L(∞)Ve

K: attachment theory is a drastically classic thing but it stems from wholly quantum-bent entanglement of some little effervescent strings there is a theory i am hoping to expound here no doubt one can read that these poems reek of wonky hypotheses
but one i'd like to lift like in particular to yr listening ears is this: love is the quantum force of virtual particles making themselves manifest inexplicable, irresistible, from twisted pistols shot on a corresponding angular list in hopes of encountering & thereby merging with its primordial twin on some level its gift is simply the ability to distinguish strangers from our kith and kin
but the curling ways we haunt and skew ourselves to move the sky for those we love feels like something born of forces more than us a human! is a body! a machine set on courses (bio)logical by an OS born itself of copious amounts of chemical reactions! in turn driven by an urge for physical satisfaction re: adherence to laws of fundamental pulsions and attractions!
therefore, as it must be awarded that without trees there'd be no forest, you can't get a full person without knowing the full supervenience of their exquisitely constructed fermionic corpse
but heisenberg says you can't predict precisely the whole equation, by their very quarky nature
only hope to guess right either where/when or how fast they might spin
& ergo everything we do plays by these itty rules for the self-same self-regulating purposes as any
but after looping long enough, a set of currents meta stirs to find within itself new interest in the things itself gets into & from rascally memories of narcissistic stereotypy comes the gift, the utter chaos of self-consciousness & when extended to encompass that which sits outside ourselves we discover a division between what we know and what we think an other would
our theory of mind finds its edges made it is irreconcilable, the separation of every black box equation every algorithm indeterminate save by those who wrote it so in the florid hope of renegotiating our current terms of frustration i am proposing we expose the bounds of logic laid at base of modern civilization: i have no clue what your idea of red looks like or how your fresh smells, or what your salty tastes taste like but i accept that they are close enough that we can pretend to feel alike in most ways as for the host of other quarky flavors we don't know how to agree upon
my gut (i.e., those li'l quantum bitsy butterflies that secretly drive my (like all others') mind) says
—believe it or not, ripleys—
we aliens can survive such a difference in our worldly images given proper allowance of each being in turn to flourish unimpingable by any other's freedom
but how can this liberated tomorrow manifest? how to expand our minds so big as to accept the littlest differences between two or more humans, with no consequential aggravating action?
asimov said it best: we must move past what was pushed on us in the past to get to where humanity needs to be, destroy the drivel of inequitable speech and try our damnedest to ensure there'll be "no more 20th centuries"
make a future where this baseline acceptance can be extended to the rest of we
avoid the constant you v me comparisons
create for all cases of life a new safe haven in and of itself
make the macrosystem masterable equally by flattening the playing field
and only in raising even-keeled stakes can we ensure the boat's worth occupying for all folks until the end of longest days
and thereby discover—or at least hope for—equality for all humanity down to its smallest quarky part
it will come from acknowledgment of the differences implicit in our processing
the heuristics we make specific to the world it describes 
dependent on what goes on inside our quantum minds
and interactions driven by entanglement of stringy vines
the game the same, all rules unwritten but more equally played
this is the way we should hope it to be, come the future