the contentiousness within speech

spokenness has become weaponized. 

for what is heard, 

has distinction priorities in its deliverance.

mind wants overview in it observation.

emotion wants emersion in its moments.

mind wants regulatory and account.

emotion wants presence in its richness expressed.

the contradictory nature of everything spoken

is about leads and follows. 

and the unsaid question is,

does mind lead and emotions follow

or do emotions present 

for the mind to circumstance? 

for there is a cleaver of dissection 

in everything said.

and this essentially comes down to 

a difference of philosophies,

in topic versus tone,

as to focus, content and source.

in topics, feelings' expression

is to the oppression 

of the circumstance declared.

in tone, is the feeling's emersion 

into the feel of the currency of the moment.

yet the currency of language 

serves the objectified perception,

while the context of what is spoken

is an attempt at the moment 

becoming tonified in unison,

where topics speak to distinction

and tone represents connection.

the great philosophical divide is about,

what does agreement do?

is it of mental alignment

or of emotional togetherness?

mental is what we wear and how it looks.

emotional is who we are and how it feels.

mental is educational, 

creating topics of interest.

emotional is presence shared 

towards ongoing alignments.

it's identities versus embodiments,

narratives versus livingness.

the essential question remains,

what is the cornerstone of consciousness?

the mental constructionism for the account

or the emotional livingness 

and therefore its aliveness? . . .