Julie London.



Ani Di Franco.

Well, not trying to write them to somewhere else... but to me.

But then. What is there, that I truly have to say to a fellow ... that is (not?) there?

Und wen ich nicht zähmte
den lasse ich frei

Und Deine Gesichter
sie stehen mir bei

Sie kommen sich näher
sie werden mein Bild

Und ich stehe vor Dir
und teile, was Du willst

Ich setze mich in Dich
Gehöre ganz Dir

Nur diese rote Flamme
die dies will für Dich
laß mir.

Ich gebe auch sie Dir
Ich gebe mich selbst

Doch will ich etwas haben
Dir zu geben,
meine Welt, -

Du, meine Welt.

Dein Blick geht in die Ferne
Dein Erinnern ist hier

Dein Wille geschehe,
so komm auch zu mir.

Mich Dir zuwenden
doppelgebunden
Mich vergessen
dir hörig sein

Mich mir zuwenden
doppelgebunden
Dir ferne sein
mich nun entfalten

Mir zugewandt
Dich nicht vergessen
uns entfalten

Alle, miteinander

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?

when i now begin writing, an ultimate process of multi-faceted perspectives, re-and-double-calculating each other while adjusting the writing flowstream-channel, is activated.

the truth-concepts, as revealed in the urantia book, are adapted by me, tiny fellow, and here i suddenly feel the support and companionship that i have searched for in the fellows.

when i talked to walther, i became aware, still, how special the personal contact - i am not yet sure how much this is aligned with adjuster-fusion, but i have the feeling that these processes are correlated - of a reader and his assigned personalities is - how seldom a conscious contact still is, even among the readers.

the first step - the perspective of children, learning - would always be the development of personality towards "the numerous deity personalities", in order to approach the first and final step of continuous inward-growing and self-identification with "the living god".

so, how far is your partner on this way? what qualities of integration can he share with you? what may you learn from him, what fascinates and gives you pleasure in togetherness?

the same with him ... is he (she) interested in creature-creator life, in horizon-sharing-and-expanding, in the expandable use of language towards the higher mind realms?

mutual love generally does not transcend the border from supreme creature recognition to ultimate social communication. even from supreme to supreme, usually angelic presences with transtlation functions serve the process of two higher beings, once meeting, to help the communication into its divine river bed.

however, when the acceptence of two associated supreme beings is beginning, and the two develop, in their different areas, at a comparable speed, the basis for partnership is laid. the possibility of difference is tremendous; the lord cannot differ; he is the same in all his children. but the unique characters, his children, do have natural potentials in different areas of personality expression; and no such area is unattended by the inflow-offer of a guding spirit or adjuster presence.

to watch the earth as a potentially or practically so very much and highly attended or guided mind-spirit community is indeed the view that enables future citizens to be, already, these citizens, today.

the question appears in these of the supreme beings that begin their quest into ultimate questions to discover the ultimacy of the other in different areas. is it really necessary to offer the other "the same supremacy" - and: is it really possible?

"the other" is a flexible, dynamic being, and travelling to the absolute is a highly colourful and multi-wayed process. the singular approaches of yet beginning to develop minds can never define a true relationship with its circumscribed vision. it does better by saying: how can i grasp the way in that the lord, my father, would see it.

here, there is no question about the creator as a dry vision of faith; he is a paradise existence, here, as well as a personal deity.

we can understand very much, how difficult it is to beginningly understand creature-creator identity; but words can be offers, and should not be denied lightly.

so, a partnership is not about the definitions of terms, but about the actively shared contents in the dialogue. they make the original relationship. the ultimate is reached by sharing the time-supertime and space-infinity transcendences within the current relationships, without intention and by joyful togetherness. joy and its brethren cannot be created; they can be invited, opened up to, released by laughter and admitting viewpoints; but joy cannot be established with the intention to make a relationship supreme or even ultimate. conciousness has its own pace; patience serves the own learning speeds of the true integration of all those wandering fellows in time and space worlds, especially on your one, urantia, 606 of satania.