was know ever going to be the stature of beingness?
was know holding the future hostage by perception?
is attention the only flashlight in the room?
is the bicameral mind the only two shoes ever mindfully worn?
is the nature of distraction
our personalized freedom of attention?
would our senses' life on its own
be the philosophy of whimsy or inquisitiveness?
what if know didn't make slaves of our senses' effortings?
if art was only know's observation as intrusion?
if know is as false intimacies of self as substitutional intrusions?
if know is the mirror of our specie's idolatry as art?
what if know is but statues as stoic thought-form mirrors?
of humanism as ongoing yet only self-reflective?
know is just a vortex of human attention.
and the secret habits of know are its addiction,
as know how convenience becomes habit forming.
with know,
there is the empty distraction of nextness forthcoming,
surface feeding on novelty and frame-change.
so when did rational become the overwhelm?
are we ever not the tug-of war-of linear thoughts?
why do we have facts stand up fronting for truth,
that is not otherwise conversationally evident?
in the know maybe all wardrobe in passing
as a fashion statement of the mindful moment,
yet always as an observational bystander to the now.
what did we want from know beyond the introductions?
when know became a conviction,
was that likely to be a crime against nature?
just asking, for it seems that know gets a free pass,
while feel endures a constancy of burdensome questioning . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment