problems as breadcrumbs 1/3/18

there is no problem, only the think of it.

the premise of conceptualization is falsely constructed.

assumptions of the working mind technique

prohibit in the original premise state.

the method of objectification is a false start.

even problematic assumes a separate existence.

to define a problem is a ritual

under the pretense of separate from its existence.

the essential problem is the conjure dynamics

that features, as its claim, a problem by name.

problematic is a method of creational perspective.

the fluid state of existence in the universe has no problems.

following a path of singular separatism,

humans, doing understanding, as it promoted,

have a conventional style that reframes as problems

and approaches what would be called solutions,

all of which is rendered as independently observable,

furthering the misconception

that we are separate from the world around us,

keeping us at bay from a deeper integration as conscious.

most of our experiential techniques imprison us.

we claim a freedom that is innocently malfunctional

by way of the assumed start-up with recognition

and yet remains unrecognizable and therefore un-realizable.

we go at things as separate from, not as part of.

we would want control rather than immersion.

we want experience to be an account,

not a deeper engagement existence.

we demand language reductionism

rather than actual workings out of being.

we anchor in naiveté, expecting mindful candor.

we don’t come from the expansion of oneness.

we promote the reduction of all things

into a solutional oneness

as if the ultimate sacred law would be a knowable

and not an existence in a beingness.

even how we hold a sense of beingness is a falsehood

in that it would partake in audience and story as account.

we would consensus mandate that we are:

1 percent soul, 1 percent spirit, 1 percent heart, all about inferior knowing, and 97 per cent lip service to that cause.

our communication skills are one dimensional,

limited primarily to our species exclusivity

and a preeminent occupation with an elitist view as such

and yet everything imaginable around us

is in a collective energetic conversation

that we are vaguely participants in, almost by accident.

if we didn’t have any mass, we wouldn’t have a clue.

there is no way we can take a present-day mind

and go to the future.

we are at the mercy of what comes our way

by the conventions we seem to create

as if it us who are the moving force

as opposed to being in receivership

of that which abounds and surrounds us unceasingly.

but we don’t have the mind

nor the heart nor the spirit or the soul

to get from me to we to thee without

profound assistance in the refinement of being

and the consciousness of becoming

not by chance or choice

but by emergence

as if surrender was the ruling principle

in the quantum of the universe . . .