I am indebted to Evan Hough and to Josh LeGassick and to
and to Randy Loftin who inspired this conversation, and to Victoria
Hamilton-Rivers and to
who contributed material.
Many things about who human being really is are contentious. That's
actually a lot closer to the truth than it sounds.
When I set aside the conceptual
and look at the
of my experience, what I see is my
When I am alone, when I am by my
I get that when each human being sets aside the conceptual
and looks at the
of their experience, what they see is their
One of the most contentious things about human beings, regardless of
philosophical, political, or religious affiliation (particularly
regardless of religious affiliation), is when we each see our
we each see is the same
which is the same
is all there is.
I'm not saying that in order to be contentious. Neither am I saying it
as a matter of positionality nor to be righteous nor to have something
to believe in - I, for one, don't believe in belief. I say it as a
I say it as a space in which to
an opening in which the truth can
and go to work (as
may have said).
Some years later I revised how I was holding another of
distinctions. I saw I was mistaking what I am for
who I am.
I assert that
this distinction (what we are, distinct from
who we are)
designates when a human being has truly grown up ie when all so-called
searching is over, when
the train has arrived in the
when "This Is It!" is the platform for living.
The distinction "what I am" as opposed to
"who I am"
In an earlier health conscious time it was said
who I am
is what I eat. In a later wealth conscious time it was said
who I am
is what I wear. Instead I would like to consider a new possibility,
whether understood or not, that
who I am
is what I
Tell the truth: wouldn't it be great to observe
That's not a political platform for votes (and if it were, I suspect it
Rather, what it says is it's always inspiring to observe
emerge anywhere in
where at one time it wasn't.