It's an elegant and pithy philosophical conundrum: if a
tree falls in the forest, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a
sound? If Life does whatever Life does and no one says it
In a course titled
101, it's a given the assessment "Life
is a function of me saying "Life
Regardless of what I say, at first glance it appears there's ample
evidence Life doesn'twork.
(for which there's a lot of agreement as well as evidence) is an
assessment made while looking at Life. I'm not an ostrich
with my head in the sand. I'm not afraid to look. Making a difference
in Life demands I look at what doesn't
and address it.
How do I know what
What's my yardstick for assessing what
I assert the yardstick for this assessment is: what's possible for
Life? This isn't a question devoid of morality. I'm not asking what's
possible for me to do in Life and get away with. Asking "What's
possible for Life?" isn't based on simply doing whatever it is I dream
up doing anarchistically. Rather, when I ask what's possible for
Life, I'm asking what's possible for Life so it
for everyone with no one and nothing left out. That's my yardstick for
for Life. What's yours?
From where do I get what's possible for Life? I get what's possible for
Life from looking at and seeing what doesn't
When I see what doesn't
I get what the unfulfilled possibilities for Life are.
That's an important distinction: looking at and seeing
But what's truly profound is what I see when I look
Looking from "Life
is counterintuitive (literally: counter to / against intuition) to
looking at what doesn't work. It's subtle. "Life
is a place I look from. It's comes prior to making
a difference with what I'm looking at. It's more than that
actually. It's if I'm going to make any difference at all, "Life
must come prior to making a difference with what I'm
At first this dichotomy is ironic. It's also a
(where I'm looking from), the world doesn't work (what I'm looking at).
They're both present. At the same time. Seemingly opposite. Yet each is
entirely valid. It's these seemingly irreconcilable
opposites which challenge religious people everywhere. The
in some form or other of the question "If there really is a
then why does she allow ...?" (fill in the blank with your own favorite
disaster: man-made or natural).
To resolve this, what's called for is a shift in my
point of view.
This shift is away from being stuck in ie away from being fixated on
the perfectly valid and compassionate "What I look at
and toward the profound "Where I look from, Life
This isn't simply positive thinking. It's not just looking on
the bright side of things. The way I'm saying "Life already
isn't the result of empirical tests performed by scientists and found
to be valid. Rather it's something to try on for size. When you try
something on for size, it either fits or it doesn't fit. What I'm
asking you to try on for size is the possibility Life
ie Life alreadyworks.
Furthermore I'm asking you to consider the possibility you've been
lying about it until now. I'm asking you now to stop lying about it.
Tell the truth: Life
From time to time you may have said it seems to you as if
But it's always
Life is always
And yes, this is another
I can't make a difference with what doesn't
until I stand in Life alreadyworks.
To be sure, I can change and fix what doesn't
But the preponderance of evidence in my world shows I've tried for a
long time to change and fix things which don't
... and it hasn't
with trying to change and fix things which don't
But to make a difference wherever I am with whatever I'm
doing, I stand in ie I come from Life
And it does. Because I say so.