understanding's dilemma

we all hear the world 

through a one way glass.

understanding is uniquely arbitrary. 

when a word tells me of itself,

it has tonal escort

that I can readily bath in,

that puts me into that fluid state 

of the utterance I just heard.

we're swimming in the same pool,

but in slightly different locations

relative to the meaning implied.

this takes us out of just spectatorship

and out into a belief of embodiment. 

in any case,

we are going to agree to agree.

but the takeaway of a degree of intimacy

is more breathtaking 

then just the experience of understanding

when the subtlety of a feeling is implied,

when there is a frequency 

of animation involved,

when immersion is the seduction forthcoming.

I would get thirsty drinking mind -words.

I want the spectral surround to be emotive.

I have to be taken up,

for understanding 

to have personal incentive,

otherwise understanding 

is just crossing the street

with traffic, crosswalks, 

arterial lights governing

or reading directional instructions 

for a new-bought.

hard to hear that music 

that one generates in self-listening

when words like that only make rain 

into troublesome puddles.

the abstract of meaning has a life

besides being referential of a here and there.

a hammock is more than wovenness,

slung between to verticals.

oh to live in a world 

beyond what would and should.

for hearing to be meaningful,

it has its own synesthesia, 

as understand-rising.

otherwise understand is really

drone, phone home! . . .