the id of it

when do we make conscious 

about the id of it?

it can't be done in topic.

can it be done in tone?

if I swim the feel of what you say

rather than listen to understand,

would that get me closer to the truth?

not that truth is a constant

but more towards the livingness

is what I really meant.

what goes into what goes on,

that is what I want to feel for.

to me, way back there,

there is a commonness of spirit.

I mean way back there,

maybe before we invented separateness,

before we had fear as an operative, 

before we had frontal cortex 

as our consciousness,

before we came up with living in dismay.

it seems everyone 

is a mountain-journey away.

a trek to only get to be in the know.

I wanted human emotional viscosity, 

not a common forest 

sharing the same cognitive breeze.

I wanted that 

which baffles understanding's attempt,

that which logic demands but cannot define.

to be beyond what know has to offer,

to be so tight with it

that language is revealed to be useless.

can't even say share and get to it as relevant,

to where the id of it 

has no audience of observation,

to a where that has no boundaries of need,

to where fluid would have been 

another term for id

and thus the consciousness as such . . .