Ever heard of stream-of-conciousness style writing?
I think you'd be very good at that.

I'm happy you're doing better.

One thing I'd like to address:

"How can I think,

How can I speak,

When I question everything?

I constantly double-check,

I continuously re-assess."

To this, I'd like to share a small bit of writing. I don't do this often, but here it is:

"To act?
What does it mean “to act well?” To make good decisions?
To act on instinct is folly.
To act on volition is folly.
For instinct is by nature flawed,
And volition is by bias flawed.
“To act well”, is to act minimally, is it not?
“To despise”; Each act of despicableness is perceived by a thousand eyes.
“To act”, is to be a fool.
“To act well”, is to avoid doing so.
But I ask you, who does this benefit?"

Something I wrote when I was a bit younger. I was typing my immediate thought processes, so it isn't very coherent.

To elaborate:
Double-checking, reassessing, etc. all of your actions, thoughts and such: This is analysis paralysis. 

It's always good to keep a close eye on your views. Ensure that you let them change.

But you need a balance, I think. As the above points out:
It's impossible to make an objectively "good" decision. The alternative is to do nothing at all. 

Are you willing to do that? Strip away your ability to act and change things, take away your own humanity, for the purpose of consistency? 

Make your mistakes. Look back at them, and never regret. Live with the knowledge that whatever decision you made, was one made by you and because of you. 
Funnily enough, in my opinion there is little worse than not being able to take responsibility for a decision. Because that means YOU weren't really the one acting. Another, in one way or another, forced your hand. 

Who's life are you to live, if not your own? 

On 5/23/2026 at 2:34 PM, Denissimo said:

Ever heard of stream-of-conciousness style writing?
I think you'd be very good at that.

I'm happy you're doing better.

One thing I'd like to address:

"How can I think,

How can I speak,

When I question everything?

I constantly double-check,

I continuously re-assess."

To this, I'd like to share a small bit of writing. I don't do this often, but here it is:

"To act?
What does it mean “to act well?” To make good decisions?
To act on instinct is folly.
To act on volition is folly.
For instinct is by nature flawed,
And volition is by bias flawed.
“To act well”, is to act minimally, is it not?
“To despise”; Each act of despicableness is perceived by a thousand eyes.
“To act”, is to be a fool.
“To act well”, is to avoid doing so.
But I ask you, who does this benefit?"

Something I wrote when I was a bit younger. I was typing my immediate thought processes, so it isn't very coherent.

To elaborate:
Double-checking, reassessing, etc. all of your actions, thoughts and such: This is analysis paralysis. 

It's always good to keep a close eye on your views. Ensure that you let them change.

But you need a balance, I think. As the above points out:
It's impossible to make an objectively "good" decision. The alternative is to do nothing at all. 

Are you willing to do that? Strip away your ability to act and change things, take away your own humanity, for the purpose of consistency? 

Make your mistakes. Look back at them, and never regret. Live with the knowledge that whatever decision you made, was one made by you and because of you. 
Funnily enough, in my opinion there is little worse than not being able to take responsibility for a decision. Because that means YOU weren't really the one acting. Another, in one way or another, forced your hand. 

Who's life are you to live, if not your own? 

Thanks for the nice reply

Unfortunately my mind does not let me properly extract all the meaning from stuff

So uhm

But don't worry I got some, probably more than I think.

edit: so are you interested in philosophy and stuff? I am, and just bought some classics lol. Nietzsche and Camus, and some others. I don't know much so I wanted to learn more.

1 hour ago, Usseewa said:

Thanks for the nice reply

Unfortunately my mind does not let me properly extract all the meaning from stuff

So uhm

But don't worry I got some, probably more than I think.

 

edit: so are you interested in philosophy and stuff? I am, and just bought some classics lol. Nietzsche and Camus, and some others. I don't know much so I wanted to learn more.

Hurrah! Frabjous joy! Smorgasbord!
Real happy you're putting such an effort into reading this stuff. If at any point, to want to read something a little easier on the eyes and a bit more practical than some of the theories proposed in the classics, try the Courage to be Disliked by some-japanese-guy. 

15 minutes ago, Denissimo said:

Hurrah! Frabjous joy! Smorgasbord!
Real happy you're putting such an effort into reading this stuff. If at any point, to want to read something a little easier on the eyes and a bit more practical than some of the theories proposed in the classics, try the Courage to be Disliked by some-japanese-guy. 

Second time I've heard/seen that word today.

The latter of three.

Cool, I'll keep that in mind or promptly forget and come back to at a later date.

Also yes I do a lot of stream-of-conscious, I think. (Going back to your original reply).

I have a ten-page on in one of these entries..

edit: also, it's not really easy reading them lol, but I must

27 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

Second time I've heard/seen that word today.

The latter of three.

Cool, I'll keep that in mind or promptly forget and come back to at a later date.

 

Also yes I do a lot of stream-of-conscious, I think. (Going back to your original reply).

I have a ten-page on in one of these entries..

 

edit: also, it's not really easy reading them lol, but I must

Stream of conciousness is like french: The author is under no obligation to make the reader understand their intended meaning. That is the reader's problem.

It presents the transient nature of thought, as best one can: And I think you do so quite naturally. And in a way that is far more understandable than other variations, mainly due to formatting.

An example of stream-of-conciousness wriiting is Ulysses, by James Joyce. A novel written entirely in that style.
Massive headache of a read, but I think you might want to check that out.

28 minutes ago, Denissimo said:

Stream of conciousness is like french: The author is under no obligation to make the reader understand their intended meaning. That is the reader's problem.

It presents the transient nature of thought, as best one can: And I think you do so quite naturally. And in a way that is far more understandable than other variations, mainly due to formatting.

An example of stream-of-conciousness wriiting is Ulysses, by James Joyce. A novel written entirely in that style.
Massive headache of a read, but I think you might want to check that out.

FIRST i just wanna say that I was trying to think of that novel yesterday! Thanks

I actually saw it today, but didn't get it cuz I confused it with a Homer book? I was also looking at Odyssey/Iliad (didn't get, tho)

I'll have to get Ulysses. I've heard of it. Yes.

Thanks btw. I live off praise hehe...

Tbh I admire you as a thinker/person with good writing and words.

I honestly didn't hold my stream-of-conscious writings in a high regard. Idk. I shouldn't hold them in *too* high a regard so as not to be... whatever the word is I always struggle to know. Being too proud of your work that doesn't match the level of pride you have. Like being cocky, I guess.

I see or hear word "transient" a lot, and didn't really know what it meant hehe.. but looked it up now and you used it quite well in my mind, meaning what it conveyed was good.

Well, I would say there is a difference between taking pride in your work, and liking the recognition.

If you are proud of your work, that is never a bad thing: It means you take pride in the process, in the work unto itself: You legimately enjoy it and what it means to you.
Liking the recognition means that you care more about how others percieve it, rather than the work in itself.

So, take pride in your writing. Hold it in as high of a regard you want, but never so high that you believe it cannot improve further.

7 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

Thanks btw. I live off praise hehe...

We all do, to an extent. The very fact that you are talking to me right now, is treated as praise in my horomone riddled greymatter. Hurrah for dopamine.

The complement is appreciated. And reciprocated. (e.g, back atcha.)

9 minutes ago, Denissimo said:

Well, I would say there is a difference between taking pride in your work, and liking the recognition.

If you are proud of your work, that is never a bad thing: It means you take pride in the process, in the work unto itself: You legimately enjoy it and what it means to you.
Liking the recognition means that you care more about how others percieve it, rather than the work in itself.

So, take pride in your writing. Hold it in as high of a regard you want, but never so high that you believe it cannot improve further.

We all do, to an extent. The very fact that you are talking to me right now, is treated as praise in my horomone riddled greymatter. Hurrah for dopamine.

The complement is appreciated. And reciprocated. (e.g, back atcha.)

Yes

I have some diary pages or at least entries devoted to trying to untangle this- or, not really trying, just analysis-paralysis, I guess.

I worry that the reason I write/create art is simply for recognition- a reason I see as "bad", selfish, etc. whatever the word is.

I just don't want to think my writing is very good and then have reality hit painfully when someone with authority in the area, or just some rando, makes me realize or says it's actually not that good, or points out flaws etc.

Wouldn't that be i.e., not e.g.?

#pedantry #maybewrong

omg...

the fear of correcting someone and then it turns out you are wrong and they were right From the Start...

Just now, Usseewa said:

Yes

I have some diary pages or at least entries devoted to trying to untangle this- or, not really trying, just analysis-paralysis, I guess.

I worry that the reason I write/create art is simply for recognition- a reason I see as "bad", selfish, etc. whatever the word is.

I just don't want to think my writing is very good and then have reality hit painfully when someone with authority in the area, or just some rando, makes me realize or says it's actually not that good, or points out flaws etc.

Wouldn't that be i.e., not e.g.?

#pedantry #maybewrong

I mean.

I don't think it is bad. Most of the things we do are for recognition of some form. That is the nice thing about society. 
Also, even if that is true, what will you do? Stop writing? Stop creating? Don't. That is a basic right of human nature. 
Recognition is not a bad thing. You shouldn't act solely towards it, but it still isn't a bad thing. It's simply your mind craving understanding and acceptance. Frame it that way. 
Is it selfish to want to be cared for? I don't think so.

Well, when that happens, you have a choice. If someone simply says "It's not good" or something of that nature, you can disregard it. That is a completely unanalytical opinion. Obessing over it won't lead to improvement, as they haven't given any detail. 

If its a bit more detailed, then choose: Do you agree? If so, improve. If you don't then disregard.

You're probably right. I get it wrong constantly. But, seeing as you've identified what it's meant to be, I still feel no need to change anything, as it is apparent that my meaning gets across whether or not my i.e.s and e.g.s are correct.

You see? I've just disregarded a piece of very useful advice because it doesn't technically hinder meaning! That sort of thing, I guess.
You aren't wrong, it just doesn't bother me. 

4 hours ago, Usseewa said:

the fear of correcting someone and then it turns out you are wrong and they were right From the Start...

I would ask. Framing it as a question, rather than a correction, if one is not sure.

Also, in this case, you are right. 
(I just can't be bothered to correct if, if my intended meaning is still understood.)