"denial" and "persistence"
and there is an unconditional depth.
There is the layer of denial of we would not see
and
there is the layer of the persistence of what we would not see.
The depth beyond that which we would not see,
belies what we would not see .....
that we take for truth ..... but would not face .....
belies the persistence of denial
not as a sign of truth
but as a sign of strange attraction,
the entanglement in two concepts,
the dense activity of mind.
"Belies" means,
"exposes it".
What we would not see
we take as true, as something to turn away from.
The depth intuits that the turning away from
merely reinforces the seeming truth of what we would not face.
It feels more persistent.
But we cannot get at the truth of "what we would not face"
as long as "turning away" is in the way.
So, the first layer to go
is the layer of "wanting to turn away from".
That is a layer, the first to go.
It is not a matter of, "turning toward", as an answer, it is not.
It's a matter of dissolving the entire dichotomy
of "turning toward" and "turning away from".
By that means, we can now facelessly face
what we would not see
without cringing or repressing cringing.
And we discover that, as true or untrue it may seem,
it is but a memory
that we imagine as true
and turn away from
in a movement of intent.
But it is but a memory.
Beyond that is not, a layer,
but a depth,
a silent, voiceless deep.
CLICKABLES
