What does content stand for? * 5/15/12

What does content stand for?

Is it permission for retention

to take center stage,

evoking a recall

of what it all has meant?

Is it to raise claims that infer value,

to give an account

as storytellers often do?

Is it to produce a currency of respect

for the way we relate to things?

Have we subjugated it

with versions of our interpretation

and placements in time

that are ours to have and to hold?

Isn’t content the myth

we assign to stuff?

When it falls out of our grace

and the initial animation

to possess or own the it of it

does not key into our psyche

any more as enhancement of self,

what then happens to all those props

that go with that?

What is content really to us at all?

Ownership, as an attribute of content,

is only humans in leveraged agreement

with other humans,

as if we own land

and we do what we want with it

or basically we act out using the land

as a prop or backdrop for display

as if it were a wardrobe of relevance

that humans have rights to do so.

Content is a self-entitlement concept.

It allows us a broad spectrum,

from intimacy to distance,

with what we conceive of

as objects to us and for us,

separate from us but bonded to us

because they are meaningful to us.

Our meaningfulness is only

a subjective operational mandate

to have things become,

quote, “objects” in service to us.

So once we get behind all of that,

what does content really stand for?

Is it just a relational style

they we blatantly engage in

without opposition

but in a senseless way?

What would be the voice

of an opposing party we could hear?

Weather, glut of culture,

the earth itself,

in denying larger frames

of human endeavor

from serving our grander sense

of insular human cause?

As a species,

we got to do cattle,

we got to do cars,

we get to do war

with all kinds of props,

we got to do countries,

dams, deforestation, pollution,

we got to do pharmacology,

we get to do business,

governments, regularatory agencies,

projects of national pride,

we got to smoke

and ingest copious amounts,

we got to ignore

and live in abject denial

surrounded by content

diminished into stuff,

still content

but not the same any more.

So what are the supposed rules

behind the concept of content

that we have come to assume

into our blind behavioral acceptance?

Isn’t “content” really

an entitlement position

without apparent opposition

in our blind way

of reasoning value for ourselves

at the cost of the world around us?

Isn’t this a eventual method

of species self-isolation?

Are we working

the “for or against” principle

rather than the

“with and through” principle?

In the end,

does ‘THE END”

ever trump “THE MEANS”?

So, false assumptions aside,

what does . . .

“content”, I mean to say,

the use of that word itself

really stand for?