In the palette of combineable qualities or settings, already with only two factors, our possible deepening is unbelievable or hard to imagine.

Mercy: In that we have nothing but understanding for whatever action of the other, even if it may come from the total lack of understanding of him. This may even lead to the more seldom levels of uninterpretable or ill action. Our understanding is just a phase of mercy itself, within that we have full excuse for errors or self-misguidance of the individual, as a form of love's activity. Mercy as a feeling can act as the resoluting counterpart of the non-understandable; it is the movement towards love.

Approach a problem with the feeling of mercy, to feel its potentialities.

In the special instance, a moment, a wonderful, hesitating "jiffy" - I have felt a future in the "now". I feel how far my inner sensory mechanisms help me to instantly translate the outer moment into conceivability: highly selective content, broadly displayed as its original quality. It feels like knowing something, before to think of it. Knowing something... directly.

What does now happen, (or, in the suggestion of a typo: what does not happen) when I watch my love, my darling, with these two special qualities, happenings, settings... on the stage of mind, with no viewers or actors but the two of us?

Do I feel that she suggests her content (topics, moods and substances of communicative exchange) - but does not easily wish for mine? What, if I agreed to her content - but swallowed mine for "some other" communication? How would she then react, when I tried to communicate mine - and if she reacted towards it (what i cannot believe) - why do I still feel alone?

In these surroundings, this time, even in Mercy and in the merciful allowance of Intuition as a Master Spirit, I have to say, and I can say: She did not see my inside; she maybe... fell in love.

What a hard kind of insight. How alone do I feel now? Mercy is here... how could she have known, have acted better. If she just could do it, knew how to value a soul space that still must be hidden to her (otherwise she would enjoy communication with me here), - she would be by my side...

After forgiving her - one of the qualitatively related actions of Mercy - should I try to manipulate my "content" about her? No. Should I try to suggest a different way to her? Not more than once. So, no more. Should I try to make an early start into communicative fulfillment?

As long as I can imagine its existence, it must be "out there / in here". Her response to my movements here may be noticeable; but what she cannot talk to, this she cannot guide: It seems to be situated in the Unqualified Absolute. So where do I search, staying-being clearly eye-to-eye with her, without that I let myself be misguided by my thought (and "content") of her simple presence? Where else am I?

Love cannot lie togetherness; it cannot lie. But it will show up every time we look for it; it cannot be absent. We may think to see absence, if we want to shape it; but what is absent is not Love.

Should I now try to make an early start into communicative fulfillment?

Here it is.

Balzac and the little chinese seamstress. A couple... maybe?

The supreme being. What a titling for a process that is so much - consciously - developmental, ready for action, reaction and learning, for constructive dealing with intercommunication, rather than interference.

Love and love. Two words, not meaning the same?

When we were kind to each other, to understand, as much as we could, the other. To understand him so far, at least so far, that we would not have to give up - what? And what, if we gave it up? And what, if we gave it up?

Now, that our souls got used to each other .. (here is, what is really deep) .. we see that a togetherness does mean change. How much would an intimacy in (whatsoever form of) communication change the standards that we more or less consciously/carefully developed as single beings?

Could it mean love, not to know, what we do, when we give in to the other? Or is this just the loss - for both, or one of us - to give in, in the loss of a freedom, a highly educated standard of personal importances.

If I suppose that there is something mutual - in spite of warm energies we both carry, for each other, and ourselves within the "us" - the doubt of maybe being able to "come over" this strange feeling of a potential, rather than a real togetherness seems to want to be touched. What can touch him? In the dreams and fantasies of the upper levels of existence, such mind pictures are moving and stepping soft steps as tender minding within the pure agreement. Agreement with the key thoughts and feelings of such a being that seems to be not understood. So, to expand agreement, we might have to search for a point from that we agree, to expand the feeling of agreement. How far can we reach out together? Can we finally reach each other, and in the new time reach out in togetherness?

The doubt is in the room, not as a doubt, but as an intense wish to develop. To educate, to self-educate in subjects such as "the released relationship", "sharing truth with your partner" and "being ready to give up the secret burdens". What a kind of school is this?

Oh, all that we know, how important is it, if we do not recognize it healingly in those spaces where our worries show ... (maybe even creatively ;-) ...) ?

Thoughts are having a certain gravity. And if not gravity, they at least show a certain liking to attach to specific others of their kind. To express them brings something new. Not to express them - brings what?

In our relationship, what has not been expressed? What has not been expressed in that form that it could be named communication? And finally, if it could be communication, hopefully, the essence was not lost?

Without that the essence gets lost, communication must be there. We should have the feeling to love the other, not our picture of him, or the picture that we get through mistakeful approach and communication.

When we don't understand each other, what do we do? We easily draw back to our positions and compare the others behavior with what we would like to happen from there.. are these not our standards? If both are ready to search for the other, cannot both most easily find each other "in the middle"?

How would it feel like, this "middle", for you, ... for me?
For us?

In what nature does relationship appear for you, and can it be close to my nature? In what nature does relationship appear for me, and can it be close to your nature? Let's say, nature is the skin we will never get out of, and flexibility the resources we have to still find together, are we flexible enough to bridge our natural differences to reach ... some truth, beauty and goodness? Some more than some, maybe?

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?