the human and the tool

in our ongoing conversations with tools,

we train them with directness of purpose.

they train us with subtlety in usage.

we get precision and exactitude 

in a constant reusable fashion.

they give us results in expected manners.

but they have us kept in locked expectations.

they give us pathways that blind us

to the nuances of our intended mind-work, 

outside of the norm.

we, as humans, are seduce to oversee

and to manipulate them within the confines of usage.

tool-use has little perversity involved.

the mindset for tool usage has a code,

a direct sense of order and follow through.

the mind is not attentive beyond that expected task.

notice has its limits in usage as a chore,

otherwise sensory usage is peculiar 

and requires many repetitions, 

before possible discoveries are made.

thus the mind is trained to receive task as results,

not as an active recruit for otherwise inquiry.

the more complicated the tool usage,

the higher the expectation of dignified result.

and when tool is strictly task earnest,

with undertaking elaborations to proceed, 

the mind is also dedicated in the same vain.

thus tool usage sets limits and means to inquiry,

but done ever so in nuance subtlety,

that the mind never questions the mind.

for there is an ethic around tool usage,

where humans have a manner of directorship on display.

tool has wear-age as it complimenting effort.

but mind essentially complies with tool's effort and usage.

sure skilled people are further observant,

especially towards the intended correct usage,

and thereby tool also corrects the mind. 

where by technique has expected results,

more so than further curious inquiry.

but at higher levels of potential tool usage,

results directed inquiry has expectation as the guide.

only the most gifted of pursuance

has nuance skills to further the mind into inquiry.

those who are like that, become the hands-on people

and not so much the decision makers.

their knowledge is seen as peripheral at best,

while mind and decision grandly marches on.

each tool has senses of it own

and humans don't necessarily honor that premise.

for it's the artist in each tool user

that offers such insights,

even though that is not the given directive.

there is the feel of the hammer

but not so much what the hammer feels.

there is the cut of the blade

but not so much blade knowledge from the cut. 

scale up the tool

and the sidebar information is still involved.

attention that is, 

is very limited besides the task at hand.

help me to help you to help me,

is not a dialogue that a tool and human have.

it is more like I am attention

and you are effort and results.

and that is considered a fair exchange.

where tools are cosmetics of a productive mind,

but not the guinea pigs of a deeply inquiring mind . . .