the frequencies of existence

there are frequencies occurring. 

there are of life itself.

or at least as we claim to know,

with each new myopic discovery we make.

we are all the way to quantum and then some.

we are and they are, 

in names only.

we couldn't be more sensory remote and ponder,

that all exists in name only to us.

yet they are frequencies occurring.

we don't have existence there,

but they do.

we claim a righteousness to our existence,

but they don't even show concern.

they hardly take form seriously, 

and yet we claim all matter.

we claim to be self taught,

ever on the ascension of discovery.

of course that is within our terms

and subsequently our brain style of recognition means.

we have objectification as our form of discovery.

it's not like we synthesize and then fuse.

it isn't even as if an approach to harmonize.

we just name and claim, 

and objectify in passing.

we have understanding as if a shopping cart,

out at our local universe for some fixings. 

there to notice,

what science-mom will bring home.

for us to possibly try?

oh if frequency had sensory flavor,

or if frequency was palatable, 

as any kind of sensory find.

but frequency to frequency

does not have experience 

built in to their equation. 

for we do experience, 

as if as a bleacher seat existence.

hey, we do what we can

and the rest is outside our sensory range.

mind-wise everything is news to us.

you'd think we were onlooker evolved.

that we're here as guests,

and privileged as such.

so secretly, in each of our heads,

there is this voice that is asking us,

"may I take your order?".

and we believe, 

to be privileged to respond.

of course they could be out of stock

for what we might be asking.

but in general, we find alternatives to suffice.

frequency is a tight knit core.

they function above and beyond

what we render as relevant.

yet we expect to reap the benefits, unknowingly.

as if, oh we're part of them also.

we do our share of participation,

but almost to the point of lameness occurring.

we are of it.

kind of with it.

but basically clueless as to our manner.

if frequency could only think like we do.

if frequency was more language friendly.

if frequency had a manner of speak.

but then maybe it does

and the onus is really on us.

we seem to be culpable of capacity,

burdened with distractive style,

presumed with relevance

and burdened with remote.

mind-wise, it appears

that we are still 

in the wallflower stage of development,

while the existence-dance is still going on . . .