we have a problem

 

we have a problem.

how far back and how deep

do we want to go,

to say we have a problem?

okay let's just say

that problem is essentially 

a mind-style of approach.

yes, there will be elucidated details,

an implied logic sequentially, 

conclusions and deduction based on judgements made.

but seriously, how far back in the process 

do we go?

do we deal with the semantics inferred?

that which is generally considered 

as too petty to quibble,

that which is so difficult to ascertain

because we are doing it, in it, and using it?

to get to the itness behind it,

can we come to a clarity about meaning?

can we, by example, discover the limitations

of the think style we use,

both in source, usage, and assumed results?

having a problem as the subject matter 

to examine

is only topically exemplary.

what we do with language, 

understanding and agreement

totally annihilates what is 

seemingly the goal.

it is only reflective stylistically 

of the approach.

it is more about method used 

than results gained.

our version of results is that 

we agree to agree.

did it get us to the essence of what is?

no, but it got us to a claim of the cause.

our investigatory skills only are reflective 

of our means.

to claim something as problematic is on us,

by our perception 

and sense of imposed order.

we are not integral 

to much of anything natural,

outside of our own bodies 

and the way we think.

and think is the essential issue.

a problem is a human 

reflectively having perspective

within the limitations self imposed 

by the think imposed.

and then the work is eventually, 

humans agree with humans.

it was style 

in a mirror-reflecting commentary.

how we go about is the original study,

no matter the stated problem addressed.

we don't possess a variety 

of think-styles to use.

we have yet to adventure 

into other-than scientific.

we are on a slow track of mind evolution 

to advance the think.

and the approval baggage 

that accompanies that, 

is massive for as an agreeing populous 

could possibly state,

is beyond our version of simple comprehension.

we have a problem,

and the problem is us, 

as for the way that think, think works

and we subsequently subscribe.

why can't we think our way out of think?

and so if you think about it,

usually, the problem really doesn't exist . . .