Oh, ye others...

... my door is not in its hinges anymore
... my roots are ready for having drunk your blood
... my giving is ready for your stream to enter my house
... and how do you want to stream?

Oh, ye others...

... your way is kissed and so appreciated by me, and the others
... your choices are respected within their always larger scheme
... your love is re-loved in its sweet inexperience, which is growing experience

Oh, ye others...

Stream through me
Your eyes cannot touch me
They can only see
Inside the stream

(But I remain.)

A material like water, but not water.

Wo der Blick - das sanfte, nein, das seichte Konzentrationsgebiet einer seelisch-wahrnehmerischen Aufmerksamkeit auf die Oberfläche unseres Wesens trifft. Die Ruhe des Bleibenden unter den Hüllen der überzogenen Filter unserer Alltagshärten. Einhunderte Frequenzen und Lautstärken, die sich zurückziehen und gegenseitig ausgleichen lassen, Vorstellungen in einzelnen Welten, die sich füreinander wandelnde - ja, gegenseitige - gleiche Nenner haben.

Hier tauche ich einmal in mich ein.

Wo ist Härte nicht erlaubt, nicht erwünscht? Wem gegenüber verkörpere ich sie noch? Mit welchem Zweck? Wo zeige ich - und, - wo habe ich Gesichter?

In eine Höhle sich zurückziehen, unter einem Baum sitzen, die Luft einsaugen, und sich allem stellen, auch eben dem, was vom Bild der Liebe noch bleibt, als ihr Wahres - das tue ich heute, wo Eremiten und Heilige die Menschen der Stadt sind, die Menschen der Vorstadt, und die Menschen hinter den Städten.

Eremiten und Heilige auf Urlaub, auf Dauerurlaub, auf Urlaub in Lebensnöten, oder, auf Arbeitsurlaub.

Wenn ich in meiner Parterin, die ich sehr lieben möchte, noch die Phase sehe, nicht abtauchen zu wollen, wohin mit meiner Liebe?

Oh Klagelied, die Erfüllung ist Dir nahe, flexibel die Vernunft.

Tauchen.

Tauchen, in mich.

Weg, von der Verstehbarkeit, hin, zu innigem Verstehen, zu Verstandenem.
Still - es bleibt


Ich tauche weiter.

Sie liebe ich, sie alle, Sie.

Nicht zu sehr denken - nicht zu sehr Anderes denken? Anderes ist, was Andere sind. Was der Eine von innen beschreibt, muß der Andere sich durch Gedanken erst verinnerlichen. Wer empfindet dann das Denken als "zuviel"? Anders und weiter: Als was zeigt sich das Absolute Innere im Gedanken - als ebendieses?

Nein, die Innerlichkeit, in schnellem Tempo ausgedrückt, wird oberflächlich, wird Gedanke. Es ist, als ob der Gedanke die Bewegung des Wassers ist, und das Wasser selbst das Gefühl in ihm. Dynamik...!

Leichtes Wogen.

Wer aber in Achsen um sich selbst taucht zum Spiel, und Luft mit Kiemen atmet, der kann denken und fühlen. Ein Miteinander, ein unglaubliches. Ich wiederhole es, ein Unglaubliches.

Oh, Ihr Ungläubigen.

Zieht Euch aus.

Taucht ein.

Ich will Euch sehen, in der Tiefe.

Wie schnell sie unsicher werden, wenn man ihnen die Tiefe der Seele zeigt. Die Gesundheit des Abgrundes, die Dunkelheit der Tiefsee, die Gespenster des einzigen Meeresgrundes.

Wie wunderschön es hier ist, wo kein einziger einen Urlaub ohne Seele macht, und Arbeit der Urlaub ist.

Ich spreche, und sie stürzen, atmen Luft mit Kiemen, sterben. Was habe ich angerichtet!

Steckt mich in die Gefängnisse Eurer Assoziationen, ich bin bereits ausgebrochen. Seht mir in die Augen, ich will mich darin freischwimmen, und Euch solange mit Sicherheit begegnen, die falsch ist - ist sie es?- bis Ihr Euch unsicher genug fühlt, das Wahre zuzulassen, die Flucht in den Last Minute Trip einer Zugänglichkeit, um die ich kämpfe, soll ich um sie kämpfen?

Oh, Gleichsam Gleiche, die ihr mit mir gedeiht, zeigt mir Eure Federn, Euer Schriftzug sei gesegnet, meine Liebe war Euch sicher allezeiten...! Und nun, begegnet mir in Sanftheit, auf daß ich lernen mag, was Zeit braucht, und ihren Ur-Zeit-Takt.

Taucht auf, mit mir, Normal Null, Höhe Stadt, und Vorstadt, Land und Tiefsee, Horizont.

In an overview to fly over the incredible capacities of a creative mind: these to be dwelling in a surrounding of - so seeming - limiting forces of more or less independent interference factors - is certainly not too easily done.

Traditionally, we would begin with what is closest to us, in form of adjectives, rather than nouns: being creative. Being open, flexible, curious, testing, playful, being wide in horizon, being playful with our change of position, with creating shapes and ways of reaction and interaction, with creating. Oh, horizon, oh range: oh tiniest field of applying!

Then, on the other hand, we would make a resolution of the "other side", so that both hands go for the task.

What is organization but ministry? What is organizing but ministering? Now, the daily tasks - the multitude and overlapping of duties and life necessities, social, personal or otherwise - are not to be done by themselves. What is our general approach to "the ministered" when we now try to coordinate it with being creative?

In which way is creativity searching for another river bed? And where can we use it for - ministry?

So, here we see, how much "both hands" serve the task, as well as a Deity Absolute might encounter the Unqualified Absolute, while the Universal Absolute answers the question for how to face a - former? - tension.



A next step (after having carefully approached the basic choices of independence in both our hands) would be so search for the key areas of testing application. How conscious are we of our possibility to influence their key factors?

Spontaneously I would like to suggest two areas of difficulty, one in minor and one in major creativity fields. Here we see how much life is not a task, but a field of exploring, to the evolving god, while exploration may become and absolute task to the individual, it may also be a challenging, or painful, or rather creative - co-creational - cocreational in very personal colours - experience for another individual.

The imagination of "what else" could I form the shape of this situation is often the answer on: I cannot compare my flexibility to my own static view onto non-static "things".

Even the words of this writer could be static to himself; but he explores, now, without losing the texture of an internet narrative, that language - spirit stream - knows different coordination potentialities with an interferent - communicating - being.

To say it differently: How have you solved problems, that I try to deal with in a better way? How much is your answer valueing my being in its specific needs - am I ready for a dialogue with you?

So, the same space where we encounter the very individual way of sight and experience of the material and supermaterial levels of reality brings us to a way deeper ability of reaction towards "the obstacle", the "minor time factor", the "commitment to duty". It is dangerous to say that we should develop besides this two-handed approach, because we could easily be limited in developing "split brains". We smile, when we leave work, we press the lips together, when we begin? The flow of creativity - while continuously exploring changing (- expanding -) riverbeds - is not to be suppressed by such a surrounding. A man can write symphonies in his mind, while his hands do sort different types of screws under a neon lamp. As well as a screw can be a symphony for appropriate cocreators. Maybe I should imagine that I need people (beings) whom are creative on a very different level than my personal one.

This leads me to an amazing viewpoint. If I am not counting screws today: where is my actual, where is my potential river bed?
Is it different from where I see it?
Is there communication between where I see it and where it may be?

Should it have needed all these introductory textual movements, to ask these questions?

Answers cannot be generalizing. But they can be expanded in time, as creativity can expand time - within time-space-realities - to some sort of content or into more realized potentials. How individual such an attempt must be! What way does it see, in you? And what way do you see in it? And is there a bridge, for communication?

The persons I was able to watch in my life whom I associated a certain "freeflow" of activated spirit potentials and operating creativity activity where professors in their subjects, even if not titled as such. A natural interest has helped them to shape the river beds without the force and duty of high payment and respectable standing in society: They could concetrate on their form of real content, hereby developing an unreflected, open and direct response to a meanwhile differently confronted society. Their relationships where so free as their scientific or personal interest (subject) allowed them to be in this directness. Freeflow is established as a quality in - during life phases or lifetimes - not having to roll against non-qualities of others (or, far-fetched, the Unqualified Absolute), but simply be adequately qualitative in interaction. The real interaction, thereby, may have happened with their subject.

Party. People. Something like the feeling, maybe, cited from Max Frisch (1969): "Einige waren sehr nett, fand ich, sehr anregend..."

So, what is your subject? Is it responsive to you? What are those liquid shapes in your inner mind picture screen saying, when you are trying to align - what, when you're listening?

The adjectives are not far away; I have mused about this sentence: "Doing by learning". The wrong one?