the addiction of experience

experience is mirror-time spent.

reflection taken is a form of distraction, 

as if taken as observed.

the real mirror function remains unseen.

obviousness is the matrix presenting.

but the methods of inner-depth perception?

they remain as if never to be revealed.

who is there, in reception of perception,

as if the mirror of perception is on call?

what is behind the recognition means

that is the technique of naming as if in code?

that the registry of retention is,

as if solidifying a context of means?

what has experience gotten

beyond a valid, lucid, bystander's view,

put to mind usage as account and registry?

mirror-time is all that experience has to offer.

dimensions aside, but where is real,

beyond experience as distractive?

maybe I cogitate for experiential acceptance.

that constancy as my awareness accounts for.

thought lobbies for that as self in registry.

but beyond what, preoccupies,

as if thought provoked?

what lucidity is there that has no words?

what beyond sensory that animates?

what, beyond the cutting edge of purposeful?

for that which indifferently streams

is a composition of existence, without claim?

maybe knowledge is only tail wagging.

what if where has no place of answer?

if why has no narrative of compliant response?

if how demands immersion

and self is a prohibitive means of approach?

who has mirror as a philosophical method,

that does not retire in their own eventual babble?

experience is never the windshield,

at best, only the rearview.

next is not noticed 

until it is already the here.

who are we kidding about ourselves?

we only venture for experiential postcards in return.

if we actually entered the now,

does anyone of then, 

think to return to post-now?

like the immediate past is ever revealing of such.

we are only symbolic kinship

in the devoted honoring of the now.

we look into the mirror

but only receive the look-back presented.

we never sense beyond that as referenced.

the mirror does not reveal 

the shortcomings of our looking style,

for those techniques that fail to take us there,

beyond the mirror representing.

eventually, we are only the product 

of our techniques in usage.

we are no more than the isness of usage.

we didn't transcend of means.

we didn't essence our beingness.

we just accepted our addiction to experience

and subsequently agreed to its collective

as our process.

therefore the entire physical world

is our mirror reflecting ,

just how we perceive it.

as if it is not us, 

but separate from and discernible.

we have a preoccupation indulging us.

experience is it, as our method.

and we, unto our selves,

are its captivated and enraptured means . . .