suffice it to say

 

until language perfectly reflects 

the essence of the universe,

we will be at odds, 

to comprehend 

as if to understand.

for understanding has to be of the universe 

and not about the universe.

we can't have a language that is not 

of essence-bound.

there is no speak, 

that essentially creates.

there is no speak, 

when there is only create. 

for all speak is sidedness 

away from sourcefulness.

understanding has to have no self aware 

as audience.

understanding has to be of isness presence, happening.

and happening has to void experience 

as observational.

if language is as dynamic 

as electromagnetic can be,

than language has to have field-presence 

of action.

there is no time for hearing to occur.

no time for understanding to process 

as thought.

actually in essence, 

there is no time.

all of time restraints 

are a non-existence of means.

being in any of those language, time, understanding places, 

precludes the isness of universal principles 

in prominent use.

thus, we are back on the drawing board

of simulations as comprehensions

and what language labors of itself

to transcend by inclusion 

of those circumstances.

we are to exist, 

beyond what understanding implies 

as exemplary, 

but duly not of essence or source? 

humanity, we have a problem.

we are of ourselves, problematic.

and the conundrum is, 

there are no answers

in language, time, or understanding, 

that will ever suffice . . .