolidate the relation of two disputing parties, surely we could see that having more partners of marriage would be deficient for that purpose. If Louis XVI married, say, the daughter of Russian’s Catherine the Great while at the same time become the legal husband of Austria’s Marie Antoinette, the consolidation between Austria and France would probably not run as smooth. Therefore, we can see, in this case, it is natural for human being to be monogamous upon the created concept of the marriage itself. Why? Once again, because it is the humanity itself that created the concept of marriage, to achieve certain meant purposes, of course it is natural to find a concept that would be the most proper and effective way to achieve the purposes and logically speaking, it is the concept of monogamy that suits the purposes, therefore; it is natural for human being to be monogamous.
If, however, the question is applied to the second definition of the concept of monogamy, that is; the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time, the answer is, no. It is not natural for human being to be monogamous. Why does it so? Firstly, again let’s take a look to the meant purpose of the sexual relationship itself. There are two major purposes of a sexual activity; first, as a mean of procreation, and second, as a mean of recreation. In order to avoid confusion about those two purposes, we first have to be able to separate perfectly the different concept of a sexual relationship and the concept of marriage. The concept of marriage is created by the society, society created a sort of agreement that acknowledge and determine a legal basis for a man and a woman to be engaged. Meanwhile, the concept of sexual relationship is a concept that is more naturally instinctual. Long before the concept of marriage was created, human has been able to survive their clans and regenerate by using this concept of sexual relationship.
Therefore, we can see that those two concepts, sexual relationship and marriage, each carry out different purposes. In applying for those two purposes of a sexual relationship, that is; as a mean of procreation and as a mean of recreation, it is actually natural for the human being to be not monogamous. To achieve the mean of procreation, for instance, by applying the concept of monogamy, human would find limitation in reproduction. The capability of producing ovum and sperms is limited by amount and age. Man, as well as woman, for instance would probably not be able to be fertile for the rest of their life. Therefore, to be able to achieve the first purpose of a sexual relationship, that is, to procreate, to create descendants, it is natural for the humankind to find as many partners as they can in order to procreate as many offspring as they can. The same thing also applies in achieving the second purpose of a sexual relationship, which is; as a mean of recreation. The basic characteristic of an activity as a mean of recreation is to find pleasure and enjoyment. By being monogamous, of course this mean would be possible to be achieved. However, by not being monogamous, this mean would be even possible to be achieved in a more effectual way. I could sense that this argument would drag protests or controversies. But, see it this way. First, of course it is natural for human to be bored of the same patterns, if boredom occurred, then the purpose of recreation would no longer be plausible to be achieved. Yes, the boredom could be avoided by applying different patterns. However, having a sexual relationship with different partner could efficiently attain that task, because then the pattern would be inherently different. Now, more partners would of course means more different patterns, therefore, in order to achieve the second purpose, that is; as a mean of recreation, it is natural for human being to be not monogamous. How about the love factor? Well, it is only possible for someone to fall in love with one particular person at a time, but that does not necessarily eliminate the possibility to achieve the purpose of recreation, though. Love is one of the elements that make a sexual relationship pleasurable. But there’s also another element related with the physicals that would still make the mean of recreation could still be possible to be achieved. There we can see that it is natural for human being to be not monogamous in a sexual relationship, because a non-monogamous relationship is more effectual in order to achieve the two major purposes of a sexual relationship.
So, because it is natural for human being to be married with one partner, does it mean that one cannot be married with more than one partner? And because it is not natural for human being to have only one sexual relationship for the rest of their lives, does it mean that the only acceptable type of relationship is the ‘open-relationship’ type? No. One could freely choose whatever suits them. Classifying the natural and the unnatural would only create the boxes of right or wrong or the boxes of should be done and should not be done, and of course we know, there are no such things.
Hmm… I don’t know, at least that’s how I see it.
--sisie--
The answer is, it depends. It depends on the definition. There are two definitions of the concept of monogamy itself, at least according to the encyclopedia I read. First, monogamy is the practice or state of being married to one person at a time. Second, it is the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time.
If the question is applied in the first definition of the monogamy, I guess the answer will be, yes. However, we have to be careful in using the word natural, though. Natural means something that is existed in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Meanwhile, the concept of marriage itself is actually a society-consensus concept. From the very beginning of humanity, the concept of marriage itself has always been related with the social structure or organization of the society. The marriage, formal union of a man and woman, recognized by the society law, is actually needed in order to accord status to the offspring, so that there will not be any disorderliness in determining inheritance or patrimony. In other cases, marriage is carried out to unite two disputing tribes, or countries, or even clans. Catherine of Valois was betrothed to Henry V in order to cease the dispute between England and France. Marie Antoinette was married to Louis XVI in order to consolidate the relation between France and Austria. Nowadays, in modern society, marriage is needed, again, to accord status, to secure identity. In the society, your identity is something that is crucial, something that is used to define and address you, to delineate clearly your position in the society. Marriage could grant that status, the legalized piece of paper sets clearly who’s the husband of who, who’s the wife of who and who’s the father of who, and so on and so forth. Thereby, that person’s dot is clear enough within the map of the society. From that we can see that the concept of marriage always related with the society, meaning that it is not inherently natural in the characteristic of humankind to have that kind of agreement that recognized the bond between man and woman within the society. To love is a natural characteristic of mankind, but to have a socially recognized relationship is a concept that was made by the society.
If monogamy is defined as the state of being married to one person at a time, it could be said that it is actually natural for human being to apply the concept. If the purpose of marriage is to accord the status of the offspring, to consolidate the disputing parties, or even to make a love-based relationship between man and woman socially recognized, then it could be said that monogamy is the most suitable mode to achieve the purpose. With the concept of monogamy, those purposes could be achieved properly and efficiently. In order to accord status for the offspring to avoid disorderliness in determining heritance or patrimony, a single partner is the most efficient and proper choice than having more than just one partners of marriage. More partners would lead to more complicated position to determine the exact status of the offspring, let alone to determine who has the right to inherit what and so forth. Of course it will be possible to be done, though, however, it is definitely more complicated to achieve the main purpose of marriage by having more partners than just having a single partner, so we can see that monogamy is indeed the concept that is most visible in achieving the purpose of marriage itself. When a concept is created, it is usually created because of some purposes or some targets to be achieved. If the concept of marriage was created to achieve its purpose to accord for the status of the offspring, then we can assume that it is natural to be monogamous, because it is the most proper and efficient way in order to achieve the purposes meant.
The same case as well occurred if the purpose of marriage is to consolidate the relation of two disputing parties, surely we could see that having more partners of marriage would be deficient for that purpose. If Louis XVI married, say, the daughter of Russian’s Catherine the Great while at the same time become the legal husband of Austria’s Marie Antoinette, the consolidation between Austria and France would probably not run as smooth. Therefore, we can see, in this case, it is natural for human being to be monogamous upon the created concept of the marriage itself. Why? Once again, because it is the humanity itself that created the concept of marriage, to achieve certain meant purposes, of course it is natural to find a concept that would be the most proper and effective way to achieve the purposes and logically speaking, it is the concept of monogamy that suits the purposes, therefore; it is natural for human being to be monogamous.
If, however, the question is applied to the second definition of the concept of monogamy, that is; the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time, the answer is, no. It is not natural for human being to be monogamous. Why does it so? Firstly, again let’s take a look to the meant purpose of the sexual relationship itself. There are two major purposes of a sexual activity; first, as a mean of procreation, and second, as a mean of recreation. In order to avoid confusion about those two purposes, we first have to be able to separate perfectly the different concept of a sexual relationship and the concept of marriage. The concept of marriage is created by the society, society created a sort of agreement that acknowledge and determine a legal basis for a man and a woman to be engaged. Meanwhile, the concept of sexual relationship is a concept that is more naturally instinctual. Long before the concept of marriage was created, human has been able to survive their clans and regenerate by using this concept of sexual relationship.
Therefore, we can see that those two concepts, sexual relationship and marriage, each carry out different purposes. In applying for those two purposes of a sexual relationship, that is; as a mean of procreation and as a mean of recreation, it is actually natural for the human being to be not monogamous. To achieve the mean of procreation, for instance, by applying the concept of monogamy, human would find limitation in reproduction. The capability of producing ovum and sperms is limited by amount and age. Man, as well as woman, for instance would probably not be able to be fertile for the rest of their life. Therefore, to be able to achieve the first purpose of a sexual relationship, that is, to procreate, to create descendants, it is natural for the humankind to find as many partners as they can in order to procreate as many offspring as they can. The same thing also applies in achieving the second purpose of a sexual relationship, which is; as a mean of recreation. The basic characteristic of an activity as a mean of recreation is to find pleasure and enjoyment. By being monogamous, of course this mean would be possible to be achieved. However, by not being monogamous, this mean would be even possible to be achieved in a more effectual way. I could sense that this argument would drag protests or controversies. But, see it this way. First, of course it is natural for human to be bored of the same patterns, if boredom occurred, then the purpose of recreation would no longer be plausible to be achieved. Yes, the boredom could be avoided by applying different patterns. However, having a sexual relationship with different partner could efficiently attain that task, because then the pattern would be inherently different. Now, more partners would of course means more different patterns, therefore, in order to achieve the second purpose, that is; as a mean of recreation, it is natural for human being to be not monogamous. How about the love factor? Well, it is only possible for someone to fall in love with one particular person at a time, but that does not necessarily eliminate the possibility to achieve the purpose of recreation, though. Love is one of the elements that make a sexual relationship pleasurable. But there’s also another element related with the physicals that would still make the mean of recreation could still be possible to be achieved. There we can see that it is natural for human being to be not monogamous in a sexual relationship, because a non-monogamous relationship is more effectual in order to achieve the two major purposes of a sexual relationship.
So, because it is natural for human being to be married with one partner, does it mean that one cannot be married with more than one partner? And because it is not natural for human being to have only one sexual relationship for the rest of their lives, does it mean that the only acceptable type of relationship is the ‘open-relationship’ type? No. One could freely choose whatever suits them. Classifying the natural and the unnatural would only create the boxes of right or wrong or the boxes of should be done and should not be done, and of course we know, there are no such things.
Hmm… I don’t know, at least that’s how I see it.
--sisie--
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Being Erased
This is a very late scribble, actually. It should have been posted a week ago, exactly on my birthday. But better late than never, I guess, this brain catastrophe needs to be poured out, so yes…
I think my life is a mega circle. Well, not exactly mega, but large enough to come to some intersections with anybody else’s life which is also, another mega circle. Those intersections could be occurred because of a lot of things, but substantially because of the interactions I made with other people. Every new interactions encountered, every reciprocal actions, every thoughts shared, every single day spent creates a set of intersections within my life and other people’s lives.
So many other circles I’ve intersected and every single scrap of intersection in my mega circle had created a new spectrum, new shade of color that colors my colorful mega circle.
Last week, in June 10th, I was turning twenty. No longer a teenager, I guess. Another one year added to the age of my mega circle, and so far, up to this moment in time, my mega circle had been adorned with so many beautiful shades of colors, lots and lots scraps of intersections. It’s pretty logical, I guess, every new day you pass means a great chance of opportunities to find another circle that would intersect and color your mega circle. So, as my mega circle becomes older and older, those opportunities become greater and greater also. As a result, I presumed that the older your mega circle are, the more complex and rich your circle with colorful intersections. I guess that’s how I thought.
I guess that’s how I thought. But last week, I realized that it does not always turn that way. I learned that those intersections, those beautiful shades of colors you might have in your mega circle do not always intensify in accordance with your intensifying age, but also could be disappeared, or… erased deliberately.
I used to have a prominent color, a huge scrap of intersection, in my mega circle. It had adorned my circle for at least four years, the color was so vibrant and the scrap was large. It happened that way because of the intense interactions I had with that particular circle owned by someone. So, his circle, intersected with mine, created a large scrap of intersections with a vibrant and prominent color in my mega circle, and of course also in his.
However, we all know that life is a realm of randomness, a chaotic random logical consequences of every single tiny bit of your action-reaction. The logical consequences of my ventures had brought me to the fact that the prominent interactions I used to have with that particular person became more and more faded away, until there’s nothing left, went sadly awry. Still, I dare feel that even though the interactions had gone retired, the intersections which was there in my mega circle would not turn to be as faded. This could be happened because, even though you no longer meet or interact with one whom you used to, each and every single interaction, reciprocal action, thought, and feeling you shared with that particular person would still be there, stored in your memory, occupied a portion in your heart, or in your brain, unless of course if you caught some retrogade amnesia or whatever. So the colorful scrap of intersections between your mega circle and that particular one’s mega circle will still be there, just like how I believed the scrap of intersections between mine and his mega circle still remained in its place.
It was not true, though. I forgot the fact that in order to be called an intersection, there should be at least two circles that are intersecting each other. In my heart, and in my brain, I know that his presence stands still. Every single memory and remembrance of him and the interactions, the reciprocal actions, thoughts and feelings we used to have and share are still stored in my mega circle. So, for me, the color, although maybe not as vibrant, is still there coloring my circle. But not for him, I guess. My scrap of intersection of my mega circle in his mega circle has been erased completely, one by one, I guess. Every single tiny bit, until nothing, not a single thing would remain.
In June 10th, I realized that I was erased from his mega circle. He did not call, he did not send me a single sms, and when finally I had managed to recollect all my courage to dial his number and gave him a call, I found out that he had changed his number. He eliminated every single trace of my interactions, every single remnant of the past I used to have with him, he erased his stored memory of all things related with me, my occupied portion in his brain and heart was burnt and the ashes were swept out. My scrap of intersection was erased.
But this writing is not supposed to be sappy and over sentimental. Yes of course I cast a gloom and I was sad but this is not about that. Because he had erased my scrap of intersection in his mega circle, there’s no longer an intersection of his circle and my circle. My mega circle had lost one of its colors. His circle had withdrawn so far away until there could no longer be any possible intersection with mine.
And yes, I learnt that every new day you pass, every age added, the opportunities you might have are not just about finding new colorful circles to intersect and adorn your circle, but also about losing one, or two, or three, or more…
And the moral lesson of this writing is, your mega circle, no matter what happens, should always be kept colorful. I have great friends with all their unique colorful tones, and someone whose color is so wonderful it occupies a large portion in my mega circle with warm feeling and comforting love.
My mega circle is adorned with so many beautiful shades of colors.
I think I should be super-grateful for that.
--sisie--
I think my life is a mega circle. Well, not exactly mega, but large enough to come to some intersections with anybody else’s life which is also, another mega circle. Those intersections could be occurred because of a lot of things, but substantially because of the interactions I made with other people. Every new interactions encountered, every reciprocal actions, every thoughts shared, every single day spent creates a set of intersections within my life and other people’s lives.
So many other circles I’ve intersected and every single scrap of intersection in my mega circle had created a new spectrum, new shade of color that colors my colorful mega circle.
Last week, in June 10th, I was turning twenty. No longer a teenager, I guess. Another one year added to the age of my mega circle, and so far, up to this moment in time, my mega circle had been adorned with so many beautiful shades of colors, lots and lots scraps of intersections. It’s pretty logical, I guess, every new day you pass means a great chance of opportunities to find another circle that would intersect and color your mega circle. So, as my mega circle becomes older and older, those opportunities become greater and greater also. As a result, I presumed that the older your mega circle are, the more complex and rich your circle with colorful intersections. I guess that’s how I thought.
I guess that’s how I thought. But last week, I realized that it does not always turn that way. I learned that those intersections, those beautiful shades of colors you might have in your mega circle do not always intensify in accordance with your intensifying age, but also could be disappeared, or… erased deliberately.
I used to have a prominent color, a huge scrap of intersection, in my mega circle. It had adorned my circle for at least four years, the color was so vibrant and the scrap was large. It happened that way because of the intense interactions I had with that particular circle owned by someone. So, his circle, intersected with mine, created a large scrap of intersections with a vibrant and prominent color in my mega circle, and of course also in his.
However, we all know that life is a realm of randomness, a chaotic random logical consequences of every single tiny bit of your action-reaction. The logical consequences of my ventures had brought me to the fact that the prominent interactions I used to have with that particular person became more and more faded away, until there’s nothing left, went sadly awry. Still, I dare feel that even though the interactions had gone retired, the intersections which was there in my mega circle would not turn to be as faded. This could be happened because, even though you no longer meet or interact with one whom you used to, each and every single interaction, reciprocal action, thought, and feeling you shared with that particular person would still be there, stored in your memory, occupied a portion in your heart, or in your brain, unless of course if you caught some retrogade amnesia or whatever. So the colorful scrap of intersections between your mega circle and that particular one’s mega circle will still be there, just like how I believed the scrap of intersections between mine and his mega circle still remained in its place.
It was not true, though. I forgot the fact that in order to be called an intersection, there should be at least two circles that are intersecting each other. In my heart, and in my brain, I know that his presence stands still. Every single memory and remembrance of him and the interactions, the reciprocal actions, thoughts and feelings we used to have and share are still stored in my mega circle. So, for me, the color, although maybe not as vibrant, is still there coloring my circle. But not for him, I guess. My scrap of intersection of my mega circle in his mega circle has been erased completely, one by one, I guess. Every single tiny bit, until nothing, not a single thing would remain.
In June 10th, I realized that I was erased from his mega circle. He did not call, he did not send me a single sms, and when finally I had managed to recollect all my courage to dial his number and gave him a call, I found out that he had changed his number. He eliminated every single trace of my interactions, every single remnant of the past I used to have with him, he erased his stored memory of all things related with me, my occupied portion in his brain and heart was burnt and the ashes were swept out. My scrap of intersection was erased.
But this writing is not supposed to be sappy and over sentimental. Yes of course I cast a gloom and I was sad but this is not about that. Because he had erased my scrap of intersection in his mega circle, there’s no longer an intersection of his circle and my circle. My mega circle had lost one of its colors. His circle had withdrawn so far away until there could no longer be any possible intersection with mine.
And yes, I learnt that every new day you pass, every age added, the opportunities you might have are not just about finding new colorful circles to intersect and adorn your circle, but also about losing one, or two, or three, or more…
And the moral lesson of this writing is, your mega circle, no matter what happens, should always be kept colorful. I have great friends with all their unique colorful tones, and someone whose color is so wonderful it occupies a large portion in my mega circle with warm feeling and comforting love.
My mega circle is adorned with so many beautiful shades of colors.
I think I should be super-grateful for that.
--sisie--
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Ordinary People
I'm in love with you
The same to honeymoon, pass the infatuation fate
Right in the thick of love
At times we're sick of love
It seems like we aruge everyday
I know I misbehaved
And you made your mistake
And we both still got room left to grow
And though love sometimes hurts
I still put you first
And we'll make the things work
But I think we should take it slow
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
The same to movie
No fairytale conclusions are
It gets more confusing everyday
Sometimes it's heaven sent
Then we head back to hell again
We kiss then we make up on the way
I hang up your call
We rise and we fall
And we feel like just walking away
As all love advances, we take second chances
Though it's not fair to see
I still want you to stay
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Maybe we'll live and learn
Maybe we'll crash and burn
Maybe you stay, maybe you leave, maybe you return
Maybe in another find, maybe we won't survive
Maybe we'll grow and never know
Baby, you and I
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go, yeah
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow, slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
--John Legend
The same to honeymoon, pass the infatuation fate
Right in the thick of love
At times we're sick of love
It seems like we aruge everyday
I know I misbehaved
And you made your mistake
And we both still got room left to grow
And though love sometimes hurts
I still put you first
And we'll make the things work
But I think we should take it slow
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
The same to movie
No fairytale conclusions are
It gets more confusing everyday
Sometimes it's heaven sent
Then we head back to hell again
We kiss then we make up on the way
I hang up your call
We rise and we fall
And we feel like just walking away
As all love advances, we take second chances
Though it's not fair to see
I still want you to stay
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Maybe we'll live and learn
Maybe we'll crash and burn
Maybe you stay, maybe you leave, maybe you return
Maybe in another find, maybe we won't survive
Maybe we'll grow and never know
Baby, you and I
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go, yeah
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're just ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow, slow
This time we'll take it slow
Take it slow
This time we'll take it slow
--John Legend
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
not good... not good...
Christopher Fry said that this whole damn fucking worthless world does not need a fucking worthless halo.
Oh.
Tell that to all those brain catastrophes.
Hail to the self destruction
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
Ah Fuck.
This whole thing just, really
an explosion would be suffice for this
su-per-fi-ci-al-li-ty.
You, shut up.
Yes you.
And dont give me that fucking look, really.
Not Helping At All
-sisie-
unexplainable state of mind, this time, again, i would say.
as always, you said.
Oh.
Tell that to all those brain catastrophes.
Hail to the self destruction
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
self seclusion
Ah Fuck.
This whole thing just, really
an explosion would be suffice for this
su-per-fi-ci-al-li-ty.
You, shut up.
Yes you.
And dont give me that fucking look, really.
Not Helping At All
-sisie-
unexplainable state of mind, this time, again, i would say.
as always, you said.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Carol
I don’t want anything for my birthday
I don’t want to go anywhere
I don’t want to meet no one
I just want to have my all-daylong sleep
Like a happy honey bear
ZZZZzzz...
Thu, 9-6-05
---sisie---
I don’t want to go anywhere
I don’t want to meet no one
I just want to have my all-daylong sleep
Like a happy honey bear
ZZZZzzz...
Thu, 9-6-05
---sisie---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
