A blog post comprising 4 things, one of which is the blog post itself.

First, a WARNING:
Reader, I wrote the following blog post without creative foresight. After having finished it, I looked upon my works and saw they were mediocre, and I separated them from this WARNING. One might suggest that I simply not post the following blog, but the problem with that suggestion is that I spent a whole 5 minutes writing it, and I used html coding to italicize words and stuff, and would feel like my effort, thought spent on a blog not worthwhile, would be wasted. To quote a barista to whom I spoke yesterday, "I would rather do something bad that nothing at all". Now, while this maxim may not apply well to the ethical governance of one's own life, it may be a decent maxim for art. Think of Chesterton's permutation of an old adage: "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." Hence, I showcase the following not-very-entertaining blog. Read or don't. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Secondly, a SECOND WARNING:
It would be helpful for one to understand Hume's theory of personal identity if one desires to get a decent amount of the humor that follows. This is so because the back half of the post is just about Hume's theory of personal identity. For some reason in the following blog post I capitalize "Personal Identity".

Thirdly, the BLOG POST:

February, you were too short. I thought I had more time. I thought we had more time. I didn't think that 14 blog posts for February was all I had in me. I had more to give.

But no. You've left me. We won't really ever meet again. Our relationship has been sloppily abandoned, profitable possibilities left unactualized. Think of the times we could have had! The New York Times we could have had! The times we could have had had! "Had had" had had the better effect on the teacher!

Yes, yes, I know: you will be back next year. But it won't be the February 2009 whom I've grown to love, to adore, to nuzzle. It will be some new February. Nice, no doubt. Friendly. Attractive. Intelligent. I may even learn to nuzzle this new February. But it won't be the same.

Similarly, I realize that if I were to adopt a Humean understanding of Personal Identity (half-okay/half-asinine jokes to make here: "A Humean Understanding of Personal Identity is a Contradiction In Terms", "To Understand Personal Identity (or much of anything) from a Humean Position, Simply Omit", etc.) then all relationships are this way. I will never really be friends with Max again, once I see him, etc. I will be friends with some new person named Max who has a remarkably (though, of course, not "remarkable" [heh heh heh]) Max-like body, but who in fact is radically different. In this way, my social circle has a high turn-over rate. (Does anybody know the term in ecology meant to refer to an ecosystem's combined "death" rate and "birth" rate? So, example: the rainforest has a high rate of this kind, since things are born and die so frequently and quickly, while the desert has a very low rate of this kind, since very few things are born, but those that are last for a long long time. I keep grasping for this word in metaphors, etc., but don't actually know the word, and so I end up having to describe the concept itself in the rather long-winded way much like that which you have just experienced. This makes room for a nice argument as to why having a sophisticated vocabulary is helpful [in that it assists you in having sophisticated thoughts, and having them quickly] but it's a downright pain.) I have tons of friends named Max, but never any for very long.

But then, lets be thorough and comprehensive here kiddies, really I won't be friends with this person at all, but some me-like person named Jonathan Charles Wright will be friends with the Max-like person named Max. In this way, my social circle is very limited. And my social circle is very limited. And so is mine.

In this way, also, this blog post is an incredible, massive collaborative effort.

Also, on this view, in marriage, you can have adulterous thoughts about your "spouse", if we define "spouse" in the everyday sense, but retain Humean identity in a strict philosophical sense. This might be an inconsistency, to insist of continuous "spouses" but discontinuous (?) identities (?); but if it is, it's a kind of inconsistency that Humeans must commit if they are at all inclined to keep up with their mothers.

Fourthly, a POST SCRIPT COMPRISING TWO QUESTIONS:

Is the sentence "I wrote the following blog post without creative foresight" part of this blog post? Is this?