So outside of what was spoken, and outside of the format of the
itself, what exactly was it that I've got (in his view) which, even
without understanding it, he wanted? If explaining
transformation didn't do it for him (and I stay away from explaining it
because doing so only seems to obfuscate it), what way of my
being in his view was it that could have been so perfectly
enrolling, so much so that whatever I've got, he wanted it? Be careful:
wanting to own that, is a bit like wanting to own the quality a
butterfly has which makes it so attractive in the first place, yet
which once owned, no longer exists ... and that's its freedom.
The way I was being which he wanted, was "free to be, and free to
act". That's language
actually only invented recently. Nevertheless however you designate
it, it's who I was being at the time. It's who people want to be. It's
who inexorably enrolled him. It works if you create it for yourself. It
doesn't if you covet it in another.
He saw what it was, and he wanted it without understanding what it was
he was seeing. That's the osmosis, the
of thrilling, enrolled transformation.