the vexation of spokenness

mindfully, it is very hard 

for a noun to become a verb

transcendently, it's even harder 

for a verb 

to become a verb of that verb

and it is ridiculously hard 

for a language 

to become its own livingness . . .

what makes whole one

language under-dimensionalizes the feeling's presence.

communication, as expression, seeks demonstration.

and behavior becomes the spoken word,

as if a person was signing their emotional state

without cognitive intervention.

where acting out becomes the say,

all people are in the constancy of this.

but it is usually kept at a minimum,

as foibles or mannerisms of a low-key nature,

as tensions within the body functioning.

but not clearly displayed as more than that.

in many ways, sickness or illness results

after long periods of this stress in denial.

localized tensions that eventually yield 

into displayable results.

the matrix of these feelings, 

not dimensionally reduced into cognitive formats,

present in these ways.

the steeper the mental restraint,

the more varied the resulting behavior can appear.

the intended say is to release as a means,

that which is not held in the confines of reason.

in a sense, madness has its own sense of order

beyond what has been conceived of as sensible.

the irrational invites an act-out reasoning to occur.

imagine a flailing hose spewing water every which way

by appearances as observed.

but within the hose circumstance as pressurized,

the water and the hose are working towards release.

and all else is passively contributing in support,

as in open space,

hose flexibility,

hardness of surfaces in resistance 

and in acceptance of contact.

pressurized water in confinement

against hose restraint is yielding given appearances.

this does not intimately express or display in depth

what appears to be happening.

our comprehension of pressure in varied forms

confronting other pressure in resistant forms

is not readily sensed, 

as much as the apparency of action is.

so much of tension within human existence

goes on below or behind what is commonly sensed.

only the resultive stages reach sensory aware.

we, as cognitively concerned,

approach from the resultive format

working towards recreation to get to sourceful-ness,

to essentially come to be aware of the essence of source

and its methods of function as existence.

this also applies to our nervous system,

our emotion functioning

and a deeper sense of our being,

as in all of the above.

inquiry, piece by piece, 

and the attempt at essence composition, 

as understanding as method is, 

requires an enduring means of approach.

and for that, all we get 

is a potential deeper understanding

not healing, not sure, 

but witness within refinement.

the wizardry of being goes on

with or without our function of comprehension.

we didn't invent a culture that dwells within

the complete expression of confluence of being.

but we live in a culture that pursues by inquiry,

to the shortcomings of culture as so designed.

we don't become the tree.

but we study the tree,

by sawing off the branches we are on.

to see how they fall,

relative to our style of observation.

thus we come to comprehend the nature of the tree

but still remain quite separate from the tree

and its existence relative to us.

eventually there are deeper discoveries to be made.

where we and the tree have so much more in common

than we have gleaned into knowledge.

to the point where all things

are really one thing of essence,

in diverse displays, 

from our current human perspective . . .

attention has its own needs

the technique of attention only presents 

the allure of freedom,

as imposed by the method and mechanics of attention.

attention has the capacity to attend to the doing

but has no grasp of the capacity to be.

attention is quite at home

with the know of experience

but literally at odds

with the feeling of being.

know is referential 

while feel is embodiment presenting.

syntactically, we are both the seduction

and the failure of linear thinking personified.

content and context are mentally referential

but content and context are emotionally multidimensional.

there is no say that speaks the emotional truth,

for that say just infers the leap from the words.

where for mentally, 

say is informational method at work.

these two are worlds apart,

one being linear in deliverance,

while the other is holographic in presence.

how it is puzzling to have a mind in usage

when feelings essentially don't work in a language way?

we are all taught to have emotional summary 

available for thought to interpret,

for language to say in words depictions thereof.

but the feeling state does not pledge to understand

while the mind state works rigorously at inward reveal.

where do these two ever meet as attention persuades?

at music?

at romance before it has a storyline?

when pageant emotion attention-grabs innocent thought?

when philosophical has a psychological 

moment of shared interest?

attention has the parade marshal of mentality,

but the parade of each moment itself 

is hardly surface contained

or consciously accounted for.

maybe attention is poorly dressed 

as a self, mentally predisposed,

as if mental overage is always the means 

to be accounted for.

once attention received a defining description,

grave sites should have been chosen

for attention of that kind has a timeline.

mental attention is what makes experience overrated.

for how many conclusions are there 

to be made until we are buried alive 

in remarks and memory retention?

shoes are like mind usage,

and so we thought.

yet shoes keep us confined in a fear modality.

one cannot walk the earth,

when kept in fear confinement.

emotion wants the symphony of sound,

not the clarity of claim and pronouncement.

attention may have lost its focus-way

like a flashlight in the darkness of abounding fear.

attention certainly needs 

more than a mind-grip to function . . .

the empty experience

I, vast out into expectations of incoming content.

the prelude for the feel 

of cognitive interactions impressing.

inner dialogue readied to be processing.

but am met with the stare of thin air,

conversations that soft back,

echoed in one-sidedness,

launched with initial intent.

yet no feedback,

no sensory incoming,

a vacancy, 

as if to greet a flat-lining reflection.

even notice is muted to respond.

the parade of the next moment canceled. 

the stage upon which, not there.

the audience of me ponderously wondering, 

while listless loiters below and within,

then on to slight burdensome, 

self-reflecting.

still keen to sense,

but no objects of focus appearing.

internal engine room still running at full pace,

but a vagueness of intent approaching.

high gear is obsolete to the moment.

internal engine activity is overkill.

gearing down to just mind occupancy.

thought displays an interest in mannerisms.

mindful unto itself.

all the handling skills,

yet nothing to fondle.

no delicates to gingerly attend to.

just float, stall, 

presence upon itself.

a juggler without sorcerer skills to use.

a sower without a thread to a stitch.

a weaver in action 

without the presence of yarn. 

but with inner focus 

on that, that would be fiber.

if there actually was yarn,

the self of composition is presenting

in the stillness of outgoing,

waiting on incoming's absence. 

is this the empty experience,

when one is allowed to view?

how viewing is actually done.

how self consumes as experience.

for the intake, the means of processing

the passage of summaries,

the means of interaction proceeding,

the who is it of me,

that does me in this means?

when I am normally 

in a residence, once removed,

yet here I am in that for now.

facing the experiential workroom of me.

not me, 

but that which does the processing of me.

facing in the mirror of the empty experience.

a beyond that does not display.

a within that goes without saying.

a me, without identity's signature expressing.

unmoved by the surround of livingness.

not into any dialogue about life.

proceeds as if I am to follow.

and humbly, by all appearances,

I will do so . . .

oh for the letter of the law

(just a thought)

the letter of the law 

is a false honoring of the future. 

based on a premise 

that is fear generated 

and subsequently motivated. 

bent on determining the now,

based on a superficial account of the past.

that does not delve into source,

but organizes to avoid, 

by the obviousness of presented results.

it is essential and eventually

only bandaids on deeper wounds.

lip-service addressing source of cause,

creating costliness out of fear-generatives.

and not deeply addressing the source

but admonishing the ultimate expression made.

the letter of the law 

is fully dependent upon a definitive self,

as a status worth pursuing as responsible.

punishing that self

does not address the reality of cause deeply enough.

it is as the collective of selves

is confirming a solution that superficially responds

to the occurrences. 

and by description, seeks blame, not deep cause,

whereby a jury may become relevant,

as opposed to a collective of support,

or a sense for the fabric of situational evidence,

or a feel for the sense of the being accused

or crime is then seen, as an individual in effect.

a collective is not crime worthy.

they, the collective, are morally perceived as an army,

as a cause, as a political party,

as a business working towards success,

as a think-tank on a mission,

as a government protecting its status,

or even as a species with its own agenda.

the letter of the law has no future

but seeks to honor the past

by appearing to claim rights to what is to come.

the letter of the law

is mental intelligence outweighing

and overwhelming emotional intelligence,

where the spirit of the law dwells.

the letter of the law

is vulnerable to manipulation by interpretation,

as it applies differently in each case.

by not more deeply sourcing 

the essentialness of cause,

but by application as it affects,

for the benefits of selfism as its results.

to protect as if to ban,

does not address, 

but to protect as if to source, clarify, reconnect,

heal, reclaim, integrate, and create confluence.

no, punitive is as means.

is fear as the medium properly imposed?

the letter of the law has its moments

in which initiation into deeper cause should occur.

logic gives way to learning.

being in the know 

becomes getting a real feel for source of cause,

not just the status of the blame to be measured.

the letter of the law

should be spontaneously evident

as an opportunity to more deeply inquire,

as every act-out leaves levels of evidence,

as some physical, some emotional, 

and some more deeply psychological.

we are all of that mix ongoing.

fear asks for judgment, blame, and resolve.

law is an enactment of that process.

the letter of the law is therefore a form of denial,

as a process of having a conclusion made

and looking the other way as if safely distanced.

the collective is not served by such actions taken.

the letter of the law enforced is divisive.

let's just say,

if an earthquake breaks the law,

causes damages, mayhem, and injury,

what is there to do

with the letter of the law?

blame is such a waste of focus and energy.

each person is an earthquake about to happen.

it just depends on the scale of their action.

all day long the letter of the law is privately broken. 

what social conscience invented the letter of the law

as a means of insularity from connectedness,

as a sense of self over the feel of the collective, 

as an efficiency of living that seeks avoidance,

and as a result, style for unnamed causes not sought?

the letter of the law tethers the future

by an inoperable means of claiming the past.

we don't evolve by claiming what not to do,

when deeper clarity of cause is/was available.

self, and the means of being self

so deny the possibility of evolution to occur.

we are blessed and cursed

with a definitive self as distraction

and the letter of the law

ever evocatively confirming us, as such . . .