I have no argument with DH; I'm sure he speaks for many, and earnestly.

I would, however, expand the framework within which we experience his words.

Each human being interacts with the world _through_ his or her individual consciousness, necessarily. The contents of that individual consciousness are therefore involved in that interaction and affect the human being's experience.

We get confused about this sometimes and think it makes sense to view this in reverse. We say, "I _have_ experience, therefore I know what I'm talking about." It may seem so, but this disregards that one's particular consciousness affects the nature of the experience one has known and now points to as the reason his words of advice or wisdom ought to be listened to.

DH reminds us Nietsche gave us the "great gift" of cynicism, by which he means something like "an end of gullibility". That's fine - disillusionment is preferable to illusionment. But it is similar to the saying, "Before enlightenment there is hewing of wood and drawing of water. After enlightenment there is hewing of wood and drawing of water." Just so, "Before disillusionment there is dreaming one's future into being. After disillusionment there is dreaming one's future into being."

The question is whether we shall continue to dream of possibilities, or dream now only of likely failures - dream cynically, in other words. One can experience disillusionment without falling into cynicism and the wise-seeming apathy that goes with it.

Regardless of which mindset we now choose to dream in, we shall continue the process of dreaming our futures into existence, because The Law works: "You experience what you express. As ye give, so also shall ye receive. As ye sow, so also shall ye reap." It's The Law, and is not circumventable.

If we dream cynically of failure, failure shall surely follow; and our only reward will be the ability to say, "See? I _knew_ this would happen," perhaps seeming wise to some, as we do so. But as Job is reported to have said: "Lo, that which I feared has come upon me!" In other words, "That which I sowed in the spirit of fear has now come to a fearful harvest." As indeed it would; as indeed the workings of The Law would ensure.

It appears generally true, however, that human beings are capable of doing only what they can first imagine (dream) themselves doing. If they cannot first envision doing it, it's unlikely they will make the momentary choices that would lead to and result in their doing it.

Dr. Bernie Siegel: "If you don't believe in miracles, you're not a practical realist." Siegel's words hint at the processes, the "mechanics of creation", that are in play in the world we find ourselves in.

Spirit precedes form. It is therefore not so much a question of what thoughts we entertain as it is in what spirit we entertain them. This is what makes the difference, and it is a very non-trivial one.

It's recorded in the Old Testament that scouts were sent ahead by the Children of Israel, to scout out the land they were told they were to occupy.

On their return, some scouts exclaimed, "There are giants in the land!" (and they were sore afraid). But some others reported something different. They did not somehow miss the fact that there were giants present; but something different held center-stage in their thinking about what they had factually observed. They reported, "We are well able to occupy the land," and they were not sore afraid.

Events proved that the report of the second scouts was the more accurate - though no doubt at the time of their reporting, the first scouts were muttering, "Foolish dreamers" and "You're not being realistic!" under their breath.

DH mentions that only someone catching a wave moving in civilization could possibly stand as a noteworthy single individual who could help to lead us out of our predicament. That might be an accurate rendering of how things might happen.

However, it could as easily work in reverse - that, until there is some One who stands in the point of focus, the groundswell of what is moving in human hearts and minds will not coalesce into a recognizable wave in human events. They say no raindrop ever forms, except and unless there is a speck of dust present for it to form around, a "point of focus", a hub for the spokes of the wheel.

Just so, what Rayelan has been "radiating" forth from here - I refer to the spirit of her words rather than to the letter of them - is the reason I am here. Had she not stood up first and expressed her truth, I would not have known there was a place, prepared and present, where I might express mine also.

Does it matter? Absolutely: yes. But if one is focused solely on "accomplishments" as the only measure of whether "something is happening", then it may seem nothing much is being done, here. That, again, is a question of the "contents of consciousness" in the individual observer. Perhaps "accomplishments" is not the right yardstick, here. "Overnight success" in Hollywood generally takes about ten years of hard work, they say.

It's as though we sometimes must demonstrate to the Universe, by our consistency over time, that we really do want the things we'd say we want; that it's important we show we "really, really mean it". Or, perhaps, the Universe begins responding immediately - and it simply takes a measure of time for all the things involved in what we want (and others want at the same time) to unfold decently and in order. "Because you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you master over many." Perhaps that's another statement of one of the "mechanics of creation".

If so, there may be a prerequisite requirement that we first be "faithful over a few things". Overnight success might take ten years.

Suppose one were to quit, at nine-and-a-half years? Presumably the creative cycle that was unfolding would then be aborted; and one would never know that the arrival of the thing worked for was so very close at hand.

Human beings who think of themselves as "practical realists" can often be found giving "realistic advice" to other human beings who they might categorize as "dreamers". Usually this is done with the best of intentions, the "realist" not wanting the "dreamer" to experience the pain and disappointment he foresees in his own consciousness as the "sure and certain outcome".

But the reality is that the contents of individual consciousness play a direct role in what the outcome will prove to be. Consequently it would be more accurate to say, "In my concsciousness, this works", or, "In my consciousness, this cannot work." There's nothing really concrete about the matter at all. Rather, it depends on "who" it is that is expressing his or her truth into the world and on the spirit in which it is being done.

Blessings in this New (never been here before) Year.