Can people change?

[Tomas]

Modern Cloth Nappies from Australia

Even Hemp Diapers!

http://www.babybeehinds.com.au/store/pc/home.asp

[Blair]

Humans breed.
The Sun burns out.

Oh sorry Alex, did I spoil the plot of the "mystery of life"

[Dennis Mahar]

The mystery man knows.

oh dear,

how come it's a mystery.

if it's a mystery you DON"T know.

is logic a possibility.

oh! that's right,
silly me.

poetry knows.

[Blair]

Alex or his pro-gene-y will be out there cursing black and blue, shaking fists and rattling spears at the sun for daring to take the women and children without a fight.

What is this foe?? Oh cursed reality!!

[Dennis Mahar]

cursing black and blue, shaking fists and rattling spears at the sun for daring to take the women and children without a fight.

with the occasional dip into the anthology of verse,
'cos Poetry knows,

let us go then you and I,
when the evening is set against the sky...
let us stroll languidly,
nay, even lushly, serenely,
rolling the hips sweetly...
gorgeously,

in the warm illumination,
of the loveliest iambic pentameter.
let's daintily stoop and pick anew,
these fresh, burgeoning consonants,
these sun-kissed, dewy vowels,
that gush for expression,
that reveal their secret code,
nay, sadly, ever so sadly,
only for the Poet.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

MV, if you haven't noticed, concepts such as "cherishing" are not popular concepts here at GF. "Cherishing" is considered a feminine trait, ergo, one to be eliminated from one's consciousness. It is not, by the way, a philosophy to which I subscribe. Cherishing one another, yes!

I thought you understood form is empty.
Cherishing, being form, is conditional.
Even 'form is empty',
being form,
is conditional,
any spruiking, any assertion,
is found to be thingness, conditional.
What depends for existence cannot be ultimately real.
leaving,
no-thing.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,

MV, if you haven't noticed, concepts such as "cherishing" are not popular concepts here at GF. "Cherishing" is considered a feminine trait, ergo, one to be eliminated from one's consciousness. It is not, by the way, a philosophy to which I subscribe. Cherishing one another, yes!

I thought you understood form is empty.
Cherishing, being form, is conditional.
Even 'form is empty',
being form,
is conditional,
any spruiking, any assertion,
is found to be thingness, conditional.
What depends for existence cannot be ultimately real.
leaving,
no-thing.

I do understand form is empty. I also understand cherishing is conditional. I also understand sentience to be the original condition or cause of all illusory attachments to form, including that of cherishing.

So, what I am going to do with this knowledge while I remain of my sentient, feeling body? Deny its existence? To me, that is is insane thinking and can only take me to a hellish desert of fighting the reality of what is true NOW. I have been to this place and will not be returning. One of the critical moments that brought me back from the desert of my denial of my feeling body was encountering the story of Nietzsche's horse.

Dennis, can you honestly tell me that you go about your daily business unattached to anything? I know that is not true because of your baseball metaphor. It is full of thoughts of attachment. Reasoning a cause is the very essence of attachment. This is why I have never understood the concept of relating reason with the attainment of nirvana or 'final enlightenment.' Think about it, without reasoning, causes and conditions would cease to exist. It is perplexing to me that one speaks of transcending causes and conditions with the goal of ending the suffering that arises because of these causes and conditions, and in the same breath, worships the continuum of finding causes and conditions.

Cherishing, however, is the very essence of nonattachment. And by cherishing, I am not referring to the cherishing of material things or the cherishing the will to power, I am referring to the bare-boned, naked feeling of the here and now reality of one's conditioned, sentient existence and of the enlightenment of compassion that lives there for all living things. I see no problem with acknowledging the illusory nature of love in concert with acknowledging its necessity, both as a philosophy and as a feeling, while one remains attached to their breath.

Reasoning concludes that this form equals that form, A = A; the experience of love, and of its healing brother laughter, is the living of this conclusion.

[Talking Ass]

Dennis writes: I thought you understood form is empty.
Cherishing, being form, is conditional.
Even 'form is empty',
being form,
is conditional,
any spruiking, any assertion,
is found to be thingness, conditional.
What depends for existence cannot be ultimately real.
leaving,
no-thing.

...and here, as I have so often repeated, is where we come to the very crux of it all. If through our definitions we define ourself out of existence; if we construct a sentence in which we actually undermine our own existence, the possibility that anything means something; if through our (really BAD) poetry we make ourselves 'un-inherant', and if with our terrible will and violence we level everything out in this way, we have done nothing more creative than simply destroyed, which is the easiest of creative acts!

• What sphinx of cement and aluminium bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

When unconsciously or consciously we have fallen to the seduction of meaninglessness, and to non-inherency (carried out as the boys around here carry it out), we are *free* in a certain very real way to cut ourselves off in myriads of other ways from history, from ideas, from emotions, from people, and from ourselves. The ultimate expression of such a rage and violence is against the self! The very 'I' cannot (and will not!) be seen to exist, and in this sense will not be allowed to exist!

Unconsciously (in that 'transcendent unconsciousness' MA referred to) but then with conscious cooperation from parts of the remaining fragments of ourself, we begin to cooperate in the vacuation of life of value and meaning. Such a glorious accomplishment! There are no words, no phrases, no feelings, and no sense that can be seen as having any validity, as it is all 'empty and meaningless'. This view-structure is like a drug---a nihilistic drug---that courses through our blood like a disease. The effects seem to be: we cut ourselves off from the 'living', spiritual and language currents that run through our history, both in a physical sense ('the body') and in the spiritual sense ('the soul'). Language is impoverished and what is universally recognized as the best and highest expression of life and existence (scriptural poetry, say, or the use of language as an art to express *matters of existence and being*) can only be mocked. But note that the cheesy imitation of poetry is not really an imitation: it is the highest point that the empty and debased creature can go, because any notion of 'high point' has been undermined through what can only be described as ignorance, and in this, again, I refer to 'Vandals who've jumped the gates and take up residence in the city square'.

If we cut ourselves off, through our ability to use and appreciate language, from our own selves (i.e. our history in all senses) and then seek to overlay another system (pseudo-Buddism, etc.) I suggest that this is essentially a destructive achievement and much less a constructive one. What has set us in motion on this path (of separation from ourselves) is very hard to put one's finger on, hard to locate. It is here that we could speak of 'causes and effects'.

• What sphinx of cement and aluminium bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

The basic and core 'enterprise' of this forum, whether it recognizes it or not, is in this enterprise of 'shearing off from self'. I am not saying it is the ONLY thing that motivates the 'Founders', but I will definitely say that one notices a certain destructive violence, a certain destructive willfull misinterpretation, but perhaps the thing that I notice most is the cutting off from our own literary traditions. It is not 'as if' but 'as' both Dennis and Blair are operating without even a basic preparation in language and idea. Where did the cut occur? How did it begin? The rather terrifying thing is in just how much will and animus still exists within the various personages who take up the destructive project and call it 'creative'. Both Dan and David have clear and intimate links to this 'destructiveness' though they do not, I don't think, recognize it. In any case, one sees all kinds of variants of 'shearing away from self' and cutting away from our traditions in language and meaning in almost all TBs who write or have written on this forum. Particularly, this is what fascinates me: the way that nihilistic, anti-self trends *come alive* as it were, rise up, strut around!

So, what is the solution? (One MUST ask this question, one MUST speak about this). I think it is to come to a stop within oneself. To arrest the movement for which one is not really responsible since it is being directed through vast processes very difficult to see. In a certain sort of stillness, in calmness, in reflectiveness, one can find a relatively stable point and from that point take up and look through the perspectives and the lenses that have been bequeathed to us. One can look calmly, one does not have to join a cult or a movement or be sprung into action, but one can begin to examine these perceptual structures that are part-and-parcel of who and what we are. The point is not to de-value, nor to deconstruct into parts that can then be trampled on, but to recognize (if you will) the subtle winds of value and meaning that blow through the world of our consciousness. Nothing should be destroyed except perhaps *the ugly*, that which takes hold of us and reduces us, fragments us...

• What sphinx of cement and aluminium bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?

There are so many wonderful poems by Juan Ramon Jimenez that I could select if only to allude, coursely, to beauty...to levels of meaning so hard to describe. This is just one picked almost at random:

• How close to the soul is all that
  Which is still so immensely far
  From our hands!
  
  Like the light of a star,
  Like a voice without a name,
  Transmitted by dreams, like the distant tramp
  Of some warhorse
  That we strain to hear
  With our ear to the ground
  Like the sea over a telephone...
  
  And life created within us
  Is the inextinguishable light
  Of a delicious day
  Shining somewhere else.
  
  Oh how sweet, how sweet,
  Truth, still without reality, how sweet!
  
  ---Diario de un poeta recien casado / 1916

[Alexis Jacobi]

*Clap clap clap*

It's me, Polytropos...Now, we begin a new round!

Wonderful post. Damn, you really nailed it TA.

Sadly, the only poem I know is:

• Roses are red
  Violets are blue
  Achoo.

[jufa]

The Lord bless thee, and keep thee.
The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.
The Lord life up his countenance upon thee,and give thee peace.
And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them. Nu.6:24-27.

Standing always as a beacon of hope, life's wonders have always surrounded men. Regardless of man's inner feelings and beliefs, man's very physical body assures him he can never be forsaken, for the Consciousness which gives volumes, depth, and growth to the life of the earth itself is also man's life. It is "the Consciousness, that lighteth every man who cometh into the world," expressing Itself as the ever renewing, ever unfolding Spirit found everywhere man goes in thought. It fills the space one occupies in time, in distance and nearness of matter as only a Speck within the vastness of the dark. Without the appearance of this Speck, the darkness would always be a void; moot to the human mind. One cannot comprehend nor touch this Speck, for It is neither here nor their, yet, It is everywhere ones looks. It is, and It is all there is of creation. It is ones life living as the source of all life.

Man attempts to consciously avoid the pitfalls and quicksand which will suck them into dilemmas of choosing between idioms of traits. Today those traits maybe of good. Tomorrow they maybe of bad. So it is with words and ideas. People ignorantly believe they can step into the heart of what others says. It is impossible. Deep within one knows it is always best to stand on the outside looking in. Ideas and words of others, if not taken from within ones own definition, removes ones safety net of independent will, and logical protection from the onward moving wave of inevitable change, of words and ideas of a dream whose time for fulfillment has arrived.

Most men see and rest in thoughts other than their own. They rest in other men dreams, philosophies, and human psychology from ancient days of the rhetorical indoctrinated phase I think, not I know presented today. What is missed from such? It was the dreamers dream which sustained their individual lives; gave them their own purpose of finding their way and moving as far as they could in being used by Life for life's purpose of expansion. Martin Luther King, Jr expanded Mahatma Gandhi dream after Gandhi could go no further. King took the dream to the length which was purposed for him. No other dreamer has been thrusted into the expand of the Speck. The dream which began in the very first man whose liberty had been taken away, whose "blood crieth unto God from the ground" still has a voice of expression for expansion of betterment for the whole of mankind. Did the dream for expansion for the better of the whole stopped with M.L.King, Jr? It is now that of selfish individualization. The true idea faded, but the message can never died.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Tomas]

*Clap clap clap*

It's me, Polytropos...Now, we begin a new round!

Wonderful post. Damn, you really nailed it TA.

Sadly, the only poem I know is:

• Roses are red
  Violets are blue
  Achoo.

Yeah, yeah. You just received a 'merry christmas' email from Brokenhead (cousinbasil), too.

How many usernames/member accounts do you guys have?


PS - to jufa.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not his birth name. He was given that name at the age of two.

[Talking Ass]

Alex Jacob
Alex T. Jacob
Alexis Jacobi

...and let me think, I know I have one more (*counts on fingers*). Hmmm. It escapes me but it will come to me. Oh drat! I forgot my other username. This is embarrassing!

[Tomas]

Alex Jacob
Alex T. Jacob
Alexis Jacobi

...and let me think, I know I have one more (*counts on fingers*). Hmmm. It escapes me but it will come to me. Oh drat! I forgot my other username. This is embarrassing!

Merci. You are as prolific as Donna.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be that as it may, from here on out and until the *unnameable pour forth His glory on all flesh*, Alexis Jacobi is the MC for that congregation of persons that is Alex Jacob.

[jufa]

PS - to jufa.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not his birth name. He was given that name at the age of two.

Did that change the destined message and inevitable change long overdue?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Dennis Mahar]

I do understand form is empty. I also understand cherishing is conditional. I also understand sentience to be the original condition or cause of all illusory attachments to form, including that of cherishing.

So, what I am going to do with this knowledge while I remain of my sentient, feeling body? Deny its existence? To me, that is is insane thinking and can only take me to a hellish desert of fighting the reality of what is true NOW. I have been to this place and will not be returning. One of the critical moments that brought me back from the desert of my denial of my feeling body was encountering the story of Nietzsche's horse.

I have no problems engaging life in the moment and live with elan and freedom, at the same time realising it's conditional and ultimately of no account.
What happens on the trip stays on the trip. It doesn't play out anywhere else.
Realising that gives 'my' existence a 'fair weather, good roads' flavour.

Being present to conditions gives me access to 'others' conditions which to them appear as unbearable and overwhelming. Within a 30 minute conversation I can turn that unbearable/overwhelmed feeling 'other' has into a profound, moving experience for them.
Mental tricks is mental tricks.

On Friday I met a guy (Tim), stocky, shaven head, tattoos (relatively menacing looking).
glum, defeated looking, in a breakdown mode.
Started talking.
The story was on Tuesday his girlfriend had another baby.
On Thursday he was at his parents house. His mother went to the bedroom, where his father was supposed to be sleeping, instead was a shade of blue and about him were empty precription pill bottles.
Mother shrieked, Tim went to the room.
Tim ordered mother to call ambulance and began CPR techniques he hadn't trained in but got an idea of from watching TV.
The father spluttered back to life, ambulance arrived, father to ER for stomach pump.

I was able to show Tim how fortunate it was that Tim and the qualities Tim brings were present in that time and place.
I explained the instance of mine where my father collapsed before me, I did CPR and he never revived.
The point is I methodically, in a short conversation, showed Tim who Tim was and is in the face of a crisis.
Tim's possibility came alive in Tim for Tim.
A possibilty that is otherwise hidden to Tim was disclosed.
Tim saw Tim in a way Tim has never seen Tim.
Tim's eyes filled with tears and Tim's heart filled with love.
Tim broke through breakdown.

Dennis' problem is Tim wants to see more of Dennis.

While Alex is combing libraries for poems that know and you are tied up cherishing.
Could either or both of you take Tim off my hands?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This part: 'at the same time realising it [life] is conditional and ultimately of no account' is the part that would concern me. We can float up, mentally, to a perspective where everything we look down upon is nothing more than the scurrying of ants, or even less: some grains of sand that have blown up onto a little lip of a dune, or a cloud that amasses or dissolves. We have all sorts of different conceptual strategies---or perhaps 'resources' is the word---to which we recur in assigning, or in not assigning, value. Ants have been here since the beginning of time. They exist through time doing exactly the same mechanical (machine- and organism-like) things. If you know one ant, you know all ants. We can look upon ourselves that way, and if we do, it can I suppose be both a balm and an acid (it can help by releasing tension, or eat apart relatedness, meaning, value, presence, etc.)

From all that I have witnessed to date in the life I have lived, every single movement and interaction, all situations and inter-relationships that I have experienced, all seem to have a rather profound meaning. By that I mean the meaning or the feelings that are touched in them resound up and down the passages of memory; they have weight and meaning and value. Certain meetings and interchanges have profoundly influenced my life. And in the way I see things (sense them and feel them to be) there most certainly is a divinity that presides over all these things.

The discordancy in your story, as I hear it, which indicates that you do not live in accord with your own values of *meaninglessness and emptiness* is that you have, with your interaction and the feelings and meaning connected with it, disproven nearly completely your own assertion. If it REALLY had no value and was meaningless, it would be a thoroughly meaningless situation, of absolutely no account and relevancy. It would not even appear on your radar as something to be concerned about. Indeed 'concern' would be impossible.

I would say that you have done absolutely the correct thing: you have, by the intervention of coincidence, of chance, or 'just the way it turned out' been placed in a situation of interacting---meaningfully---with another person. Not to over-amplify it necessarily, but in truth those kinds of meetings and interchanges can have (do have) profound impact in the lives of those people 'providence' (chaos, chance or what-have-you) places on our road. Therefore, the respect and attention we show when those situations are presented have tremendous meaning and value. People's lives are made and unmade by exactly this sort of human interchange.

[Dennis Mahar]

Tim's condition was found to be empty and meaningless.
The fact that Tim transformed to another condition proves that.
I can't be stuffed explaining Nagarjuna's reasoning to Tim.
It's unlikely he would 'get it' to enable himself the ability to transform in his conditions for as long as conditions permitted.
I have enough trouble getting thru' to you and your equipmental intelligence is probably 20 points clear of Tim's.

The nature of sentience is intelligibility.
intelligibility can 'believe' conditions are real, can fall into the error of believing things exist inherently which amounts to a mental trick.
intelligibility can uncover the mental trick.

a thinker and a thought do not exist separately and are found to be one and the same.
a subject and an object are not split,
a subject is its objects.

That's how it rolls.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think you mean would he 'geddit'. Also, with your '20 points' you may be thinking of the Talking Ass. I stand about 100 points above him. I find I don't have much (more) to argue with you about, now that I have seen that you act in relation to another human like a human. Your behavior, as it seems to me, does not accord with the (supposed) philosophical underpinning, but the contradiction seems to escape you. The self that has been created---our selves---has in its account quite a bit of 'moral capital' that did not come from Nagarjuna. It came from those countless generations of persons who worked very hard to construct the self that we *operate*, and which (it seems to me) presided over and determined your interaction with Tim. I am pretty sure that idea will pass over your head but no matter.

Why I ask would you wish to pass him off, now that you have a student? Doesn't the dharma oblige you to follow through?

[ForbidenRea]

The charliquins movement; the stanzas we've forgot;;;
Oh! Stare into the mirror of goodness; for in it, you'll find
the favor of many! And, the Gods. The God's are broken by mirrors of misery.
The Goddess of the night steps into the ring of light!
She breathes and comes upon a shadowy burning rock
Shadows do fall on placid dreams; and the women step into the trickling falls;you're staring
At it not me! So, stare if you will, at the glistening bottles.
A milli second is all the monk mouse needs for treats and a kiss from the mistress jesture.
The millenium is hard to see; So, stare at her bottles.
If you can find a second reality in this-dream of dreams.

All that he needed to forsake was a willy-nilly snake! The "c" is right.
The bridge so tight with fluttering wings of butterflies.
knights discarded and displaced. I can almost see her hair slowly flouting
In the air
A d

[Dennis Mahar]

While my condition is not experienced as complete insouciance, rather warmth for being and like QRS an abiding interest in radical transformation for human being brought about by the realisation that phenomena lacks inherent existence,

I can see Alex cares too fuckin' much.

You wanna wrap the 'invisible lurkers' up in bunny rugs, feed them formula and steer them away from some kind of harm you are making up.

You believe the sky is blue.
It's not.
Blue is in your brain.
What's out there is supposed to be an ocean of frequencies grabbed by brain and decoded by brain to fit human being.
It's conditions.

You can't even pinpoint exactly which way your ass is pointing.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: a thinker and a thought do not exist separately and are found to be one and the same.
a subject and an object are not split,
a subject is its objects.

Wisdom in a nutshell.

Based on the meat of this wisdom, can you expand upon how it relates to what you describe as a radical transformation for human being that you see when and if human being realizes that phenomena lacks inherent existence?

[mental vagrant]

While my condition is not experienced as complete insouciance, rather warmth for being and like QRS an abiding interest in radical transformation for human being brought about by the realisation that phenomena lacks inherent existence,

I can see Alex cares too fuckin' much.

You wanna wrap the 'invisible lurkers' up in bunny rugs, feed them formula and steer them away from some kind of harm you are making up.

You believe the sky is blue.
It's not.
Blue is in your brain.
What's out there is supposed to be an ocean of frequencies grabbed by brain and decoded by brain to fit human being.
It's conditions.

You can't even pinpoint exactly which way your ass is pointing.

hehe

[Alexis Jacobi]

a thinker and a thought do not exist separately and are found to be one and the same.
a subject and an object are not split,
a subject is its objects.

I dunno. I read this sort of crap and my eyes glaze over, to be quite truthful. In actual fact, I would say that the sentence construct may or may have relevancy or may pertain to something 'real'---but hold on: in this discourse the basic platform is that there is nothing 'real' and nothing 'inherent' so, in truth, one is sort of mind-fucked right from the start.

So, what actually begins to occur is the following: it all falls back on he who manages the terms, he who asserts them, stands over them, crows over them like a rooster. This is the trick to understanding psychobabble and a HUGE portion of these pseudo-doctrines that come principally from the East and which, in many ways that can be noted and described, have infected our conceptual structures. Now, at this point (it has happened before) David or his analog will descend from his cloud-region and declare (of me): 'Deaf to non-duality! Deaf to non-duality!' and surely movingalways keeps her funds in this bank too and so has something to defend, some great and valuable 'non-meaning' that then, mysteriously, becomes a meaning (oy veh!). But I---I guess it is a defect of perception?---just do not see the value or the use of the formulation. I guess I'll just have to wait another few incarnations until the dawn finally comes...

Dennis writes: While my condition is not experienced as complete insouciance, rather warmth for being and like QRS an abiding interest in radical transformation for human being brought about by the realisation that phenomena lacks inherent existence

I would say Beware of those doctrines that call for 'radical transformation'. First, it is a romantic term, and when romanticism infects, say, politics, watch out. There is no doubt that romantic spirituality came from the East and had a huge impact in the West. Whole generations in the West in the post-sixties era were not only moved by the notion of 'radical transformation' and other such language-formulations, they were captured and possessed by them. A radical transformation: a change in something to be or appear as something radically different. Hmmmm.

It is 'wise' to look into the use of such terms.

When the school-boys 'round here get hold of the idea...as can be pretty easily seen...they become willing to surrender up almost everything, almost all tangible things, to pursue their romantic ideal. What they proclaim, in truth, hinges on dissolving relatedness and all the derivatives. It is quite possible to suggest that this doctrine acts as an acid and is the first step toward a dissolving of self, a dissolution of self. And again it starts from the original presupposition: all is 'empty' and 'void' and 'meaningless' and 'non-inherant' and the 'I' does not 'exist', and as you, Dennis, express it in the [realization] 'it's conditional and ultimately of no account'. If 'ultimately' things are of 'no account' then they must really be of no account, and if one really lived that value---I mean lived it sincerely, non-hypocritically---there would be no reason to do anything, achieve anything. It would lead to a supreme lassitude in respect to life itself. Indeed, you might, as Ramakrishna more or less did, simply lie down and expire. 'Let the body fall away'.

The ramifications of such a value-system are enormous, and I suggest that as it is presented, explained and defended, and as one examines the ethical choices that arise from it, it is 'destructive'.

I would also point out that, in the end it seems, the 'justification' offered, Dennis, in support of your life-philosophy, is exceptionally sentimentalistic and rather fuzzy. Are these the 'bunny-rugs' you referred to? So, your philosophy leads you to rescue some 'menacing' fellow on the edge of expiry, but in truth you do not want anything at all to do with him. I found this really rather peculiar. That he would 'want something' of you but you must edge away. I suggest that IF there was a bona-fide connection between you as a real person and another as a real person, you might forge a connection---a friendship---that could last a lifetime.

But, dissolving persons, non-inherent persons who in fact do not exist, cannot really have relations with others. Ghosts can't form relationships, they can only fade in and out: never quite appearing but also never quite disappearing...

And this is your 'radical transformation': to become a ghost?.

[Dennis Mahar]

Ultimate truth is one being,
one being (subject) is it's objects.
non-duality.
You can't go round the traps in conventional existence declaring I am you. you get sedated, straitjacketed and locked up.

conventionally it appears split up.
duality.
how that is resolved is,
not the same, not different.

what we get in duality is possibilities of form.
We get the possibility of War or the possibility of Peace.
we get war out of not the same,
we get peace out of not different.
but the peace is shortlived because not the same keeps showing up.

out of not the same/not different,
we get wisdom.
sameness is recognised and difference is recognised.
the situation gets fixed up right there.
that's the education.

apparent duality is one.
that's what gets the radical transformation.

Transformation doesn't grow on trees,
it happens in a conversation.
conversations are about enrolling in a viewpoint,

not the same/not different,
gets the situation handled.
ethics gets fixed up,
politics gets fixed up.

all people get to live in peace.
it's only a possibility.