The difference between knowledge and wisdom is authenticity and will. One must have the genuine will to go beyond the mere knowing and understanding, to go beyond the merely trivial or "nice to know" to the truly essential, the truly monumental, to that which, if it were not true, humanity, the Earth, perhaps the entire universe would dissolve in a blink. To be wise, one must be obsessively curious and possessing an unending will to tinker, to take apart connections, to put them back together and to make connections both absurd and obvious and then to whittle away all but those connections whose threads spin into every nook and cranny of all life, of all space and of all time.

All in all, any monkey, with enough curiosity, can know and do. For the monkey to be wise, he or she has merely to wish it with all that they are or will be. They must decide for themselves what to know and what not to know, what to do and what not to do. Merely knowing is a circus act under supervision. It is the puppet on a string. It is the robot with a finite set of instructions. It is of little passion if not entirely passionless. Wisdom is the ringleader, the designer of the show. It is the puppetmaster, the robotic engineer. Wisdom is a not simply belief in the infinite, it is the deepest commitment to it. Wisdom does not and cannot exist without the fullest passion one can muster.

The will, the desire, the authentic passion for wisdom is the one and only path to reaching it. Wisdom is nothing less than being fully awake, fully present, fully alive, fully in love with the truth.

At least for us human beings and, I believe for all life here or elsewhere, art is no less than life's need and best attempt to satisfy the spirit. It is nothing less than one of the two most essential functions of life and, for us specifically, of human life. As I understand art, it is anything we do to express something of the totality of our experiences, our knowing, our understanding, our emotions up to any specific point in time. My definition of spirit is merely this - the totality of who and what we are physically and psychologically. It is all that we've experienced, all that we know, all that we understand, all that we feel, all we desire and do not desire, AND all that we express back into our environments. I reject as nonsensical the idea of "spirit" as some ethereal entity trapped in the "merely physical". The nature of "spirit" is physical or it isn't spirit and the source of art is the spirit, is life, or it isn't art and is instead mere chance.

All in all, "art" is one-half of "spirit" which is synonymous with "life" - a specialized function of space and time.

Creative expression, which can have almost limitless quantity and quality of form and function, is one side of the "spirit" coin. To live, for spirit to function and exist, we must not only breath in, we must also breath out. Insatiable curiosity is the inhalation. Obsessive creativity is the exhalation.

Without both, we perish.

The role of art in a human world is no less than the continued existence of human life.

Happiness is the fullest possible health of the totality of a life. We often speak of one's physical health or one's mental health, but happiness is only possible in spiritual health - spiritual health being the total combined physical and psychological health of an individual life. Happiness is not simply a worthwhile pursuit, it is the one and only essential pursuit for life. There seem to be two unquestionable truths when it comes to any form of life, and especially true of human beings - a healthy life values itself and wishes healthy life to continue and improve if possible, and only an unhealthy life lacks value in itself and wishes continued unhealth. Healthy life does not desire unhealth, unhealthy life can but does not necessarily desire health. All of this can be said of happiness as well because "total health" and "happiness" appear in many cases to be synonymous.

In my own life, I am most happy when I am authentically expressing in my habits and conditions my most core beliefs and desires. I am and have always been passionately curious. I am and have also always been passionately creative. I do all that I can to keep this self-perpetuating cycle running. When my level of curiosity wanes, I'm unable to be creative. When my curiosity is at its peak, so is my creativity. It is at those times I am most happy. Unfortunately, but perhaps necessary, I cannot consistently maintain high levels of curiosity or creativity. The cycle itself has a cycle of waxing and waning which, quite resistant to my efforts, has a mind all its own. This condition has a name for which I will not get into here. Suffice to say, it is my nature and a truth I must be at peace with, else I make it worse. To achieve the greatest happiness, the greatest health, I must swallow the fact that unhappiness, unhealth is inevitable. I do that by refusing to cling to one or the other. I attempt to recognize always that there is a downside to happiness just as there is an upside to unhappiness. Science appears to bear that out just as it seems to also be intuitively understood.

When I wish to bring some happiness to others, I try to be aware of where their own personal cycle has broken down or waned. I attempt to stimulate either their curiosity or their channels of creativity. It's like a jumpstart to their system. Unhappiness or unhealth is when the wheel isn't turning, when the cycle of inhalation and exhalation is weak and/or erratic. Peak someone's interest and get them expressing ... they'll discover happiness was within them all along.

Their momentum had suffered. They'd merely forgotten to keep breathing.

I live by my own standards as much as is possible. My only personally acceptable competition are my previous selves and the selves I believe I'm able to be as it relates to what I value or do not value in any particular moment. My personal values are continually evolving. I may or may not choose to compete even with other versions of myself. My standing among others in a competitive sense is essentially irrelevant to me. In truth, we do not and cannot share the same values between us because, just as my values are constantly evolving, so too are the values of others. I do not see how we can genuinely share any set of values in a consistent enough way to genuinely compete with one another. We may, on the surface, believe we share the same goal or goals, however, in close examination, it will be revealed we do not. Variation is always present. Goals cannot be identical. True competition cannot occur. For the most part, I have little patience for those who are competitive by nature. They are abrupt and forceful. They make brash assumptions about who and what I am and what my wishes are and they do the same with others. They dictate relationship rather than open to its emergence. They are not my choice for companions and, if forced to relate to them, the relationship is rather one-sided which, essentially, is no relationship at all. I simply opt not to compete because it bears little interest for me and certainly little to no benefit as it relates to what I value. I find competitive relationships harsh and an obstacle to peaceful and genuinely open connection. It can certainly be said we bond with others in the spirit of competition and in that competition, it is the bonding that's of value, not the score. In economics, competition is essential to stimulating innovation - one good idea leading to another. If the goal of that sort of "competiton" is what can be learned and made better rather than who wins or loses, it can't truly be called competition. All win if improvement is achieved, all lose if it is not. My preferred method of bonding is in the spirit of voluntary sharing without any clearly established goal except for that which emerges naturally. To me, there are and can be no "sides" when values and goals are dissimilar or, in any event, unclear or relatively undefined. I enjoy creating or participating in a fluid setting where there is good spontaneous conversation, sharing stories, jokes, interesting things, places, times and experiences when there is no air of competitiveness to accompany it. It is never my wish to dominate or be dominated. I have no desire to be predator or prey. There is little genuine empathy in such situations. My interest is coexistence with mutual respect. If relationship does not emerge naturally, almost effortlessly due to coinciding interests and goals, it is far too competitive for my tastes.

The issue of "independence" is always a relative one. In the fullest meaning of the word, nothing in nature is or can be entirely independent. In fact, if anything at all were entirely "independent" of nature, nothing within nature would know of it or could know of it. This is precisely why a belief in a "supernatural" or rather, "something that exists outside of nature" is unsupportable. Those who claim knowledge of such miss the glaring contradiction in their belief and in their claims. They certainly lack an understanding of "knowledge". And too, those human beings who cling too closely to the fullest meaning of "independence" as it relates to others and to nature forget the inescapable relative nature of "independence". They hope for the literally unobtainable. It is madness.

As it happens, the matter of "independence" is only truly relevant to a form of life and, remembering independence to be a relative matter, it is supremely relevant to life. Generally, when we use the term "independence" what we mean is "free of undesireable interference from others". The key there is "undesireable". Most or all of us can agree, there are some interferences in our "independence" that are usually desireable. If you find yourself injured or incapacitated in some way, most of us hope someone will step in to assist us. Although most of us rail against many of the specific actions of our governments, the truth is that much of what governments do is welcome interference in our lives. We welcome unsolicited kindnesses every day and yet these are technically interferences in our "independence", albeit desireable interference.

All in all, relative independence is vital to each of our lives and to any life. As I spoke on another question here at Gaia, the cycle of inhalation/exhalation is critical to most forms of life on Earth and, I believe, in some form likely vital to any form of life anywhere else in our universe. If the cycle is hindered or stopped at some point, the survival of that life is in jeopardy. I also believe the cycle of breathing is a great metaphor for the core nature of a life - its spirit - which has the idea of "breathing" at its root. A life, its spirit, must be free to satisfy its curiosity, free to explore its world and itself AND it must also be free to express itself, its "spirit" back out into the world. It must be free to take in and free to release - free to breath - or the spirit, the life, withers. When it comes to relative independence, any undesireable interference is quite literally injurious to that life at its deepest core. The longer the duration of the injury, the greater the damage, the greater the chance that life will not survive.

Relative independence isn't simply a worthwhile value, it is the supreme value for life. A life unfree to live, unfree to breath, chokes and dies. Unfree to live, a life doesn't remain a life for long.

I wish to be remembered for my dreams. These are the product of all that I've been, all that I am, all that I ever will be. They have come once and will come no more. They are the rare culmination of millenia of waiting.

There is much we hold in common with our fellow human beings, much we hold in common with other forms of life, but it's in our dreams we are most genuine and most unique. Our dreams are bounded only by what we've experienced, by what we've wished to experience ... and wished not to ... and the experiences that are our heart's pure invention. Our dreams are, I believe, the purest expression of our spirit. That "spirit" - the totality of who and what we are - has never existed before in the universe and will never exist again. It's difficult if not impossible to fathom the fullest meaning of that statement. Through all of time, your uniqueness will live only once. That is what makes it priceless and worth preserving as much as is possible and practical for the benefit of newer generations. An incredible wealth of experience, knowledge, wisdom and imagination is lost when a human being "transitions". It is enormous tragedy in and of itself, however, it is seemingly unendurable tragedy that any human being passes in obscurity, that any and all artifact of their dreams is lost forever. This loss to our species and our cultures is incalculable and we'd do well to learn to appreciate this fact and act to prevent further loss. It cannot be stated enough that we do far too little in this regard.

We cannot preserve our spirit directly but, through our art - through artifact - we can preserve our dreams. I work very hard to do just that for my own life and one of my highest held values and greatest goals is discovering and relaying to others why they must do the same and how to do it - No one, no one should be forgotten - ever.

I wish to be remembered for my dreams and for helping others to preserve their own. I wish to be remembered for leaving priceless treasures in the universe where there was once only cold and dull stone.

The genuine truth is this; because all is connected to all - literally - we cannot truly fail to connect. One cannot fail to do what is already true. Where we fail is in recognizing connections where they exist. Our failure is a failure in awareness, not a failure in connection. All we can genuinely do is to enhance preexisting connection. Made aware of connection, we can then consciously exploit those connections rather than continue in unconscious and haphazard relation.

Nature is fantastically adept at forming connection. As it happens, the formation of connection doesn't necessarily require consciousness and it is likely a misunderstanding to believe the creation of connection ever does. Where nature continues to develop and to learn - through us and other conscious lifeforms as agents - is to become more aware of what is true, why it is true, and how to increase the reach and the complexity of what is true.

We do not fail to connect; we fail to recognize connection. Once recognized, connections are rather easy to enhance and exploit.

Quite literally, what keeps me open is the inability to breath if I don't. Once I became aware the healthy life of self, its unavoidable need for expression, absolutely depends on its openness to all that surrounds it, connects with it, penetrates it, I could no longer comfortably create the art of my passions without also and simultaneously enhancing my many connections with other human beings and the outside world. As it happens, I define "art" as practically everything I do and say. I approach my life with an artistic mind and heart and seem to have little choice in the matter. It's how I'm made. Unless I remain genuinely open to taking in the world, taking in the actions, words, thoughts, feelings and creative works of other human beings and of other life around me, at some point I lose the ability to express my own passions and eventually become physically and psychologically ill. If I do not breath in, I cannot breath out - I suffocate in practically all the ways one can. Of course, I'm primarily speaking of "breathing" in a metaphorical "spiritual" sense, however, I'm increasingly convinced that a receptive/expressive point of view has far more truth to it than simply metaphorical. I'm beginning to understand that one's authentic and deep commitment to the metaphor as a way of living, at some point, evolves into a genuinely unavoidable physical need. Perhaps it was always so. All I know is, it is so now and I cannot ignore it.

Call it "flow of energy" or "flow of spirit", "flow of life" or simply the flow of air. If, at whatever level of awareness, we remain closed to others, we not only affect our own ability to breath physically, psychologically, ultimately spiritually, we also affect the ability of others to do the same. Our viewpoint, our actions have enormous inestimable consequence. To say that "all is connected" isn't simply a fluffy new-agey thing to say to sound like one is wise. If all is genuinely connected, to close ourselves off is to harm ourselves and is to close off and harm others which effectively sends harm out in all directions setting off chain reactions of unpredictable duration. Understanding that self harm is literally universal harm, would we continue to do it? Why?

Changing one's understanding - that openness allows one's own life and the lives of others to continue and to close is to harm self and others - is the first step. Authentic and deep commitment to this truth is the next. Reverence for all life is the ultimate goal.

Open to breath and let breath, close to kill and to perish. It's no more complicated than that ... if you love life. I suppose the same is true too if you don't.

First, the answer to any question lies in clear understanding of what you mean in the words used within the question itself. What precisely do you mean in the word "connection"? As I personally understand the concept - i.e., its ultimate implications - there is always connection. Never has there been nor will there be a time when connection isn't true. Literally, all is ever-connected to all. In other words, you cannot disconnect at anytime, consciously or unconsciously. It is an unavoidably true and, in my thinking, an incredibly sustaining notion that I have never been and never will be literally "alone" or "abandoned". I will never be "isolated" or "rejected". I cannot genuinely be "cast out" or "disposed". None of the vocabulary we use regularly to indicate our disconnections genuinely works because disconnection - literal disconnection - is impossible in nature as we know and understand it. No matter how powerful the argument for "disconnection", it cannot be argued "beyond the shadow of doubt". There is and always will be sufficient argument for connection - albeit often very subtle - but connection nonetheless. Literal connection is ever true, however, metaphorical connection can often be argued. Nevertheless, I find it sloppy to use the word "connection" at all when a more accurate term is far more appropriate to prevent misunderstanding our true situation and to keeping lanes open for solutions.

If we cannot actually "disconnect" in the literal sense, what is it we're genuinely doing that we feel "disconnected"? As I understand things from my own experiences, when we "disconnect" or when others "disconnect" from us, we make ourselves numb to what is true consciously or subconsciously but, nevertheless, we deliberately devalue individual moments or, more commonly, entire collections of them. We first partially or wholly devalue ourselves, our thoughts, our own feelings, our desires. Second, we partially or wholly devalue our immediate surroundings, people, places, things, our past, the present, the future. Ultimately, we partially or wholly devalue most of what is true far beyond our own lives - assuming we ever valued it at all.

Someone once said the opposite of "love" isn't "hate" - the opposite of "love" is "apathy". "Hate" isn't the absence of "love". Quite the contrary, "hate" is indeed love of something else so highly that the perceived opposites or threats to what we truly love invoke strong oppositional emotions. Hate, as it happens, is love reflected in a mirror opposite to the mirror enjoying our fixed gaze. To "love" is to value highly - often with the fullest expression of who and what we are. "Apathy" is too little love or, at its extreme, none at all.

Those connections out of the seemingly infinite connections always present of which we are most conscious are the connections we value, the connections we love. The connections we do not perceive or have no desire to perceive are those we do not love, we do not value. It is those connections for which we are apathetic.

Considering the number and quality of the connections for which we genuinely express love in some way in sharp contrast to the number and quality of genuine connections that are true - and they are seemingly infinite - we appear to give a poor show in our our capacity for love, our skill in loving and, most significantly, our willingness to love.

How do we "stay connected"? It sounds rather simple but, in practice, can be the most frustrating effort of our lives; we must remain as fully present as is possible to us individually in each and every moment. We must combat apathy through consistent practice of and through consistently increasing our capacities for authentic love, first and above all else, for our own life and, by absolutely critical association, authentic love for our environments, authentic love for those with whom we come into direct contact, authentic love for all other life - human and not - and, ultimately, authentic love for all of nature both near and extremely far away both in space and in time.

Avoiding numbness, avoiding apathy - practicing our fullest possible presence and most authentic and rational love - is the greatest challenge for us all, but it is THE object of human life - full expression of human consciousness. Without life, consciousness isn't possible. Without the fullest passionate use of one's consciousness, human life, although still a miracle, loses much if not all of its meaning. For a human life, apathy is the greatest sin and the only source of what we like to call "disconnection".

Remain awake. Practice love. Combat apathy. Stay connected.

Give them a sense of personal urgency. They must be helped to come to conclusions from their own personal points of view that the world as it is presently is genuinely unacceptable for them and for those they care about. Once they've convinced themselves of the urgency to act, they must then be given the answer to one question - What can one person do?

Of course, leading by example is a great start and, in fact, goes a long way to the long-term goal of a more positive and balanced Earth. Don't just tell them they are in danger, SHOW them the dangers to themselves and for all. Many advocates for change are good at doing that - many, unfortunately, are not and do more harm than good in their clumsy advocacy.

It is human nature and, indeed, the nature of all life to seek a comfort zone - i.e., a sense of safety and security, but it is also human nature to accept even the incredibly unacceptable out of sheer laziness which leads often to a personal sense of hopelessness which, in the end, comes from a very organic set of fears common to all conscious life. One ought not underestimate the human drive for "status quo" and the human tendency to rationalize even the undeniably horrible to get it and keep it.

The job of the advocate for a more positive and better world, having discovered some truth and having convinced themselves of the need for action, is to provide the evidence of and argument for that truth to others in a manner which relates deeply and personally to each and every individual. Help to answer this question for every individual - Where does this situation hit home for me? The advocate must also then answer the primary question - How can I personally best effect change that makes a genuine difference for me and those I love?

Convince anyone that their personal "status quo" is in immediate danger and you trigger their seemingly inescapable "fight or flight" instinct. The current "cultural war" in the United States and perhaps elsewhere is a conflict between those already convinced by consistent inquiry and truth that improvement is needed - generally speaking, liberals and progressives - and those who wish desperately to hold onto the status quo thus shielding themselves from the essential daily inquiry and truth - generally, conservatives and traditionalists. The conflict continues due to failures of both sides - failures of the convinced to make adequate and properly targeted arguments, and failures of the unconvinced to search for, see, and respect authentic truth for themselves.

After reflecting on today's "Questions and Reflections", I happened upon this quotation of Ralph Waldo Emerson which seemed relevant to the topic and my own thoughts -


There are certainly some traditions worth holding onto if one can, but only if one is at peace with the ironically unchanging fact that change is not simply inevitable - it is essential to life and, as I believe, what gives us existence itself ... all of it.

If we genuinely wish greater enlightenment than what we currently possess, if we truly wish a better world than what we have and have made, we must embrace the evolving nature of ourselves and everything, everywhere, everywhen.

As the Buddha might have put it, embrace with the open hand. Enjoy but do not cling. Clinging is to close one's awareness to change and to open oneself to rather rude awakenings when a gentler growth is possible to you.

Wish to be settled ... but don't wish too hard. Refuse to sit still. Grow - it's your best choice.

Abundant regretful dwelling on the past, fearful uncertainties regarding the future and, frankly, lack of genuine practice in consistent wakefulness rob us of the intensity of life we so much deserve. We all harbor far too many regrets concerning what we have or have not done, said or have not said. We second-guess ourselves more frequently than is necessary. We're also excessively focused on what we're going to do, what we're going to say, what needs done before then. We're forever putting off the time we'll really begin our lives, but spend so much time dreaming of that day that we spend far too little time doing, saying and living now. We seem to forget that the future is achieved in the accumulation of experiences now. Too few passionately intense experiences now makes for a rather dull and shallow life and far too little on which to build our grand and intense future. Certainly, I think most of us are able to occasionally bring all our passions to bear at key moments, but we're unable to remain so entirely focused in each and every moment in between. Perhaps it is a defensive trait preventing a cataclysmic flood of stimulus, however, I believe we all go a bit too far in our filtering out the waves of available stimuli that we miss abundant life-changing experiences. It's my belief that each moment can be and, technically, is life-altering from a certain point of view, however, just about all of us remain numb deliberately or, more commonly, simply by default. Unlike the "Three R's" and so much else ubiquitous to our cultures, there is no major long-term instruction and practice in consistent and authentic presence, at least not as a rule in most human cultures, and few individuals seek on their own the necessary education or devote themselves to such practice. Perhaps most of us never even consider the possibility there is good reason to remain awake far more than we do. Once you're truly aware of the benefits of consistent awareness, it seems rather obvious, however, we don't generally consider the possibility, and so, we don't. Admittedly, meaningful wakefulness in each and every moment is an incredibly difficult state of mind to achieve. Still, realizing the benefit and making a genuine effort to work toward that goal are very different problems. As I heard once - "There's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path."

To treasure every moment of our lives, to literally live "a universe in a moment", we must give primacy in our passions and thinking to the here and now with moderate but reasonable reflection on the past and future. We must each seek a quality education in wakefulness continuing to add to that education regularly and we must dedicate ourselves to practicing what we learn - always.

Yes, certainly. Our consciousness is an organic product and there's no question we continue to evolve physically from moment to moment, day after day, week, month, year, lifetime, centuries, millenia. Change is everywhere and everywhen - externally and internally. We cannot help but change according to the specifics of all of the powers of nature - and we too are a power. As a function of our physical bodies, our consciousness is affected by physical changes but, not surprisingly, so too our physical body is affected by our consciousness. We regularly speak of them as though they are two things when, more accurately, they are simply two major aspects of one integrated whole life - you, me, he, she, it, etc. In other words, in my thinking, I am less "conscious" with only one hand than I am if I possess two. There is no separating the facts of my body from the facts of my consciousness ... and vice versa.

All that we have done and said in the long course of human history is the product of consciousness. We sometimes make great progress in understanding, ability and practice and sometimes we lag. Sometimes, we even regress in our understanding, regress in our abilities and skills, regress in our values. Our historical record attests to as much. Evolution isn't necessarily goal-oriented or progressive. It can and does just as easily have no goal at all, and progress or regress or practically stand still. Evolution is simply change over time. In that sense, everything - living or not - evolves and evolves continually, however, never in all aspects at the same time nor at the same rate. Continual change also means that "different" is always the rule and the only rule. "Same" is extremely short lived ... if it is ever true at all. I would argue that "same" isn't an actual state in nature and only rather a point of view. I would also argue that anything said to be literally "unchanging" is also "nonexistent". It seems to me, "change" is requisite for existence.

Consciousness exists and must therefore always be changing. Ever-changing, it is also ever-evolving.

Why should human consciousness be an exception when there can technically be no exceptions to the rule of change?

Come to think of it, an inescapable element to "being present in the moment" is for you to personally define what "present" and "moment" and "now" mean. It's the essential nature of language that we must all define the meanings of words from our own experiences, understanding and passions. For us humans, thinking is practically impossible without language. If you're to judge your own wakefulness, you'll need to think and you'll most likely need language to do it. The most meaningful language for you is the language only you could construct. Don't ever accept anyone else's definitions for "present" or "moment" or "now" - or any other words for that matter - above your own. Their definitions won't work for you, not entirely. You'll always have to adjust them to fit your point of view. There's no avoiding it. You might adjust your point of view so it seemingly fits theirs temporarily, however, in the end, their viewpoint will melt away in favor of your individual perspective. You'll eventually have something that's somehow more than what they thought and what you thought separately in the beginning. That's ever-present and personal evolution but, it will always and necessarily be your point of view. That's all you have to judge how you're doing. It's the best you have and can have.

At the least, try to be reasonable and genuine in defining "now", "present" and "moment" for yourself and in judging whether or not you're truly and consistently awake. Only you can really know. Only you can judge according to your own set of values.

Let your eye influence your I, and let your I influence your eye. Respect what others have to say and give it fair reflection but, ultimately, it's up to you to be present in the here and now or not and to determine exactly what that is to you in the first place.

Intensity of life is what you're looking for. As I said elsewhere, apathy is your enemy ... if you love life.

Of course, you'll have to decide for yourself what's "intensity", what's "life", what's "apathy" and what's "love". But that's all part of finding "presence in the moment".

- Naumadd

I'm consistenly amazed at how many varieties of "listening" there are and can be. I "really listen" to others as frequently as I'm able - usually many times each day - but it's my nature and, I believe, the nature of us all to be reserved in our attentions just as we are cautious in our expression. Truly open offering and open receiving cannot be sustained for long periods or indulged too frequently. It's physically, psychologically, "spiritually" exhausting even for the talented and practiced. We give and we receive in necessarily small and only periodic doses. It's the best we can do.

Authentic "listening" can be an aweful thing for the listener and, in my experience, a truly fearful thing for the one open to be heard. To open one's spirit so completely isn't for the squeamish. It's an incredibly brave and admirable thing to open oneself to such connection and it's entirely understandable when we cannot or will not do it. "Fearlessness", if it is ever achieved in nature - and achieved through enormous effort - will be a very new thing. Consistenly enough, I hear far more than I'm able to listen. I believe we all do. Authentic listening requires the greatest portion of our truly awake spirit. It's always a wonderfuly thing that we can and are willing to do it. I firmly believe that, instinctively - at least for us naked apes - we are passionate to listen to it all, but our inescapable reality is we cannot adapt to the aweful flood of spoken and unspoken voices. We keep our innate and passionate curiosity in check because such curiosity fully expressed would likely kill us individually and possibly collectively.

To "really listen" is surely an act of genuine love so unbelievably powerful as to wholly consume us - the loved and the lover. There is little question - we must listen, we must love, we must live, but we must do so reasonably, sustainably.

A baby step forward is still progress. That we concern ourselves with the quality of our openness is an amazing step beyond the younger days of our species and what once were essential fears.

I'm certain I'd attempt to do far less in a single day than I attempt now, but I'd feel free to practice more frequently or always that art of making a single moment - and every moment - seem an entire lifetime.

My greatest passions are travel and exploration, people and their fascinating stories, unspoiled nature, reading, writing and graphic & fine arts - among so many others. With limited time, I have to limit the sincere devotion I can give to many areas in favor of depth of exploration and understanding and contribution in others. I'm forced to prioritize rather than follow the winds of my curiosity freely. Without that time limit, I could devote genuinely intense study to every writer I read and then indulge in truly thorough reflection and response to them in my own writing. With unlimited time, I would have the potential to see - truly see - far more of our world than I already have and I'd have the opportunity to spend the time needed to live and love the places, their natures and their people. Of course, unlimited time would mean not only greater capacity for depth, but greater capacity for breadth of knowledge. I do and would greatly treasure more of both in all for which I feel a passionate curiosity.

So too, I could devote as much time as is necessary to fully appreciate each artist I'm drawn to and have ample time to integrate the spirit of their art into the spirit of my own. Of course, I'm passionate about so many other topics in my life, not the least of which is love for and relationships with others. I can and am willing to feel genuinely intense love for many in my life, but a longer lifespan would give me the capacity for far more genuine, far more intense love and for many more than a limited lifespan allows. Time, however, isn't the primary issue. We all have limited capacities thus complicated by limited time. If there were no actual limits to our abilities, if I were able to instantly connect with the deepest spiritual intensities with every human being with whom I come into contact - and they with me - time wouldn't be an issue even now.

To me, life equals the capacity for love. Without life, there can be no passion, no love. The love one can feel is limited by the health and duration of one's life. Longer life doesn't necessarily equal greater capacity for love in everyone. For me personally, it does. Often, passions seem so great they threaten to burn me to oblivion in an instant. Ironically, even knowing those dangers, I wish for much more. Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't anyone able and willing to live and to love wish for more life, for more love, for more reason to live and to love?

Of course, I reject the notion of "time" as an artificial and trivial measurement in favor of the very real phenomenon of change and the threat of undesireable changes. Truly, we do not wish more time, but rather less undesireable change.

But, that's another story for another day.