< Blog >

in the absence of expected disaster, we are
left again to what we do not want to be
left again to: each other—each other’s eyes

to Hive being

welcome

What is Hive Being, and Why the Name?

You have likely heard talk of a hive mind, where one global mind finds more or less figurative expression in various local minds. Such talk is common enough in nature documentaries, especially ones concerning ants or bees, and in sci-fi programs. Take that notion, at least a loose version of it, and broaden its scope. That will be a decent first step in understanding the title I have chosen both for my Blog and for the first five-volume installment of my magnum opus Made For You and Me, a fragmentary collection of minimalist stanzas from 2016 to 2020.

In alignment with Spinoza (the 17th Century Rationalist to whom I devoted my doctoral studies), I view reality in its totality as a grand hive Being: all entities are but pulsating manifestations of the buckstopping fount of everything, an ultimate being we might call “God” or “Nature” (so long as, out of respect for the capital “G” and the capital “N,” we limit it neither to some anthropomorphic cloud father hurling lightning bolts nor to mere wilderness untouched by human smog). According to the hive-Being view (where reality is one lone superorganism, a monistic—and we might even say unividualist—conception I defend in both my creative and academic capacities), each non-foundational being (each being, that is, whose essence does not involve existence) is an utterly necessitated expression or eruption or exudation of this eternal source—each is, perhaps better put, a mode or manner of being, and so a focal point through which is disclosed, what classical theists sometimes call “being itself” (ipsum esse subsistens): the realness of the real, the being of whatever may be, the sheer activity of being, the very isness of whatever is. This Blog, which duplicates my Substack, throbs as but one among many literary unfurlings of this self-necessitated foundation, this supreme wellspring, of which we—like black holes and broken beliefs, like fractal ferns and flickering flames—are the inevitable stylings.

My Journey

I am an academic who found himself pressured into early retirement by the rising tides of cancel culture. The illiberal scourge of censoring, silencing, and shaming—although always with us throughout our evolution—reached a local peak around 2021. That was the turbulent year my creative pursuits, which the old left once encouraged as a healthy outlet for the stresses of a childhood steeped in poverty and illiteracy, drew the ire of the new safe-space left. A small cadre of self-proclaimed victims and their allies, several of whom continue to berate me years later under pseudonyms as see through as their sexual infatuation, sought to erase me and my heterodoxy. They found support from a wannabe-woke dean, covered in the grand inquisitor robes of our decadent modernity (full-body tattoos) and just itching to signal his commitment to protecting “vulnerable populations” from triggering material (even if just, as it was in my case, off-duty poems “unbecoming for someone calling himself a teacher”). Although I eventually won my due-process case with the help of The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, I slunk away from a college that turned its back on protecting freedom of expression and from an institution increasingly intolerant of intellectual diversity.  

The wrecking ball to my too-comfy office in the windowless ivory tower came with a silver lining. From the ashes of my professional aspirations rose a phoenix of increased freedom to fulfill the literary calling I have pursued for decades. Reputation concerns never stopped me, even within academia’s sterile halls of conformity. Indeed, my unapologetic defiance, which has long baffled friends and family, no doubt chummed even safe waters—almost as if I were asking for it all along—until the cancel shiver grew too frenzied to hold back its blind thrashings. But now, now I piston the most forbidden territories of human thought with no longer even a twinge of conscience. The newfound freedom means extra time to hone my craft. When not assisting special-needs communities (a day job far more rewarding than freeway-flyer drudgeries), I pursue my literary mission with Dionysian fervor.

Call for Co-Conspirators

This space, my digital sanctuary, showcases the fruits of my mission. Think of my posts, even those linking to my publications, as works in progress. I want your input, unflinching brutality included. Each post begins with an invitation to action: “Let’s workshop this [draft about x, y, z].” Your contributions, whether through public comments or my contact page, help hammer scraps of ore into polished blades fit for magazine publication.

Your input is valuable, even if you are neither a writer nor a reader of literature—twin disciplines dying by the cyber nanosecond. Sometimes—even if at the risk of uttering banalities—an outsider’s fresh vantage can pierce the veils of convention to reveal what insiders miss. It often takes an outsider to make us even think to question our ingrained presuppositions and attitudes. I stand by the hygienic value of contagion. That is one reason I advocate so strongly for intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. And that is also one reason I was so harrowed by the anti-diversity swell of cancel culture in academia (an institution that should be the utmost caretaker of such values)—harrowed especially insofar as that swell masqueraded under the gaslighting guise of “diversity”).

You will witness the breathing evolution of my writings over time. To track these changes, I label each revision by round: “ROUND 2,” ROUND 3,” and so forth. Each piece undergoes continuous refinement based on your feedback and my own revisitations. Sometimes changes will mar the work. That is the risk of creative tinkering as a finite creature. I hope you will alert me to missteps. After many semesters of university writing workshops, one rule has impressed itself upon me: when someone senses a flaw, something almost always needs to change—even if, yes, the proposed solution misses the mark (which often it does). From a quick look into the archives, accessible here, you can see how much I have benefited from your feedback so far.

My Hope

Sharing drafts can be daunting. But showing you the ravaged and unperfumed real deal unfiltered by makeup (stuttering starts and falsities, awkward line breaks and clumsy word choices, grammatical errors and misspellings)—that not only makes my work more relatable, but helps me refine things through your input. I hope the unfiltered look at the raw process of fumbling, rather than just the polished product, also helps other writers develop their craft. Imperfect works often instruct more than perfect ones: whereas the perfect ones tend to have a grace by which they slip inside us without activating our scrutiny, the imperfect ones—especially the near perfect ones—show us glaringly what not to do.

People laugh at me, seeing—in my tilting at the windmills of literary excellence—a Don Quixote clunking around in Arthurian armor in a post-knight era. I am not naïve. I am well aware of the diminishing ability to read, let alone well: slowly and deeply, with gratitude. I am also aware that my style, which often nests subpoints within larger points, never waters down virtuosity for the sake of mass appeal. I watch readers stumble over my sentences, unable to unlock even just the music of the envelope let alone the semantic meat within, which—given my tendency to flashlight through the darker facets of human nature (the addicts, the miscreants, the abusers among us)—only adds an additional alienating layer of difficulty). Beholding these depressive scenes of even supportive family members getting bucked off my syntactic bronco makes me feel like a dinosaur who should get a hint and, if not succumb to the brain rot of skibidi-toilet speak, just hang himself already. Even though the decline in linguistic background and grammatical voltage makes my compositions seem quixotic in a world binging Netflix and TikTok, I persist—raging against the dying of the light—by some internal compulsion to celebrate the richness of language and thought.

My hope is that, despite social media’s unparalleled power to farm our attention, people never forget the unique power of writing. Beyond unveiling hypocrisy, teasing out complex implications, and detailing the commonalities between even the most alien phenomena, writing offers something we need today—trapped in agoraphobic cyber bubbles only thickened by the Lyme dangers of forests and the COVID dangers of cities—perhaps more than ever. Granting us rich access to the first-person perspectives of others (to how things feel to them), writing serves as one of humanity’s best tools for combating loneliness. It allows us to linger, broadly and deeply and at high resolution, within the inner lives of others in a way that other arts can only suggest.

What to Expect

My work spans a broad spectrum: from metaphysical discourses on free will and determinism and the ontology of holes to the ephemera of western culture (whether the childhood impacts of the hypersexual mono-image of black woman as squirting twerkers or Terrence Howard’s sham revolution of mathematics). Some tight and minimal, others free-flowing sprawls; some heady and abstract, others emotional and imagistic—my inkwell musings, which often blend scholarly rigor with a dark humor from both high and low culture, aim to capture the visceral intensity of our personal and social and ultimately existential predicaments.

By no means can I deny that drug abuse, sexual assault, and the tales of the broken and the damned loom large in the tag cloud of my work. My writing will never be a paradise of easy truths and comforting lies. It will challenge you, provoke you, and at times even repulse you. I offer no apologies for the monsters I unleash. They are as much a part of us, at long root scared rodent mammals scurrying in the shadows of dinosaurs, as our noblest aspirations.

But make no mistake. It is not all downer darkness. The archives are my receipts. You will find pieces exploring the pursuit of authenticity in a media-saturated world, the search for meaning in an indifferent cosmos, and the celebration of beauty in both the sublime and the profane. I locate much of my inspiration, in fact, in novelists like Dostoevsky and poets like Ted Kooser—writers unafraid to pursue moral agendas or risk Hallmark sentimentality in an age that often sneers at sincerity.

Be they satirical dissections of modern social dynamics or poignant poems about addiction or academic articles on moral responsibility, my goal is to provoke thought, evoke emotion, and foster meaningful dialogue. Fear has not and will not stop me from challenging humanity’s fundamental taboos (like bestiality and cannibalism) or self-reflecting into the dark chaos of the subconscious, even if that means exposing the Jungian shadows—the inner Goebbels—lurking within us all!

Expect posts each day, no day missed. Donations are welcome, but I impose no paywall: it feels wrong to charge for art, especially given our date with obliteration. Feel free to explore what amounts to, at the time of writing this, close to a thousand pieces of poetry and prose here. That should give you a sense of what awaits.

Join me—specula holstered—on this literary odyssey into the public and private nooks of the hive Being. Let us navigate the labyrinth of creation together, confronting our demons and even slaying our darlings if we must. Let us dance on the razor’s edge between the sublime and the profane in pursuit of an elusive literary perfection never to be confused—as it has been confused in our declining civilization—with the pursuit of popularity or likeability over truth.

Featured Posts

RSS Feed Link
Re: Campus Warrior Apologetics
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Re: Campus Warrior Apologetics

"Re: Campus Warrior Apologetics" is a provocative critique of identity-based rhetoric and its implications for intellectual discourse, particularly in academic and cultural spaces. The poem confronts the weaponization of identity politics as a means of silencing dissent and enforcing ideological conformity, using stark imagery and biting satire to underscore its points. The speaker interrogates the logical inconsistencies and moral contradictions in arguments that insist only those within a specific identity group can speak about or represent that group’s experiences, framing such arguments as both reductive and authoritarian.

The poem’s opening draws attention to the hyperbolic and performative nature of "campus-groomed mantras," juxtaposing their jugular-vein sincerity with the grotesque metaphor of a trafficked child whose trauma has been co-opted for rhetorical impact. This unsettling comparison highlights the exploitative nature of such rhetoric, where sincerity is less a marker of truth than a weaponized display of emotional intensity. The repeated challenges—“What right do you have…?”—expose the speaker's frustration with the self-reinforcing logic of these arguments, where identity becomes the sole determinant of intellectual authority.

By invoking examples such as trans experiences, racial dynamics, and the “audacity” of questioning certain narratives, the poem critiques the underlying axiom that "only those within a group can speak for or about that group." The speaker dismantles this premise with a pointed reductio ad absurdum: if taken to its logical extreme, even speaking about animals or non-human subjects would be prohibited unless one is part of those groups. This absurdity is intended to illustrate how such arguments collapse under scrutiny, revealing their limitations as tools for meaningful dialogue.

The poem then shifts to consider a more nuanced version of the identitarian creed: that only historically disenfranchised voices are entitled to speak across divides. While this refinement acknowledges systemic inequities, the speaker argues that it still fails to account for the complexity of human experience and the risks of reducing individuals to representatives of their demographic categories. Furthermore, the speaker critiques the way this refined creed perpetuates a power dynamic rooted in victimhood, where suffering becomes a form of currency wielded to silence opposing views.

A particularly scathing moment emerges when the poem examines how even this adjusted framework falters under its own contradictions. The speaker highlights the hypersensitivity and performative allyship that amplifies certain voices while silencing others, particularly within racial hierarchies. The invocation of black voices as “untouchable in their sanctified suffering” underscores the speaker’s concern that identity politics, in its extreme forms, can devolve into a hierarchical system where oppression is wielded as a form of dominance.

Ultimately, "Re: Campus Warrior Apologetics" critiques the erosion of free discourse under the weight of identity-driven ideologies. The poem warns against the dangers of elevating identity over universal principles of reason and dialogue, arguing that such an approach fosters division rather than understanding. By stripping these ideologies to their “purest form,” the speaker exposes the potential for them to become tools of ideological control rather than pathways to equity and justice.

identity politics, campus rhetoric, intellectual discourse, free speech, oppression hierarchy, cultural critique, ideological conformity, identity-based arguments, performative allyship, racial dynamics, intersectionality, logical fallacies, weaponized victimhood.

Read More
Leaves of Three Let Them Be
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Leaves of Three Let Them Be

The poem "Leaves of Three Let Them Be" meditates on the tension between intuition, learned knowledge, and adaptability in navigating both ordinary and high-stakes situations. The title itself references the common adage warning of poison ivy, symbolizing the necessity of learned caution in the natural world. The phrase also sets the thematic stage for the poem’s exploration of when to trust preconceptions and when to challenge them.

In the first stanza, the metaphor of a blind tasting—commonly used in wine appreciation to strip away biases associated with labels—introduces the idea that we are often better served when freed from the weight of preconceptions. For sommeliers, whose craft is deeply tied to sensory perception, removing biases is necessary to fully understand the essence of what is tasted. The implicit argument is that, in areas of subjective judgment or fine distinctions, this approach enables greater clarity and authenticity. However, the poem pivots sharply in its second stanza, where it shifts the context from leisure or craft to survival, specifically on the "front lines." Here, the stakes are higher, and the dismissing of labels or preconceptions becomes not only impractical but dangerous.

The poem highlights a fundamental human dilemma: balancing the wisdom of experience—"labels and preconceptions"—with the need to remain open to new information. Labels are initially portrayed as "saviors," suggesting that our ability to categorize and interpret the world based on past knowledge is crucial for survival, especially in volatile or unpredictable environments. Yet the poem does not endorse rigid adherence to these preconceptions. The closing lines emphasize flexibility: the ability to "drop them in the face of new evidence." This nuanced argument underscores the poem's central theme—that the most adaptive and intelligent approach to the world involves a balance between relying on past knowledge and being open to change when circumstances demand it.

The poem, though concise, engages deeply with cognitive and philosophical issues, such as epistemology (how we know what we know) and the psychology of decision-making under uncertainty. It suggests that in a world marked by complexity and unpredictability, the survival of both individuals and societies depends not just on the knowledge they have accumulated but on their capacity to revise that knowledge when confronted with new truths. This openness to reconsidering one’s assumptions is framed as essential not only in intellectual pursuits but also in life-and-death situations, making it a universal call for intellectual humility and adaptability.

preconceptions, survival, adaptability, intellectual humility, blind tasting, labels, cognitive flexibility, epistemology, decision-making, new evidence.

Read More
Pulling Rank
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Pulling Rank

"Pulling Rank" is a pointed critique of how identity is leveraged in contemporary social and political discourse, particularly within the framework of identity politics. The poem’s opening, “She opens her soliloquy with that dissent-snuffing script: 'Speaking as an x person,'” reveals the speaker’s frustration with the pre-emptive use of identity as a conversational weapon. By placing “dissent-snuffing” before “script,” the poem underscores how these opening words are not just a statement of personal identity, but a strategic move designed to shut down debate or criticism. The act of “pulling rank” on the basis of one’s identity highlights a shift from argumentation based on shared principles or logic to one dominated by personal experience, making it difficult for those outside the identity category to engage without being accused of invalidating the speaker's lived experience.

The “flex of ethnic high ground” reflects how this identity-based discourse often involves elevating one’s own cultural or racial background as inherently superior in matters of truth or justice. The metaphor of “sob-story judo” portrays the inversion of traditional power dynamics, where suffering, real or exaggerated, becomes a tool for rhetorical victory. Judo, a martial art focused on using an opponent's strength against them, serves as a fitting metaphor for how personal narratives of hardship can be wielded against any form of criticism or opposition. The “my-truth supremacy” that follows critiques the cultural rise of subjective narratives being given precedence over more objective, universally shared truths. This “supremacy” of personal truth aligns with the contemporary emphasis on the sanctity of lived experiences, even when such experiences are insulated from external validation or critique.

The poem taps into a larger cultural critique of how victimhood, particularly racial or ethnic victimhood, can be weaponized. The phrase “effective in a zeitgeist where, unless your skin skews pale, even fake bruises are brass knuckles” extends this critique, suggesting that in an era where whiteness is associated with privilege, any claim of marginalization by people of color—even falsified or exaggerated claims (“fake bruises”)—carries disproportionate rhetorical weight (“brass knuckles”). This line captures the speaker’s frustration with the asymmetry in cultural conversations about race, identity, and oppression. The suggestion that even “fake bruises” can be weaponized hints at a deeper skepticism about the authenticity of some claims of victimhood within identity politics, questioning whether the current climate enables the performance of victimhood rather than a genuine exchange of ideas.

The overall theme of the poem is a nuanced exploration of how identity, particularly marginalized identities, are wielded in modern discourse. The speaker’s tone, at times sardonic, reveals a frustration with the limitations this type of discourse imposes on genuine dialogue and critical engagement. The poem exposes the tension between recognizing genuine marginalization and the potential for exploitation, wherein identity becomes a currency that stifles rather than fosters meaningful conversation. This critique calls into question the boundaries between empathy and manipulation, raising the issue of whether the current discourse around identity truly seeks justice or merely uses suffering as a rhetorical advantage.

identity politics, victimhood, personal narrative, discourse, rhetorical dominance, ethnic hierarchy, power dynamics, subjective truth, marginalization, cultural critique

Read More
michaelistvan.com (live, test run)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

michaelistvan.com (live, test run)

Please take a look at my developing website: michaelistvan.com, which you can get to as well via: safespacepress.com. I really appreciate your help. You can find a convenient sitemap here: michaelistvan.com/credits-acknowledgements-sitemap. Please check out my site and let me know if there are any bugs. It is still in draft form and needs a lot of work, but I would appreciate knowing if there any crucial problems with it.

Read More
An Olive Branch to the Cancelers
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

An Olive Branch to the Cancelers

**An Olive Branch to the Cancelers** is a nuanced and provocative essay that addresses the complex interplay between free expression and the impulse to cancel unsettling art and ideas. The essay seeks to empathize with those who believe in canceling problematic content while proposing a solution that honors both the value of free expression and the dangers it can pose.

The essay begins by acknowledging that even the most well-intentioned cancelers of divergent art and thought, those who believe they are protecting vulnerable groups, have a point. They genuinely feel that their actions are just, even if they resort to extreme measures like censoring, shaming, and destroying the careers of artists and thinkers. This perspective is driven by a belief that unsettling art and ideas can cause real harm to certain groups, and that any length of cruelty against creators is justified to protect these groups.

The essay then delves into the genuine risks posed by artists and thinkers. These individuals hold up a mirror to society, revealing uncomfortable truths and challenging cherished beliefs. The reflections they present can be deeply unsettling, leading to crises of identity and belonging. Art and thought can expose the fragility of human existence, the inherent cruelty in our actions, and the disturbing realities of the universe. For many, facing these truths is intolerable, leading to a desire to suppress and cancel the sources of such discomfort.

The author illustrates how the immune systems of those who cannot digest these dangerous truths often protect them through mechanisms like ignorance, ridicule, and evasion. However, there are exceptions—individuals whose defenses are too weak to block out these truths, leading to significant psychological harm. The canceling impulse is thus seen as a reasonable response to protect these vulnerable individuals.

Despite acknowledging the validity of canceling impulses, the essay also argues that these dangers are often overblown. It highlights the resilience of most people to withstand unsettling art and ideas, suggesting that exposure to such content can foster growth and resilience. The essay contends that the widespread fear of art and thought is often performative and driven by a desire for power and control rather than genuine vulnerability.

The author proposes a radical solution: instead of restricting artists and thinkers from creating, restrict the audience from accessing their work. This gatekeeping approach would involve testing and vetting individuals to determine their ability to handle potentially triggering content. The aim is to protect both the creators and the vulnerable individuals, ensuring that only those with the requisite resilience and critical acumen can engage with challenging art and ideas.

The essay suggests that this approach would not only safeguard artistic expression but also elevate the respect for art and thought. By requiring individuals to prove their worthiness to access certain content, society would foster a deeper appreciation for the value and power of art and thought. The proposal is admittedly extreme and satirical, born out of frustration with the current cancel culture, but it aims to spur discussion on balancing free expression with the need to protect vulnerable individuals.

In the concluding section, the author clarifies that the gatekeeping solution is not an ideal in itself but a tactical response to the rampant censorship and cancel culture. While the author personally leans towards open discourse and the cultivation of emotional resilience, the essay emphasizes the need to counter the performative outrage of cancelers by taking their claims seriously and restricting their access to unsettling content. The proposal serves as a rhetorical jujitsu, flipping the script on cancel culture and exposing its performative nature.

**An Olive Branch to the Cancelers** is a thought-provoking essay that seeks to bridge the gap between free-expression advocates and cancelers. It highlights the genuine dangers posed by unsettling art and ideas while proposing a controversial solution to protect both creators and vulnerable individuals. The essay ultimately calls for a nuanced approach to preserving and celebrating artistic expression while minimizing its potential harm.

Read More
Open Letter to the Editor of Novel Noctule
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Open Letter to the Editor of Novel Noctule

**Open Letter to the Editor of Novel Noctule** is a bold and incisive commentary on the contemporary culture of cancellation and the suppression of heterodox voices. It critiques the lengths to which individuals and institutions go to silence those who challenge the prevailing norms, often under the guise of promoting safety and inclusivity. The letter addresses Jacqueline, responding to an anonymous accusation that she attempted to get the author fired by highlighting "problematic" aspects of his artwork.

The author begins by acknowledging the toxic environment where slanderers and cancellers thrive, emphasizing the importance of documenting these attempts to silence dissent. He expresses skepticism about Jacqueline's guilt, suspecting that even if she did partake in the act, she might have been influenced or pressured by someone else, possibly the informant herself. The author extends forgiveness to Jacqueline, contrasting it with the often condescending and weaponized forgiveness used by cancel culture advocates.

The letter then humorously addresses Jacqueline, referencing a comedic skit that has tainted the name for the author. He recounts the accusation: Jacqueline allegedly found the author's poetry so traumatizing that she combed through his social media for more material, eventually compiling a thorough record and writing to his university demanding his termination. The author finds this scenario implausible, questioning how any self-respecting artist would seek to eradicate another's artistic expression.

The letter delves into a critique of the current cultural moment, where diversity in expression is stifled, and individuals weaponize systems against those who unsettle them. The author draws parallels between historical and contemporary examples of weaponizing power structures, illustrating how today's cancellers are akin to those who historically manipulated systems for personal vendettas.

The author reflects on the absurdity of the accusation, discussing the performative and often hypocritical nature of those who claim to be offended by transgressive art. He describes how many of the "offended" are disingenuous, using their claimed trauma as a means to exert power and disrupt others' lives. This, he suggests, is driven by a deeper, systemic resentment and emptiness in modern life.

Despite the harsh critique, the author maintains a tone of understanding and forgiveness, recognizing the difficulty of resisting the allure of participation in cancel culture. He encourages Jacqueline, and by extension others, to approach diverse artists with kindness or indifference rather than brutality. The letter concludes with a call to rise above petty cancellations and embrace a more tolerant and open approach to artistic expression.

This is a searing indictment of the modern cancel culture, highlighting its pettiness, performativity, and underlying resentment. It calls for a return to genuine tolerance and the protection of diverse and unsettling artistic expressions, emphasizing the importance of challenging, rather than silencing, uncomfortable truths.

Read More
Letter of Grievance
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Letter of Grievance

In this letter, the author passionately appeals their recent termination, arguing that their constitutional rights have been violated. They cite their lawyer’s belief that the actions taken against them were excessive and lacked due process, highlighting the support from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education as evidence of the seriousness of their case.

The author details the events leading up to their termination, noting the abrupt and final nature of the decision by the dean of the Liberal Arts college at XXX. The dean cited the use of official email to direct students to the author’s YouTube page, where some students encountered "objectionable material." The author argues that the termination was extreme, especially given their support from colleagues and students.

The author expresses shock at the lack of due process, as they received no notice of complaints or investigation prior to their termination. They criticize the bypassing of standard procedures such as written warnings, training, or probation, emphasizing the severity and suddenness of the judgment.

Despite their skepticism about the current state of free speech and artistic freedom, the author believes they deserved more fairness. They argue that their termination was driven by a desire to avoid controversy and appease students, who are viewed as customers in the modern academic business model. The author questions why a less severe disciplinary measure, such as stopping the YouTube links, wasn’t sufficient.

The letter also addresses the specific content of the author’s YouTube page, particularly the characters Mrs. Tong and Mr. Slow Man, which were deemed problematic. The author explains the satirical and critical intent behind these characters, drawing parallels to classic literary devices used to provoke self-reflection and critique societal norms.

The author asserts that their termination reflects a broader trend of censoring diverse viewpoints and intellectual discussion in academia. They argue that universities should be places for open debate and the exchange of ideas, not sanctuaries from discomfort. The author expresses hope that their case will lead to a reevaluation of policies at XXX and a renewed commitment to free expression and due process.

In conclusion, the author seeks to be reinstated and to ensure that other faculty members are not subjected to similar treatment. They emphasize their dedication to fostering critical thinking and ethical citizenship among students, arguing that their artistic work aligns with these goals.

The letter is a call for empathy and action, urging the administration to reconsider the decision and work towards protecting academic freedom and diversity of thought.

Read More

blog

FAQ

Visit my Substack: Hive Being

Visit my Substack: Hive Being


Don’t let anyone tell you that real life is lacking in poetic interest. This is exactly what the poet is for: he has the mind and the imagination to find something of interest in everyday things. Real life supplies the motifs, the points that need to be said—the actual heart of the matter; but it is the poet’s job to fashion it all into a beautiful, animated whole. You are familiar with Fürnstein, the so-called “nature poet”? He has written a poem about growing hops, and you couldn’t imagine anything nicer. I have now asked him to write some poems celebrating the work of skilled artisans, in particular weavers, and I am quite sure he will succeed; he has lived among such people from an early age, he knows the subject inside out, and will be in full command of his material. That is the advantage of small works: you need only choose subjects that you know and have at your command. With a longer poetic work, however, this is not possible. There is no way around it: all the different threads that tie the whole thing together, and are woven into the design, have to be shown in accurate detail. Young people only have a one-sided view of things, whereas a longer work requires a multiplicity of viewpoints—and that’s where they come unstuck.—Goethe (Conversations with Eckermann)


Featured Blog Posts

in how many dreams might you
have appeared last night—
all those met along the way?