the con in consciousness

science is the competence of self-equating.

it takes journeys 

within the confines of its competence,

as if in a yogic form of deliverance,  

in which awareness of the form 

has prominence

and the form of the mind is regulated

to produce intact, as authentic resemblance. 

it is self scrupulous in its allegiance,

form-bonding before the rituals 

of intelligence apply.

attempts are made 

to be the travel luggage of consciousness.

it has the grazing properties 

of importance-stature,

as if feeding the herds with religious import,

as all of awareness is, but pasture land.

it has certitude, as a vote of self-confidence. 

it has mastery 

of its referential neighborhood.  

thought done with science, 

accepts in regulatory angst.

the embodiment has a collective efficiency 

of agreement, 

in that we agree to agree, 

is an unstated predicament

and our solution 

is to come to an understanding.

in this understanding, 

science adequately applies.

it's that we haven't advanced

but we have come to mentally normalize. 

awareness has its status 

as relationally positional,

thus we have a fabric 

to consciousness to ware.

it does what it does, 

with pragmatic approval, 

thus we have limits, 

on what we call horizons.

we have restrictions and restraints 

of what means.

knowing has to be the medium of transport.

'be' has to have the evidential process 

of becoming.

time-line and space-occupancy 

have to be honored.

meaningful has to be part 

of the breeding process.

dualistic thinking is the trip-feed 

for all of this.

if there was a think 

that did not land in thought,

then there would be no conclusions 

in existence.

and then the question becomes,

how could know existence be, 

without retention? 

or what would a know be,

as a state of consciousness, as existence?

thus we have science as a mind-style to cope

and it wants to be self explanatory 

and effusive, 

as if doing mind postures on a daily basis.

science is our white cane of approach.

we can become tap brilliant

but still only navigate the terrain, 

as visitors in passage.

the cane comes to represent 

our constant separateness.

or one could ask,

what makes real, real?

if you can't use the presumption 

of real to justify real,

than how does real exist, 

other than inside 

of its insular self promotion as such?

if we had access to witness as other-wise,

how could we come to transpose to that?

language shackles us.

thought is already part of the seduction, 

away from any potential to witness.

everything to be said, 

is already hypocritically posed.

it seems highly improbable, 

that we could think ourselves 

into evolved high states,

whether we call that consciousness or not.

'kettle-black' is a code word 

for this Sisyphus engagement.

what if languaging is 

always a fallback position,

in that no rhetoric is 

more than audience perspective?

the universe does really care what we think.

we are at affect 

of our own insularity, unmatched.

science can knock on all the doors possible,

but it's only Disney-esque

as thought promoting.

but consciousness about consciousness,

is purely lip-service 

thoughtfully overheard . . .