I would like to think that thought is cohesive and coherent within or without corporeal attachment.

I would like to think that pure, unencumbered, unattached thought is Light; and Energy.

If this is so, the closest an individual entity, living in this world, can come to an inkling of an understanding of this concept of pure thought, is through dreams.

"Have you ever dreamed without the physical senses of sight or sound? Or touch, or smell, or taste? Have you ever dreamed as if the empirical corporeality of this world did not exist?"

"Oh the wonderful thinks it can think!"

But without a corporeal attachment, thought cannot act upon itself.

But within a corporeal attachment, thought has placed limitations upon itself.

Is thought somehow attracted to a physical entity? Like metal shavings to a magnet?

Or, is thought a byproduct of the senses? Like seeds sprouting from the Earth.

Once the bond of corporeal attachment is broken, does thought simply die?

Or, is it possible that once that bond of corporeal attachment is broken, thought lives on? Perhaps still cohesive and definable; or perhaps it becomes fragmented and pliable, ultimately blending (and/or dancing) with other thought to a level of overwhelming incoherence?

If thought can exist beneath or beyond the realm of consciousness, (as in dreams), then it feels logically intuitive---(i.e. a smaller leap)---that thought (as Energy) can exist beyond corporeal attachment.

This nonsensory thought has been represented in dreams by nonvisible constructs, (some interpreted as of geometric origin), against a backdrop of nonvisible Light and Dark.

This concept of nonsensory thought, is, perhaps, wishful thinking...

This concept of nonsensory thought, is, strangely, comforting...

This concept of nonsensory thought, must, (and will), remain, nonvisible...

This concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, creates, some, discomfort...

Discomfort with this concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, creates an urge, to explain...

Discomfort with this concept of nonvisible, nonsensory thought, is necessary, for, respectful, uncertainty...

The redundancy (of nonvisible, nonsensory, and nondefinable) is a necessary reminder.

Thought (as thought) can exist beyond corporeal attachment, and remain cohesive and coherent,  through the memory of others, and through the written word.

Memory is faulty.

Cohesive, coherent thought existing beyond corporeal attachment as written word, while more reliable than memory, remains a minimum of one (interpretive) step removed from the original thought, which in turn is limited by its origin within corporeal attachment.

It appears logical that cohesive, coherent thought must be definitively represented by tangible realities within the framework of corporeal attachment.

Therefore it feels logically intuitive that if thought (as Energy) does exist beyond corporeal attachment, it must emerge as fragmented and pliable, ultimately blending (and/or dancing) with other thought to a level of overwhelming incoherence.

...Perhaps to a frenzied level of overwhelming incoherence.

Unless, of course, there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment within which thought as Energy is able to remain cohesive and able to reestablish coherence.

But if this is the case, I have no conceivable way, within my current framework of corporeal attachment, to coherently represent this mythical framework.

Which brings us back to overwhelming incoherence.

Within my current framework of corporeal attachment, my responsibility is to my current framework of corporeal attachment. To expend effort toward making sense of overwhelming incoherence is nonsense.

If there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I cannot believe that it would require extreme ritual divisiveness for admittance.

If there is another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I believe active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment will ultimately determine admittance or rejection; (if indeed, there is a culling).

If there is not another framework beyond corporeal attachment, I believe active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment will ultimately determine if my thought (as thought) will exist beyond corporeal attachment, and remain cohesive and coherent.

To be effective, active and universally productive thought must be singularly defined by each individual.

I do not believe active and universally productive thought to include any efforts toward growth, perpetuation, acceleration or advancement of 1) ignorance, 2) injustice, 3) politics, 4) bureaucracy, 5) inefficiency, 6) consumerism, or 7) unshakable certainty in the face of reasonable, rational disagreement.

I believe active and universally productive thought must include some 1) truthfulness, 2) uncertainty, 3) skepticism, 4) creative tension, and 5) spirituality.

If we were to classify each individual as predominantly a) actively and productively thoughtful (as defined above), b) actively and selfishly (and/or purposefully) hurtful, c) passively selfish, or d) thoughtless, I believe a very large majority of individuals would fall into the last two groups.

I believe many individuals who are actively and selfishly / purposefully hurtful have become very adept at persuading a majority of individuals to be passively selfish and/or thoughtless, by misrepresenting passivity and apathy as comfortable truth. I believe this illusion that comfort is not hurtful, is often accomplished by first deluding oneself; and when put in those terms, I understand why it is an easy sell---even, (or perhaps especially), to oneself.

And because of this widespread delusion, I believe those who are actively and selfishly /purposefully hurtful have more sway over those who are passively selfish or thoughtless, than do those who are actively and productively thoughtful.

When given a choice, the majority choose easy.

I believe this can change.

I believe this must change.

Considerations outside of active and universally productive thought within my current framework of corporeal attachment, are an extraneous luxury; one that I cannot afford.

In any given moment, I must choose the reality of hard work, (within my framework of corporeal attachment), over the speciousness of comfortable truth.

There are many moments in which I make the wrong choice; and there are many moments in which I choose to work hard.

I began this week with a dream. A dream within which there was no sense of sight, or sound; nor touch, or taste, or smell. A dream that encouraged me to ponder thought beyond corporeal attachment. A dream that created a powerful longing for meaning beyond corporeal attachment. I followed the thread of this dream to the conclusion above that I must choose to work hard to fulfill my responsibility to my current framework of corporeal attachment. In many ways, this is sad.

I want to believe that thought is cohesive and coherent within or without corporeal attachment. And perhaps, on some level, I do believe. But I cannot act on overwhelming incoherence; I must act on that which is cohesive and coherent. And I refuse to invent fictions, or to believe myth and legend, for the sake of comfortable truth.

... ... ... ... ...

There are some weeks when I work so hard at thinking, and writing, and walking, and working, and living that when I see my reflection in passing it appears to be writhing in mock pain and yelling "Charlatan!" at an ear-splitting level, while staring into the center of my being with a malicious grin and a dismissive nod. It is late on Thursday night, and I am tired. Perhaps reality will feel somewhat less dubitable in the morning...

... ... ... ... ...

Friday morning: the sun came up and I am reminded of two lines from the song "Lua" by Conor Oberst.

"We might die from medication, but we sure killed all the pain."
"...what was normal in the evening, by the morning seems insane."

It is time to wake up.