Do you believe?

Do you believe?

I don’t believe

that believing really works.

Hmmm . . .

Well maybe

I am contradicting myself

when I say that.

Maybe I am saying

that believing

based on content

doesn’t really work.

Okay well maybe I am saying

that believing

based on a premise

doesn’t really work.

Okay

believing

based on memory retention

really doesn’t work.

Okay what about believing

without content

or premise or memory,

does that really work?

Can you have believing

without a context?

Can you believe

without accountability?

Can you believe in,

say ‘nothing’

and still benefit from believing

the way believers do?

I mean to say,

can you turn yourself on

without rhyme or reason

or stimulus or circumstance

and be moved

into an altered state

without just cause

or explanation?

Can you be believing

and not know

how or what or why?

Is believing a function

of trust or expectation?

If you believe

that everything happens

for a purpose or a reason,

are you just rationalizing

but yet protecting

in your ability to believe?

How circuitous is this

as activity or process

without the bottom falling out?

So if you ‘believe in nothing’

is that any different

than believing in something

for what really is happening

in the brain?

If you believe,

does that ever lead

to a next moment

as an open frame?

Well is there such a state

as being a non-believer

and is that something different

essentially from a believer?

Do we ever escape belief

in the course of our lives?

Do I ever have the option

to not believe

and not be believing

in something else

by the same mechanism

I am claiming denial there of?

Is this all about accountability

in the end?

Once I commit

a thought to verbiage

am I indebted to a position

that I can’t escape?

If I language,

do I then believe?

If I make a conclusion,

have I then entered

into the world of belief?

If all of nominality

is a pretense seducing me

into a world of believing

then is everything that I see

as separate or namable

now a contention

in that regard?

Is believing

as a particular

or premise

or process

all one in the same

and inseparable?

Is believing

a constant reinforcement

into being separate

from whatever is named

as object or idea or means?

So is believing

a subtle form

of keeping a distance

from a real connection

or oneness

with anything or anyone?

Is anything objectified

then a form of believing

and all of subjectivity

is really an extension

of believing

in an habitual sense?

Does then believing have,

as an undisclosed assumption,

a lack of real connectivity

by proposing that

‘believing in something’

professes a future

of being closer

or more connected

but yet still

essentially separate?

Is believing

sort of counter intuitive

or working with a kind

of negative affirmation?

If you are just doing believing

and indifferent

to the particulars

are you getting

say the full benefits

but without attachment

or need for proof?

Is then believing

a way of brain stimulation

that is native to the physiology

of the brain

but searching for mechanisms

of symbology and/or culture

upon which to lend

obvious means

sort of like a kind

of camouflage

for this to blindly

or secretly occur?

If this is so,

then the hidden activity

of religions

or spirituality or magic or such

is to allow for this process

to naturally occur

but to have adequate cover

or representation

so that how the mind does this

does not become unto itself

‘a phenomenon of interest,

self-inquiry or inspection’.

So we all believe in believing

but we can be positional

at any point in this process

and we can be oppositional

to each other

even though

we are essentially

working our brains

in parallel

and possibly simultaneously

in doing so

and not be any wiser

about what is

essentially happening

as a collective of one?

Do you believe?