Part of the difficulty I had with divesting my predilections to
in and to explain and to understand not just
but everything, is I was taught to do all three. They
the greatest heft of my education. Arguably when they were
the three weren't directed at
itself. To be fair,
was mostly directed at the
experience, explaining was mostly directed at abstractions like
mathematics, and then understanding was mostly directed at
scientific phenomena. Also to be fair, those are the appropriate
domains for them. But somehow I made
itself into an appropriate domain for the three of them
Arguably you couldn't be a priest without touting
and nor could you be a mathematician without touting explanation.
And you couldn't be a scientist without touting understanding. But
as far as simply being
goes ie as far as being a being
goes, none of the three are required for me to be full, whole,
This axiom took me (much to my chagrin) way too long in its
Just like the front and the back of the hand, being and
are distinct yet inseparable. There's really no line between them.
is to be in
To be in
explanation, or understanding. Once you get this, there's
left to do but be in
left to do but do. I've done all the
and explaining and understanding I'm ever going to do.
None of it is required - even though the greatest heft
education says it is. Now I've got
left to do but do.
One of the great opportunities (if not the greatest
opportunity) in life is the opportunity to share being with
better to say "one of the greatest opportunities in life is the
opportunity to share ... period" because (you
may say) "being with
adds not only limitation but also ulterior motive. Extraordinary
experiences call for extraordinary sharing. Being doesn't work if
you keep it to yourself. When you get it, you're called to share it
- or you didn't get it in the first place.