What if thought
did not even feature
understanding per say?
Thought on the search end
of the process,
may lend itself
to a kind of bafflement
for intuitive recognition.
While thought
as verbal pronouncement
may end up defended
by a sensibility and logic
this self-edification
of user mentality,
may not provide
for the false sacredness
of agreement by solipsism
where humans just
agree to agree
as if it were so.
There are deeps
of the collective mind
that seem to occupy
subtle interfaces
with the accompaniment
of concept and theory.
These provide
for the slippage
and liquidity of common mind
yet the collective cadence
and shared emergence
rarely occur outwardly.
Why are not thoughts
just capstones
on contagions of deeper
and richer processes
that words cannot penetrate
by their definitive linear account
and understanding’s retrieval method?
What if thinking
is all a kind of lip service
until other mediums emerge
that are conveyant in nature,
that provide for the share
of the hologram?
This would be something
more than interface of meaning,
like common source,
or shared essence,
or a oneness
distributing facets as crumbs
for observation’s appetite.
This telepathic common thought
that pronounces itself
is a leaderless manifest,
yet we settle for the obliqueness
of a singularity
of focus as frame.
It seems that our style
of experience
is a lot like a lit flashlight
in a darken room
where the lighted artifacts
form a relative basis
of context
and of subsequent conclusions
and of the room, in and of itself,
while the ambience
of the room space
remains idle
to our sentient embrace
and unaccounted for
in our sense of consequence.
To me, this is an exaggeration
of particulars in a foreground style,
a false conditioning
and a pseudo promotion
of relevance
as momentous and consuming
of our deeper attention’s ability
to provide.
Are you thinking
what I’m thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment