Before I began this blogsite I was not much of a reader of blogs. The IPad changed all that for me. The IPad was the first device with which I could read the Internet like a book or a magazine — that is to say comfortably, in any location and in any position I desired.
Previously, so much of my work and creative life occurred on the computer — sitting in a fixed position — I had zero wish to prolong the desk sitting to read for pleasure or enlightenment. And the laptop was too wieldy, too hot, too awkward.
Then the IPad. All these voices streaming thoughts opened to me. There is little that can’t be found in the world’s thought streams.
There is creativity galloping. There is quietude whispering. There is inquiry seeking.
There are vehement clashes of perception there too. There are schools of thought in such opposition that the respective camps are scarcely aware of the others (nudists and burka wearers flock to mutually exclusive sites).
What is the commonality?
We are all seeking evidence that what we say is so.
It’s a type of magnificence to hone in on a voice within the Internet stream — and to witness the ways in which a reality is created. It is done by accepting — or rejecting — one element at a time.
Yesterday I did a search on Wayne Dyer Divorce. I’d been surprised recently to hear his marriage to the mother of his children had ended, apparently a few years ago and, insensitively, without consulting me.
In the search results were Wayne Dyer supporters, critics and simply some who were puzzled but sympathetic. As I tuned into each voice, reality creation at its strongest came into view.
Wayne Dyer is a fraud, ranted some.
Wayne Dyer whatever may transpire, per others.
Wayne Dyer is human . . . .
In each voice what didn’t fit the perception was discarded — except the nuanced middle way (yes, a nod to Buddha and his Middle Way). Wayne Dyer is human . . . there in the moderate middle it was not necessary to accept or reject in total.
Reality creation, we all do it, even strict materialists who think they don’t. They must reject the experience of millions of others who’ve had experiences that are not allowed in today’s scientific paradigm.
Reality creation, we all do it, and we do it magnificently.
Since we all do it so well — so that we’re scarcely aware that we’re doing it — why not tilt reality creation in our favor?
Why not expect the best of a difficult situation?
Why not trust it will work out (even better)?
Why not believe that this time things will improve?
Why not — there are a thousand why nots we can apply to life.
More . . . why not?