the study of pleasure

the study of pleasure,

to experience defining pleasure,

cultivate broad based tedium.

for without framing and time-lines

pleasure can't delve with experiential depth.

constant pleasure looses its impactfulness.

audience of self has attention-span limits.

contrast is essential to poignancy's focus.

if pleasure were a constant state,

that demystifies the nature of experience.

outer world influence would be minimal,

and the general demeanor is vastly shifted.

pleasure then becomes a knock at the door.

curiousness is having distractive attention.

pleasure suspends the timing sense.

pleasure fronts with occupancy.

framing it, gives the notion of impact.

comparative truth applauds the experience.

witness to oneself has dimensional presence

to what is the happening.

nuances bolstering the titillation affect.

pleasure requires audience presence.

intervals between intakes, 

intense intimacy is fostering breaks.

a life of unrelenting pleasure

is eventually just boredom olympics.

experience demand breaks.

stimuli intake is intermittent.

pleasure is all highlighter 

on the whiteboard of living.

if a page was all one color 

words of that color wouldn't read.

we're dedicated to sensory contrasts.

pleasure rides that principle to the max.

inward witness focus

is not dedicate to the notion of pleasure.

they reside where they abide.

for what is constant in them

does not feature contrast.

for them, if edginess is in play,

pleasure is complimentary surround. 

experience, as a technique, is suspect,

as a lobbyist in a reality setting. 

refinement of intake has questions,

how experience is affecting one's being.

so how to vibrationally broadcast spirit

without projecting a self 

in distraction and defiance. 

in its defense, pleasure is a keynote speaker.

but it is what it is for what it does, 

until it is not what it appears to be.

and then we are not that audience 

at affect of experience's pseudo efforts . . .