asking of neuroscience

 

my preface:

I do not possess the road-warrior language 

of a scientific mind.

I search out, 

based on nuanced perspective.

I feel my way into words and meaning.

if I identify something as a claim,

it is suspect of composition's essence,

but that journey seems to ever continue.

I am compelled to somehow witness in the abstract,

while other's long for hammer and nails.

 

for me, every 'why' is the eventual construction of 'how'.

furthermore, for me, think and thought 

are of two different vibrational constructions.

I am not ascribing a philosophical premise here.

I am seriously suggesting that 

each is its own mediumship of function and means.

think is to go into the void

and to proceed with a technique at immersion.

while thought is a process of creating

functional mental equivalency as consciousness defined.

for things that come to fit 

into identification, objectification

and the clarity of cognition.

it is my suggestion that

while emotions have a more efficient technique

for the use of immersion in think,

that thoughts functions to create a succinct reductionism

that fits into a linear account, 

into a languaged format presented,

as if to get comprehension out of crowd noise.

my suggestion is that thought's efforts

is to pirate from think's freefalls and journeys.

that think enters the void

and thought harvests what is it skilled to retrieve.

that think is a natural usage of the mind

and that thought is a cultivation of self-consciousness

resulting from a brain style usage,

that we compel into furthering out a conscious existence.

thought is very linearly bound when brought to language.

I am suggesting that think is not.

think has much pre-thought to it.

but we have limited skills in observation of that.

to witness think is a form of surrender

and yet gain of competence that is not easy pursuit.

gifted minds of such, tragically get recruited 

into thought-provoked careers

and subsequently are spent on the harvest for thought.

I am suggesting that our think is not retentive mind-based.

that using the mind as if as a computer with memory 

and precision in a linear fashion 

denies mind-original usage, 

as a resonate means of immersion awareness.

it is my suggestion 

that we are originally intended 

not to be the audience of our existence 

but to eventually immerse into the vibrational physics 

as we so define. 

so much so that we render retentive mind 

and its methods as historical

but obsolete.

I am not meaning to be taken as philosophical.

I mean this is in a practical and implicit way,

even though we are what appears to be,

very early in this transformational process.

so my asking is: if the brain was used more as a resonator,

would feelings, as the emotional state of being 

be more clearly addressed as having a mind prominence?

for now, retentive mind and linear thinking 

seem to dominate brain usage.

yet we seem to suffer 

from the lack of higher emotional I.Q.

And mentality seems to restrain emotionality

by the nature of the way experience is mentality ordained.

it is my suggestion that 'feel' seems 

much more holographic as presence,

than mindfulness can associate with,

as language tends to codify emotions 

into dignified mental formats that gloss 

the depth that emotions thrive upon.

it is my suggestion that 

this really under-dimensionalizes 

what is holographically brain worthy, going on.

thought is really a reduction code 

for what feel can immerse and embrace.

I am just asking you,

from what apparently might be out of context

or a viewpoint that borders on the absurd.

is this worthy of a response or not?

I will duly understand . . .