awakening's dilemma

there is a deadly game being played,

the deadly game of believe,

trying to out-scope 

the efforts of conceive.

how radical of a thought,

to challenge the stature of belief.

belief standing tall,

on tentative certainty.

having the wherewithal of currency,

the foregone as conclusion's sight.

and for conception to challenge.

not what is being seen

but one's ability to see,

by claiming a beyond.

a beyond of depth 

that requires radical observance 

towards beyond belief's clarity.

concept must seek to justify,

not rudely or boldly,

but in terms that belief can comprehend,

that belief can manage to entertain

within it's framework of curious acceptance.

belief has settled in,

made itself a home at home,

has become suitable notoriety,

appealing to be common place, 

across a generous amount

of human minds.

and then conceptions comes along,

out of god knows where,

however credentialed, 

lip-service pronounced,

premise in hand,

declaration as possibly adoring.

and a mind is supposed to grapple with this?

sure, it's fine as an add-on,

something of a curiously new bend.

but a conception that ground-floor alters

the basis of belief's towering influence?

well, wait until dogma hears about this.

wait until the Machiavellian state of mind takes note.

there is going to be serious rumbling occurring.

please note,

nothing overwhelms a religious pretense,

one that is founded and secured by dogma.

concept is asking for lemmings over a cliff.

has concept the right to use language like that?

concept is just sick puppies of idle thought. 

belief will formalize in resistance.

there is no shortcut to human growth.

we have trialed and erred exceedingly.

and this is just another smoldering eyesore

that some cockeyed mindset came up with.

we, as a species, are not prepared to advance.

we pride on stasis. 

we circumvent and convolute as advancement.

sure change eventually becomes superficial

but we are hell bent on a reality format

and that means what it means,

if you get what I mean by that.

concepts are fine as add-ons.

novelty is necessary for interest to be maintained.

but big concept or deep concept?

who and where is this coming from?

it just makes for tension in the air,

apprehension in the mind,

and unsettledness in our emotional states.

we are not and have not trained

for big concepts to become evident.

sure secret agencies can know.

even governments can know.

but they don't ever tell.

they would never reveal to a public

that this would possibly affect them

as their demise.

we can't have radical comprehension.

we are just not trained for that depth of a matter.

we don't organize or socialize

or even humanize to that degree.

you can call it an awakening.

you can apparently celebrate its novelty.

but to actually conceptualize 

beyond common place?

that's too radical, 

just straight across the board.

no species, even ours,

is prepared to be, 

as if this is the new real, 

to make me more conscious.

well I don't think so.

I don't even want to be aware

in the crossfire of believe versus conceive.

just get out of my mind

and let me be,

and belief will eventually take me there.

but still, there is a deadly game being played.

the deadly game of believe,

trying to out-scope 

the efforts of conceive.

how radical of a curious thought,

to challenge the stature of human belief . . .