a linguistic nightmare

in any current conversation,

the topic is mentally linear

yet the feeling is holographic.

the topic is directive

but the tone is circumstantial.

the topic is mentally privileged

but the tone is reactive to emotional oppression.

no conversation topically can tell the story

without feelings as if a continuance of the story.

every conversation is syntactical 

and subsequently, a linguistic nightmare.

it's topically an overview

yet tonally it's an ongoing emersion within.

mentally, it is designed to be descriptive.

emotionally, it is representational as disturbing.

mentally, it is constructed to be commanding,

but emotionally it's demanding of need to be reactive.

language is organized to be mentally directive

and emotionally disruptive of the full-blown context.

it's storyable versus circumstantial. 

symbolically, it's mental privileged-ness, 

versus emotional forthright righteousness.

truth is not what is topically said

but more so, what is currently felt 

as a tonal account.

yet mental is the directive of that account,

while emotion is the oppression silently expressed.

mental is principles recited as rhetoric, 

while emotional is an anthem 

tonally sung as a backdrop to the words.

this is all a linguistic nightmare ongoing,

presented paradoxically 

as the currency of the moment.

where mindfulness hears for order

and emotionality feels the oppression of restraint.

whereas, it is assumed, 

that the construction of language seeks order

and directedness identified, 

while the carriage of language tonally 

feels for the currency of being,

beyond what is represented as circumstantial. 

feel can not fit itself into language,

yet mindfulness, for now,

has no other recourse but language.

therefore the predicament is

either speech spoken

or song sung.

yet simultaneously,

hardly ever the presence of both . . .