let's play know

first cause is the conundrum of a mindset's logic.

as if to begin at the beginning, 

is to superimpose a sense of time as a dignitary, 

as a presumed audience of worth and influence,

as the lay of the land has to have a time directory,

an assumption of understand falsely premised 

and observation as a keynote speaker.

it is a concert of name-tags seeking resolution,

when resolution is a self-predicament to start.

knowing about it, is only a bystander status

and that's all we get by our style of questioning.

no great essence in answers,

no magic of being of it occurs, 

experience is really tacky in that way.

we are forever on tour.

everything imaginable is on display as knowable,

but nothing to answer the itness of is.

even answer is a false premise of concern.

that we have interest only makes us hobby bounds.

anything that is time processional is already lost.

time, as method, makes us experience as audience.

and we are sensory inhabited to start with,

for we use sensory to get answers. 

and conclusions bind us away from true source,

as no conclusion has essence immersed within.

yes, we can make a logic and a rational for approach.

but no, it's all superficially circumventive in its arrival.

we get talk as explain and comprehension as status,

but no, no great philosophy of entry as a means.

language only creates first stage working models.

thoughts are on combustable paper wings,

that mind-fly but never get truly grounded.

we are within where we cannot sense out of.

we don't have bare in mind as a possibility.

instead, we have experience in a mind setting,

that only gives us indirect feedback. 

on our method of viewing the mirror's reflection,

which we high-quality in-depth ignore,

is for us to actually study, 

how we study to start with.

we don't have another method as means.

study doesn't study itself with it self.

how strange of a science would that be?

like the mind can come up with an alternate mind?

a perspective on viewing what perspective would do?

that would only be another case of second guessing,

buffoonery based on the expectation of forthcoming laughter.

yes, we do believe in a kind of rightness of mind,

but how to question the use of mind, 

with the mind, 

as officious and also mentor?

and experience is going to be our method of inquiry?

it's like playing "hot potato" 

except there is no one to say getting "warmer or colder",

just the joy of play and the stimulation of wandering.

know, as "hot potato" is such a challenging game 

for humans to be playing,

as if a means of self 

in evolution terms . . .