Hannah

I finished this. trashpark.org/2026/04/19/aga…

I don't want to get published. I want the person i love to respond

No one ever says make art. They therapeutically say channel it into getting published. That is content. You want to eat me and are screaming terrified in my face and i get so scared that i eventually have to dissociate and tell you not be afraid

my point is that the imposition of the framework of therapeutic health and cosmic neutrality is itself terrified screaming about the same thing but inches from my face, monstrous and on the verge of killing me

I think i express myself too much. Even in my transcription. I was thinking that I should express less. I should not put down that he hit the folder or use terms like abrupt or even put that the other party was not a shared recorded line as a form of blame or frustration, or justice. I feel unsafe expressing myself. And because of how much I have already expressed I feel unsinkable but like a corpse you cant push under surface of the water and is just bobbing along.  I feel like I have to use neutral language everywhere and publishing is about this, being successful at being neutral. My friend told me instead of messaging people I should channel it into getting published or writing autofiction.  I just don't agree with this. It actually affirms that the reason for the fear is legitimate -- that the danger is real -- and I am not able to accept that absolute reality of the horror of that danger yet, whose solution is channeling into neutral and publishable charm or charisma. I am still always in the stage of denial of some horrific betrayal. So I deny it. And when people tell me this it actually feels like they are spreading their fear. Like when two people are screaming and their screams are scaring each other. So if I tell you I am afraid that I framed something as hit the folder, as true to what I've seen, or that I've posted the private messages of someone I confessed to, it's like I am expressing my fear And if you tell me to channel it into safe forms it's like you are screaming in fear back at me like aphex twin's come to daddy scene. It is scaring me and actually this is how I experience all therapeutic rhetoric. Both people are afraid and screaming but the one side is the therapeutic side. That becomes more objectively frightening. It is more frightening because it represents deeper ethical collapse of truth and safety I have insomnia though so dont trust my thoughts. I keep aiming to sleep by 10 sleeping at 2 then waking up at 4 then going to work at 6 but I have a paid holiday tomorrow so I'm going to sleep

@lofipod Coincidence

Tom Snarsky recommended this song. It’s a nice lil light hearted summer bop. All the screaming parts are so catchy. youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyp4C…

Because I can't smile due to tooth pain, I hope you can help me regain this smile. We are besieged from all sides in Gaza. 🙏🏻🦷🚨 chuffed.org/project/142992

Oh world, I'm calling out to you! I'm in dire need. My health is poor, and I'm currently suffering terribly from a toothache. I need your support, and the siege has intensified. Your support means a great deal to us. chuffed.org/project/142992

"Just enjoy your life, you just left to the US, why would you even care at all if some guy in Tbilisi who you barely know appreciated your writing or not? It is absolutely non-personal. Maybe if I was super interested in someone romantically, I'd have read something out of interest or out of infatuation, and I get your point in that - but that's literally just it. ...People are really, really, really different from each other." Think of a plane crash. Whether it crashes and kills people versus flies and transports them, both events are are explained by the neutral law of physics. In human behavior, it ought to be similar. Whether people agree or disagree, both scenarios should be explained by human agency and choice. However, in everyday life, people find it too difficult to apply this principle all the time. It's often more advantageous to dismiss negative interactions by blaming it on anything else, while at the same time, it's easy to take credit for positive interactions. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But my argument is that it is only inappropriate in art settings. So, if an artist, in their personal conduct, is in fact going around polluting various relations -- even just a single one -- with hypocritical multicausal explanations, and he then retreats into a mist of 'atmospheric experimental sound,' "brilliantly" evoking every cosmic explanation they have ever thrown at others' faces -- and then furthermore turns around and gives a ridiculously somber dignified credit to his own agency for his artistic success - I have to criticize it." @conorhultman @lofipod @Blood_Honey_Lit “The more I think about it, the more I feel that there is nothing more truly artistic than to love people…"

why airplanes fly and why they crash - physical law why molecules bond and why they break - chemical law why people live and why they die - physiological law why you came close with open arms - unnatural cause a horse with no rider... do you want me to go? @tao_lin @conorhultman @lofipod @Blood_Honey_Lit

youtu.be/xXLIFeAhn_0 I wrote this

trashpark.org What I write, which is like structure with vulnerable bits of testimony removed, doesn't make it immune to epistemic capture. That immunity would imply that settings of capture know, understand or care to follow your structure of testimony., which they don't. Being helpless in real settings of capture, but now at a safe distance, all I am proving with my writing is non-equivalence to the expected conversion.

@lofipod Thank you! <3

@H4lotw You have a cool set - up

I finished this. trashpark.org/2026/04/19/aga…

trashpark.org/2026/04/19/aga… Editing

Spent the entire night upset about being stalked by the man outside rather than working on my new writing. Lit a candle to try and scent away feelings of fear, anger, disgust and mental contamination.