making concepts out of the whole * 6/7/13

Can we make concepts out of the whole?

Can we be empathic that way

beyond experience’s grasp?

The fragility of understanding’s reductionism

is more difficult a concept than life after death.

Our syntax for experience is subject-object

yet the universe is only newsy that way

to us in our vernacular.

It is we, who are remote to the whole.

We use techniques of inquiry 

that bottom out as insularity premises

that undermine our efforts.

We expect the universe, in its refinement,

to grossly represent itself, in essence,

available to our methods of comprehension

yet we have not trained in any way

that lends or aligns us to that way

of comprehension as in confluent-participation.

We do realize the entry point within ourselves

to be part of the universe in a more direct way

than gross inquiry from

an appropriately objectified distance.

We are not the astronauts

to go within ourselves and connect with this

as all and comprehensively embrace the whole.

The who of us we send, mindfully to source,

are falsely ordained and subsequently trained

away from cause or essence in confluence.

It is like we want to swim in the truth

and yet we prepare to survive the fluid

but never to become the liquid itself.

We have a sense of keepsake,

which limits our depth of transition

into commitment and therefore confines

the dimensions and transformations

that could follow.

And so the metaphorical riddle continues:

we are at least 70 percent water

and yet we all only swim in the ocean.

What we know is made relevant to us

as we are the capture of method of our inquiry.

We still only know of ocean relationally.

We share air more directly but sensorially

know less of the oneness from that.

Our life in language and symbols provides

for the standoff to be invisible

or out of sensory range.

Our basic habit patterns that occur

with unconsciously migratory

and frequent repetitious behavior,

be it of thought forms to physical acts, 

emotional presence to interactive activity.

They all have, as an invisible working premise,

the grand unacknowledged denial of oneness, 

be that in shear mass, human shared intention,

the personal psychology of being human,

or the grandest sense

in transformational presence

consciously approachable.

We only have break down

as break through potential.

Until the error of our ways becomes discovered 

as the error of our means,

we, as a oneness quest,

are withheld without obvious

or apparent restraint.

We continue to yearn from our campfires

of shared but comparative isolation.

We have not developed a shared

array mind as one of our means.

We have not stripped down

to content-less thought.

We are not a capella of the presence of spirit.

We are still the stagger with

and load up on agreement

but not with the multi-realm

of conscious oneness.

I feel like these words are like

orphaned morning doves,

lost for time and space, and minds to land in.

For there is, in essence, no wing, nor branch, 

nor breeze that is not of the 4 per cent

of the universe made evident.

And yet we struggle to embrace,

making concept out of whole . . .