“Problematic” is a sting operation

Problematic, as a state of mind,

is a sting operation.

Problematic as a method

is a set up

not only to get answers

but as a style of perception.

All the efforts

towards building an observation

are ordered towards

this style for an outcome.

This is the way of perception

that weaves expectations

and judgment

into precipitous results.

When reflected as outcome,

the reshape contains

what could be observed

about “problematic” as process,

for there is a promotion

to the foreground

of those stated elements

that more easily link

to the story

of “problematic is outcome”.

What could be noticed about this

is now weighted towards

that which is accessible

to the momentum of the storyline.

That which is lost

is discreetly lost without mention

or initial inclusion

and then subsequently presented

as a hard conscious rejection.

Much is simply abandoned

in thought as not part of

the observational need

at that time.

Therein lies

an unsaid righteous expediency

that has rights

to abandon in-thought

or what might have been

an offering as in-thought,

without limits as conclusion’s

acceptable compacted nature.

In many ways,

language works against

the elaboration behind thought

because of the way

it is lobbied for by words

insistent on their meaning

as it’s essential

representational nature.

Understanding,

as a co-conspirator

is always a medium

to represent a truth

from the getup of words

as a sort of wardrobe

or momentous ensemble.

Unto itself, it works

to achieve the name it is given

and then withstand and comply

to understanding’s

functional display.

It may not have been

the original idea

in thought-form

but for now,

it becomes the guardian

of what meaning can do

in the estranged way

we agree to understand

in principle, anything.

And since

there is no requirement

for things to be

empathically conveyed,

the fallback is cognitive

which by technique and habit,

is in the nature

of the results of thought.

The cognition, not the essence

of thought, as process,

in and of itself, seeks recognition.

Why then is it that meaning

does not possess spatial presence

or an embodiment of essence?

Why is it then that meaning

has a fixative nature of specifics

fighting against the fluidity

of what is implied?

Thought, as so represented,

seems under-dimensionalized

as it natively occurs.

Overt language seems

more depictive and less fissionable

of the being-essence

in the emergence of all frames

of thought-presence occurring.

And “problematic” is like

an appropriated three-card Monty.

In a more true light,

a question is an invitation

to channel a more absolute answer

that reveals

a more absolute invitation

into the next question

until being there operationally

is inclusive and expansive

in both a full energetic

and emanative way.

If not for this,

why have thought at all?

It feels like most

of acceptable thought

is a dry-dock for feelings

or a way of relating

but in a distanced fashion

as the seat

for the pronouncement

of the ritual of objectivity

in an ongoing manner.

We, as consciousness,

fall short of this state.

We settle for the fill

and then claim a kind of custody

for its life

as representing our life.

Reality then becomes

the metaphor

that we foster as ourselves,

empty of being

but defending and evidencing

that this is not so . . .

the method of problematic

is just this,

as a sting operation

done unto ourselves.