If I can only tell
What is behind
the think of thought?
Thought is a privatization
of sensory subjectivity.
It is to be given to memory,
edited into recognition,
to be presented
as concepts by communication,
somehow brought to animation
by words into images received.
What is presented
is not only what
we are saying it to be
but also and ever so slowly,
it is a mirror for reflecting
on how it was thought,
and the mechanisms
that did that process,
and the means with which
anything thought
came to be so.
In the deconstruction of thought
eventually the rules
which govern what is claimed
also begin to reflect
as deducible, the rules
that governed how it was thought,
by context, sequence,
prior knowledge, sensory means,
subjective shared agreement,
articulated imagination,
and the unknown
and possibly onto the boundaries
of the unknowable.
And ever so vague
are the rules
for how all of that thought
as it resides
as the means and entry points
is for consciousness to participate
more thoroughly.
The notion of rules themselves
is in question
as to how do they exist
and enforce the principles
they stand for to harvest
a context, content, meaning
and declarable results
into the manifest we call reality
as we claim it to be.
For all we have come to claim,
for all we have come to understand,
for all we examine as such
to further this cause,
we have come to ask ourselves,
who of us is asking.
Not who of us as a people
or as humans or as scientists
or as deep thinkers
but who of us from within us,
within each of us
has equipped themselves synaptically
to journey beyond the conventions
of experience as method,
beyond the conjecture of rules
and their applications,
beyond the context of thought
as a means,
beyond the subject/object
dilemma paradigm,
and beyond the supposed entitlement
of observation
as an assumptive process?
If you came upon this oneness,
as a clarity of consciousness,
how would you get back
to tell anyone
and what would that mean?
Would it be
for more than agreement’s sake?
Would acknowledgment present
a passage of means
as transformation from within?
Could we possibly disrobe
from all we know,
to be what that might be?
How would oneness work
in the acknowledgment process?
What would ‘do’ as in doing,
look like
from oneness expressed?
Would we, as one,
be still referential or inferential,
at all?
What would ‘tell’ be like?
Would know have retention at all?
Could we, as bystanders,
participate?
Is it a dead end street to say,
“If I can only tell you
what I know”,
as it would function
a lot like a double negative
but in a grander sense
of a multi-realm scale?
Look, consider what I am saying
as a suicide note of sorts,
but, I can only tell you
what I know . . .
Yet can you immerse
beyond these words?
No comments:
Post a Comment