a huge bitch.

ha, ha.

oh, this really will be a huge bitch of a post. i think. i'm baked and i've got lots of spare time at the moment. unless i get really distracted. and it ended up being short, in which case, then i'll probably have edited this bit out and changed the title. so, you, Hypothetical reader, will not be reading this text in that particular parallel universe.

so, i had kind of a long introspective think as i was hitting the bong on the back porch, and i'm telling you, Hypothetical (potentially non-existent) Reader, that what an introspective think it was. first, some backstory, and ... i don't know what to call it. apocrypha? random mumblings? (definitely not apocrypha).

the fact that i did this while getting baked and whilst working out some musings in my mind (implicitly, for potential bloggage) made me engage in a couple of (i'm about to think of a name for them now!) tangential meta-ponders.

first, that anyone who thinks that drugs can't be a worthwhile pursuit, is just plain foolish. though it should be noted that this post is also reflecting the darker, more rambly confused side of high-ness, these are all intriguing lines of inquiry for the nerdy little pseudo-intellectual. as such, i am glad that they got thunk about (yes i know that's bad grammar, fuck off. i could say it differently if you'd like.) par moi! it should also be noted that this train of thought has gotten seriously derailed by this rambly hunk of apocrypha. (as i write these bracketed sidenotes, i really wish that they were footnotes. their length is becoming more footnote-ish, so let's hope i have time to figure out how to do that. this is perhaps again one of those temporally confused non-statements that might disappear in certain eventualities. though i guess all statements in a word processor are in such a state of limbo. end the footnote, goddamit!)

second, that i am glad i write on this thing with relative frequency. why? well, of course, snobby little pseudo-scholar that i am, i have a theory! it is that in order to develop thoughts organically, one must systematically expound them in language. i feel that this is a theory which has, a: perhaps probably been expressed, and b: probably not difficult to justify. why? because since thought is really shaped by language, in order to develop thought, it must be linguistically constructed. and this is not something that is generally done, right? we might think in the realms of language, but in order to think critically, we have to push the bounds of the expressible, attempt to express new concepts, and generally work within the linguistic paradigm to develop language and by association thought.

one particularly odd and pomo example of this is that sentence that i just typed which i have colored green for future reference. basically all i wanted to say was that in order to think one has to expand upon thoughts linguistically, which is essentially what rambling is, right? but in typing that particular exemplary sentence, i felt as i was typing the intriguing possibilities of the syntactical relations of the second clause. it seems as though that sentence also includes an interesting statement on the fact that the development of language is parallel to development of thought, therefore in order to expand possibilities of thought we have to expand the possibilities of language. to me this feels like an intriguing justification of linguistic development (read, what some scholars like to call 'perversion'). think of the beatniks here ... through manipulation of form, denial of aristotelian unity, etc., they expanded the bounds of what was expressible in language and thus allowed us to, bluntly put, think more things.

i intended that sentence to justify one thought, and in doing so it led me onto another line of reasoning. the fact that it did so is an implicit justification of my initial thesis - by expressing what i thought to be a justification of one thought in language, i was led onto a line of reasoning at which i would not arrive had not my thoughts been worked out in actual language. indeed, the whole fact that this line of reasoning exists is because i started expressing something in language, ergo writing in my blog. this ramble would not have existed, had i not set out to write something. i ended up writing something else, completely opening up new possibilities for thought - not in a universal sense of course; but in an entirely personal sense.

but, in an intriguing reversal of fortune, this baked ramble cost me the memory of the initial thought that sparked me to write this blog in the first place. see, i intended those two thoughts above to be merely brief thoughts which would precede a quasi-transcription of this long, back-porch existential think-a-thon. if i remember right, it had something to do with how my hatred for couples was related to my disgust for nomenclature... and, you know what, my little dorky hypothesis has been proven once again, cos i kind of remember where it went now that i wrote that last sentence. this is stemming from a discussion with my mom about how i should to have a girlfriend, etc. etc. blah blah promiscuity is bad, or something like that. honestly, i was baked, and i stopped listening and went off on my own little tangent... i'm not too sure where it started, to be honest; winter is really dating season, i think. it's probably cos it's cold... i bet there's some deeply evolutionary roots to that; i'd say that it's probably safe to say that neanderthals who shacked up over the winter probably survived alot better than ones that didn't.

in any case, i was kind of revisiting those thoughts while i was smoking tonight, and am doing so again right now, because i've long since stopped trying to remember what i was thinking earlier and am now once again charging headlong into new territory. if i remember right, the original thought was much more linguistically-oriented, while this one is about to take on a distinctively more sociological flavour that definitely wasn't there before. see, i think that my problem with couples really stem from the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" and from the associated mythology of the couple. really, what function do these labels actually serve? they're a hell of a lot more hassle than they're worth. without a fixed, named, and socially determined ideal of the "couple", the whole concept really loses what i think are its worst aspects. by attaching these labels to a given relationship, they're essentially subjecting them to social determination. the ideology and the label are indivisible. by the power of social influence in its legion manifestations, once these labels are slapped on, the parameters, boundaries, and forms of the relationship are pulled from the hands of its only rightful owners (i.e. its participants), and placed in the hands of others. the power of that social influence was obvious enough to me as i was sitting listening to my mom....

don't get me wrong, she's a great lady. she's just a little heavy on the monogamy. i blame my dad.

i hope that didn't come off too weird and detached. the whole fact that i wrote that paragraph really kind of sucked all the fun out of the whole idea. this blog is like a fun vacuum. ummm ... as always, i had a lot further to go with that baked ramble. this is evidenced by the fact that this post is indeed a huge bitch, even though it only consists of what were intended to be tangential musings and a preface to a long discussion about derrida and some other shit, which i now totally forget.

in any case, i've got the munchies...

feel free to not have read that, if you didn't like it. just get blackout drunk and you'll probably forget how much of a dork i am.

ha!

(final note: existentialist that i am, don't read this as a condemnation of the institution of the couple comme tel. perhaps it's much, much better for some people to be 'boyfriends' or 'girlfriends.' but it's not for me... and after all, isn't that what this blog is all about? me? feel free to subject yourselves to the authority of language and hegemony, couples of the world! i sometimes wish i could bring myself to bear it again. but not often. though i'm sure you all sleep much better at night.)