the birth of law

the birth of a law

is the death of the presence of the moment.

law lives in the afterlife of fear,

placed in a form of reactive stone.

it is a time capsule of historic events,

as if mistakes of the past,

to receive an honorable passage in time.

wits of then, 

to rule the presence of now.

subject to reinterpretation, of course,

to suit said law enforcement.

how much ceremony of failure do we honor

by the insistence of law abidance?

possibly meant well,

but the accent is on the wrong syllable.

law represents an aged perspective.

it doesn't address the real issue

but reaction to the failure of the old.

it's expedient to the lawmakers,

as if it is their calling.

but not to those whose obedience is called forth.

it doesn't address the sociologicals or psychologicals

called into play.

no real effort at sourcing in depth. 

those who act out are not necessarily informed.

fines, arrest, and due process seem to be the norm.

but law, as if a public mandate,

does not really attend to the real issue at hand.

even jaywalking has a backstory of concern.

at least good council would orient, is not ordained.

but no, law provides for indifference to exist,

and a certain ambivalence to prosper and survive,

as well as a definite personal disregard 

to fester and inwardly feast.

laws have override, 

but not the dignity of presence in the moment,

unless each person is heartfelt aware.

otherwise, it is all an honoring of the eventful past

and a disregard for the presence and advancement of now.

it is a form of legalized tokenism, 

more of the absentia expected from prisons as effective.

rule as authoritarianism does not mutually serve all.
it keeps us in separation against the presumed norm.

even though that norm is dated and prejudicial 

until we are common amongst ourselves.

that we are face-to-face in caring and concern.

law is a posterized substitute 

for those that abide,

and for those who use law to defend and account

for their behind-the-scenes efforts as legislators of deeds.

if they were only fingers in the dikes.

but that is not the case.

officialdom is its own kingdom of distance under guise.

law is not a common practice in daily life.

it is a process of guilt or innocence possessed.

care for others is not uniformly commonplace.

knowingly braking a law is asking for acknowledgment. 

some risk taken for notice to be expressed.

otherwise, it becomes a way of life

and a means for a calling.

law is expressed as a dividing line,

yet it is a false premise

that superficializes the notion of awareness, intent, 

and immediate circumstances.

with or without law,

we are all in the predicament of the moment.

law is only a way of addressing it

without real regard for the nature of the parties involved,

unless the read is for criminal, disabled, 

psychologically damaged or outright sinister.

in all those cases, lawmakers are no council,

and administrators are relieved of soul.

we have a culture that feeds like that.

and we continue to birth laws daily,

to cope with the ever-change before us.

someone farted on the bus.

let's make a law about diets before travel.

that's how deeply we become concerned . . .