Someday, To Be Able To Tell The Weather And Thought

Bright clouds and sinking harmonies:

making of destiny

Brightened mists and foggy glow

through obscured visions

Atmospheres of melody, sinking

covering grounds in the same fog

Glowering intensity and measuring

fraught insistence and mesmerizing

Beyond sense, these portions of imagined

slandering, covering the earth in thickened

Weathering, the distress in nimbostratus

what’s coming, these tell tale signs

Reading Lorentzian possibilities

gathered in sunken refrain

Metachromatic off-key stances

the music in the weathered

The faint, faint harmonious need

to be in key, to be tuning

These revelations to sense, to comradery

to differences in stance and belief

Weather played out musically

the events as they are happening

Not because they must happen

but because they do

The chair still emptied, not determined

but honest and true

Contrasts of insight and decision

basking in the foggy glow again

Searching through the potentials of thought

rummaging melodically, methodically

Making it rain,

imagining a closeness

The ephemeral distance between thoughts, the given anecdotes to distraction and the want for focus, the details and humdrum converging in limits to condone wonder: what tends to hold attention, what parts of thought are deemed important enough to actually participate in the medium of the mind and how many thoughts do we imagine or have that are never actually noticed? That which is just beyond thought and the thoughtfulness it takes to wonder about it, strange instances of conundrum and paradox, conversions of space that continually change and manifest more distances and possibilities in the spaces between wondering. Excitements and presentations of interest, the focal points of intensity and the ways in which voice is noticed internally: wind blowing through empty spaces of contemplation and deriving the postulates of contriving impression or actuality in mental event. At what point is it an actual mental event? How far and removed from any number of them could anyone be or become? Physiological constructs of imaginary spaces, of thought, mental and imaginary event consorting in focal devoid patterns according to potential and gradient, according to free will and the ability to actually focus upon any given matter. What differences would there be beyond record, and how close could any really get to the actual instance of thought or imagining? Impressions of space and the contrivances of manipulation, easily seen and avoidable messes of consciousness assured of absolutes and conditioning according to potential alone, as though that were all we really are…areas of the brain lit with excitement, dualism automatically incorrect, the distance from physiological presence imaginable, and as real to me as imaginary space: dualism and monism, that we cannot be separated from these physiological forms but is it possible we actually create imaginary spaces from physical space that exists? Could both simultaneously be correct? The doubtful concordances of interest and the want for the matter of mind to be recorded accurately, how far could we separate these simple machines from the ghosts within them? How far could thought be from the body and how close to actual record of it have we really gotten? Fallible writing, as close as one could get to the actual instance, but still far and removed: thoughtlessness and nothingness in writing and the distances imagined between thought and its record. Is writing actual record of imaginary and mental event, or something else? A formulate of the spaces between these simple machines and the ghosts within them or wanted record of the possibilities in inspiration and potentials being met as we make them for ourselves. Free thought and the want for accurate record of imaginary and mental event, of the distances from physiological space that are possible in imagination and inspiration, the exactitudes of excitement and impressions of reality from space that is anything but. Imagining ways to thoughtfulness, to constructs of thought and its capabilities, of that which could be imagined separated from these simple biological machines and the need for accurate record. It is a physiological construct of data regardless, and depends upon sense to be described: imagining these separations may be as close to any actual separation as we ever get. If I imagined it hard enough, I could be a glass of water, and everything and everyone in my environment would agree with me. I don’t want to trust my imagination for reality, but is it possible that non-matter and non-space manifest from within physiological construct? What aspects of spirituality are allowed in this type of discussion and where does that leave thought and its accurate record?

*Gilbert Ryle, Descartes (Ghosts in a machine)

The ways of attention, the given references to the stacks left wonderment and the times needed to intensify the ideas of the great beyond, of that which is unseen. The ease of assumption and application of meaning to events that coincide or signify others, of all the ways in which connection becomes something else, a miracle or magic to invest in. Instances of semblance and resembling actions already taken or noted, the mischief in individualist action and the assumptive process of crowds. Simplicity and expectation taken to measure the resounding reference of identifying mental event and working for attachment or meaning without really intending to, the ways in which we automatically compartmentalize that which happens to us or that which doesn’t, the automatic repetitions of space and reference we wouldn’t even notice that we make. A coincidence is plenty, and accidents happen far beyond any meaning or application of intensity that we could come up with, bargains for the space necessary to legitimate wonder and confusion, for time beyond that instant gratification of mystical claiming needed to investigate the reality of whatever mental event could reckon attention, could make a sense of togetherness feel more possible or the weight of individuality seem more bearable. Dreams and visions, the exactitude of garnering weights of passage beyond the ease of claimant mysticism, beyond the fervor of religion and outside the constraints of skeptical refrain, the possibilities to remain open and a closure themselves in persistence and attention: given another glance, the capabilities of flesh compared with the overwhelming sense of spirit, of that which is beyond human understanding but which still gives us some forms of presence. As the wind, we know not where it comes from or where it is going, we try to name and claim based on what facts could be gathered of such instances, of coincident, of accident, but fall short in base absolutions and assumptions readied to apply and displayed as though the only option of meaning were already applied, already absolute, already a sure sight of significance with no option for mystery or unknowing. Be comfortable not knowing, understanding the tricks and gimmicks easily applied and convincingly misused for the sake of supposed knowledge, for absolute answers where there really are none. Leave alone the possibility, remarks of passing worried refrain and diligence in seeking out reality from concentrated levies of mystifying signs and easily taken regard in ambiguity and great guessing. Fabricative coincidence for guessing games of similar instancing or multiplexing in a multiverse with the ambiguity of validity: it’s a certain grouping mechanism and great guessing based on potentiality and repetition with monotony most of the time, practiced closeness and mystifying potentials garnered weights of passage slightly above chance and forever removed from humane regards of thought and its predicaments. The ease and magic of reading, of the potentials we form for words even before they’re seen or spoken, of the predetermination that does not decide free will, that only really works because of so many potentials for other instances that could work or become likely enough, of the chance and change of volatile nature that reckons with the prefabricated parts of the mind to become measures of freedom and the freedom of choice and individual speculation. Any possible action could pass through my mind, any imaginable choice could become a real option, but doesn’t, and needn’t. Doxastic responsibility for epistemological normativity: the responsibility for unconscious urges or for that which is beyond control in conditioning of environments over long periods of time, products of environment to a certain degree applying whatever meaning we have been conditioned with oftentimes without even meaning to. Responsible seeking of the great beyond and that which tends to hold attention or garner interest based on conditioned environments and formulaic assumptions of past and future, of the here and now. What gets or is given attention, supposedly, and the obviousness of the ambiguity of validity: if ambiguous enough, any amount of guessing could seem accurate to a situation, and if practiced enough in monotonous and repetitive space, could try and attach meaning to any action as though some form of reaction or etcetera. In hopes for discernment, patience and diligent seeking of the reality of the situations made from mental event, given as unreal monuments of possibility and taken for absolute meaning. Diligence and the timing of forethought that needn’t be applied to great guessing games of the fake meaning given any amount of plain coincident or accident. Accidents happen, coincident is plenty.

Information reliability and the willingness to wonder without sure, set answers and beyond absolutes. There are any number of ‘correct’ answers with any amount of alternatives that are hardly ever seen or used, and absolutes oftentimes become the only option for an answer. In a want for better questions, not answers, in need of more curiosity and willingness to wonder outside the norms and what we’ve been convinced are absolutely true. There are any number of examples of space in which alternative answers could make as much sense but aren’t used, just as there are plenty of examples of space in which not knowing would be better than pretending we do and presenting false absolutes or definitives. The need to be comfortable not knowing, the pressing indicatives of thought and its ramifications in positions of interest and intent becoming the wonder itself and capability therein: mediums of thought and its expounding views of possibility for process. The inventive mind’s intrinsic patterns of decision, never quite an absolute decision, but a continual work for conclusions that make sense and can form rhetorical situations that are operant: the need to know and the illusion of decision hand in hand, it’s easy to invent answers that work, it’s much more difficult to leave it for wondering, to leave an open ended question without a need for absolutist answers. Curiosity is plenty, and working minds can’t be forced to make decisions, especially about thought and its wonder, especially about metaphysical data and its possibilities. Free thought and the certainty of being wrong: uncertainty and the need for margins of error, recognizing alternatives and being comfortable with being in the wrong according to most. Certainty has its rewards in absolutes that fit but don’t actually operate or that operate but don’t really fit, and can always be answered by doubt. There is always room for doubt, there are always alternatives, there is always another option. If given only one of two options, choose neither or both, if given only limited options of possibilities and only absolutes to answer, choose nothing. There is no way to force a decision, and there are always other options to choose from! (Or invent!) Cartesian duality or Dionysian dichotomy, there are systems of influence that limit the process of decision to only a few operant options for good reason, but they don’t need to become absolutes and the options don’t need to be ultimate answers. Be comfortable not knowing. Be comfortable in the wrong. There are always other options, there is always another perspective.

The differences in attention to the great beyond, the mystical claiming of coincidence and the portions of accident used as though applicable when barely attached based on simple ambiguity. The usefulness of the ideas of the spirit, the exactitude of wanted space from the incessant guessing games for fabricative coincidence that could apply meaning from any environment, that could become any amount of doxastic responsibility if tried hard enough. The exchangeable limits of reason and the chances that mean freedom of choice and will beyond any predetermination of thought or capability in guessing. The ease of application of any amount of accident or coincident to a monotonous repetitive environment, the seeking out of actual reality beyond the ease of mental event applied to any instance of thought or action. Beyond any guessing at knowledge predetermined or ill caste before us, there is possibility at other chance, at choice, at change. Free will and the bargains against it: the great guessing of environments becoming a problematic sense of determination of mental events, coalescing the outer limits of reason and purchasing chance refrains of potentiality and slivers of environment projecting parts of itself from epistemological norms. Envisioned possibilities in the ideas of mystical claiming as they usually are, applying absolute meaning and attention given no option of actual digestion and deciding intrigue based on the impossible limits of attentive gaze: accidents happen, coincident is plenty. The ambiguity of validity assuring sights of great guessing while leaving truth to portent and tales of mental events and their grand experiences: the need for discernment and patience in regards to any amount of mystical or skeptical claiming. The meaning applied to any coincident, to any chance speculation of that which is slightly beyond us, to real change in the volatility of nature and the possibilities not taken as absolutes. That which we automatically assume or have been conditioned to accept or defer based on past experiences and current environment becoming blinders to the reality of that which cannot be claimed or maimed by chance reason found in coincident or accident. That no matter how warped and unjust any amount of coincident or accident could become, and far beyond any application of mental event to any amount of meaning wanted from them, chance choice and individualist free will exist and permeate far beyond the predetermination that finds its ease in applicative coincident or accident. It is predetermined that we have free will. That which holds attention cannot be bargained for, and the ambiguity of validity can prove itself time and again in great guessing at coincident and accident that needn’t be claimed to a certain meaning to have resonance, that don’t control actual chance or real choice and that cannot be expected to any one mental event’s significance.

Intensities of spaciousness, the conversions of adverse

involuntary excitement, derivement of considerate

space worth nobodies business

Gracing immeasurable limits, containing

roughage and desires and missing excitements

Closeness beyond itself and reckoning attention

Partially wrecked and according to damage

afforded by these lengths of time

or what it is that we must give ourselves

The spaciousness of conversation forgotten

only dreams for the lonely, lowly, stop guessing

Fulfilment in remove and decision or care contrition:

Spaces remaining for self and abandonments

The passing times and capabilities of inspiration: the ease of conditioning response becoming the terse invitations of inspiration and progress construed in multiplicative efforts. Every part of the present condition before actually presenting anything regards the moment, this here and now, as already passing by, and the future becoming every moment worth having, refrains from too much sense and predicts a congruency morphing possibilities to surroundings and environment becoming every part of self, separate. This was for you, too, and was definitely about proximity and inspiration, the ways in which we tend to hold onto information or organize data according to autonomous space and presumption. The same around again, these exact same ideas anyplace differently, these very same postulates of possibilities becoming another place just as easily, wondering usefulness and worthwhile effort: meaningless, meaningless, it has happened before, but never exactly like this. Origins of creativity, the constant fears of always sharing, the idea that communication depends upon will and the tendency to invite non-present audience in writing. There is no you or I, very few instances of actual audience and even fewer recounted interactions. Dilemma of inspiration again, this present moment becoming every other, any other, just so easily these layers of dimension interact and convene in parted lengths of creativity and inspire beyond any hope of attribution. What parts could possibly belong and which parts were already existing? Of this present assurance of creative graft and originality, how many others are currently writing something similar or could be inspired by something like this? How often does any of that happen simultaneously? Having a better idea for the predicaments of coincidence would help, of the ease of congruence and the applicability of ambiguity in any situation. If it’s ambiguous enough, it could fit anyplace and make sense enough. The meaning will always be left to the audience, and complete and secure and sure, yes, but entirely up to you, in the end, every piece really is. The claiming of coincidence brings meaning automatically: this were to match perfectly to others intentions, to become another part of themselves, parts of their own environment always being attached, and can’t escape the sense of meaning attached to any limit of coincidence. Of the assumption attached to apriory and the indicatives of thought that pronounce organization of information to us, of feeling attachments that don’t exist or fearing those that can’t, of inspiration and proximity, creativity and originality.

Imagining coincidence, the capabilities in actual accuracy in record of a coincident or mental event, the capacity for observation and the tendency to add to any certain event from personal beliefs or experience. The need for accurate record of imagined event and the actuality that most coincidence is an imagined event cannot be separated: imaginary is imaginary, but can be applied to reality through character, figure and situation applying thought memory imaginary and through attitude performance and behavior. Defunct patterns of human fragility, the mentions of actual coincident are few and all rely upon personal experience: to say you observe is an opinion. Apart from the claimant nature of some mysticism, coincident in nature in the volatility of change and anachronistic evolutions of certain species could define actual coincidence beyond the shallow claimant nature of most record of testimonial account. There are plenty of examples of similarities in nature that seem coincidental, but maybe a coincidence is found not as much in similarities but in paradox and that which is more difficult to easily notice as being in resemblance or reminding of other energetics. Real coincident depends upon meaning and others additive indicatives of intention and the record: to isolate a coincidence apart from meaning seems more like an accident, and even those usually don’t escape some for of mystic claiming or another. Actual coincidence in megafauna leftover for whatever reason from every other changing act in natural progression: the differences in something like letters crossing in the mail or needing a decent example that could escape the boundaries of human perspective alone, knowing there is really no escape. This deadening place happens to these quandaries once in a while: there is no record accurate enough for imagination and coincidence. If the connection could be imagined, it could probably be proven or found and once again depends upon human error and record based on perspective sense. Anything could attach to anything if tried hard enough, everything does not necessarily attach to everything though, and especially not accurately. Technically, this is also record of imaginary event, but doesn’t depend upon being called that, and tends to want accuracy more than intensity, a stillness within becoming a formed stillness without, a certain amount of permanency to thought.

Derivements of space and the inward glancing structures of decision and word, conscious choice and indecision in meaning and chance reconvene accidents in emptiness to contrast filling thought. Distributions of sense and containments of the measures possible in the makeshift limits given to suffice haphazard need for knowledge where there is none. Intertwining facets of decidability restrain everything at once, giving the chance that little enough could actually entertain to cause focus or cause itself. Nothing and Everything just beyond every decision of voice or choice in material, electric currents of inference and the possibilities in being actually electrified by something! Every part of the environment being currently presented, every part of that condescending to the actuality of interaction with just this small portion, perspective, sense. Removable limits of time and space reconsidering the positions of inadvertent data, of the present moment and the actuations of actually existing within it while having this amount of seperateness imagined in stillness, in creating a still portrait of indicative. Inferences of timeliness and incandescent change created in every small moving creature within us, every unexplainable transference between chemical and electrical data, another small arc, form, pattern in electric partially touching. The remove of dimension, this solidity beneath: no actuality but form and the electric cushion between tiny particles, nothing ever really moving or touching? Interest and curious indentations of memory and indecision: what could possibly solidify?