To Everyone Standing at the Edge of the Room

/0 Comments/in , /by

A CONVERSATION WITH DR. DON AJENÉ WILCOXSON · PART THREE OF THREE

When the Whisper Is Louder Than the Fear

On racial injustice, the cost of standing up, and what he wants to say to everyone at the edge of the room

There is a particular kind of courage that does not announce itself. It does not look like charging a hill. It looks, more often, like a young man walking to the principal’s office to report something dangerous, knowing full well that the danger will follow him home.

Dr. Don Ajené Wilcoxson was in high school when he discovered that the Ku Klux Klan was recruiting on his campus. He reported it. Threats followed. He did not stop. When I asked him about it in our conversation, sitting with decades of distance from that moment, he said something I have turned over many times since: speaking out felt natural. It would have been uncomfortable not to speak out.

That sentence says a great deal about who he is. It also says something about the world he grew up in — a world where a young Black man could not afford the luxury of looking away from what was happening around him, where naming the danger was not bravery so much as clarity.

Speaking out felt natural. It would have been uncomfortable not to speak out.

He carried that clarity with him into his professional life. When he was hired at Riverside City College, someone told him directly that he had been selected because he was Black — even though he was more qualified than other candidates. He did not walk away from that institution. He went on to become one of only three or four people in the college’s history to earn the rank of Distinguished Professor and was recognized nationally as one of twenty faculty nationwide to receive the ACBSP Teaching Excellence Award.

He outlasted the smallness of that moment by becoming larger than it. But becoming larger than a moment does not mean the moment didn’t happen. And it does not mean the moments have stopped coming.

I asked him plainly, as his friend, to name what is breaking his heart right now. He did not flinch.

“A minority has influenced America to turn its back on its own ideology, on decency itself. That grieves me deeply.”

He is a Nine on the Enneagram — the Peacemaker — and Nines are not typically the ones who reach for the prophetic register. They are wired for harmony, for holding multiple perspectives, for reducing tension rather than naming it. And yet Ajené carries a grief about racial injustice that he does not minimize or set aside. The two things coexist in him: the genuine desire for peace, and the refusal to purchase that peace at the cost of silence.

He told me that he struggles. That he experiences depression at times. That watching the erosion of spaces where people on the margins were beginning to find room — watching that happen in real time, in a country whose stated ideals he has spent his life embodying — presses on him in ways that are not always easy to carry. He said this without drama, without performance, with the same steadiness he brings to everything. Which, I think, made it land harder.

In the Six Seconds emotional intelligence framework, one of the deepest competencies is what they call “increasing empathy” — the capacity to genuinely enter another person’s experience, not just understand it intellectually. Ajené has developed this to a rare degree. He extends it even toward those causing harm, drawing on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s concept of “sincere ignorance” — the idea that some people do harm not from malice but from the limits of what they have been willing to see. He holds space for that distinction without surrendering his clarity about the harm itself.

That is a sophisticated and costly kind of empathy. It requires you to stay open without becoming numb. It requires you to show grace without pretending things are fine. Howard Thurman, who walked closely with the grief of his people and still wrote about the luminous possibility of human encounter across difference, described something similar: the discipline of seeing the person inside the ideology without excusing the ideology. Ajené practices this. It costs him something every time.

“The good people in my life who are trying to live reflectively and do important work — they are what keeps the pilot light lit.”

He does not sustain that kind of openness alone. He draws on the people around him — friends, collaborators, the daily presence of those who are choosing, in their own lives, to do the harder thing. He draws on what he calls ancestral energies — the sense that he is held by something larger and older than his present circumstances, a living connection to those who walked this road before him. He draws on rest: not collapse but the intentional return to breath, to presence, to the moment that is here.

And he draws on the conviction that the work of justice is necessary even when it does not produce visible results. “Even if it only changes one person’s perspective,” he said. There is no calculation of return in that sentence. There is only the clarity of calling — the same clarity that walked a teenager to a principal’s office in the face of threats, the same clarity that stayed at a college that had diminished him and built something remarkable there anyway.

Toward the end of our conversation, I asked him what he would say to someone watching who wonders whether there is a place for them — someone standing at the edge of a room, uncertain whether they are welcome, uncertain whether their presence matters. His answer was quiet and unhurried and direct.

“Fear wants you to hold back. But if you are called to live your purpose, have faith that the calling knows your direction. The call, even as a whisper, is more powerful than the fear you are experiencing.”

I have heard a lot of encouragement in my years of work in the EQ and formation space. Most of it is well-meant but lands lightly. This did not land lightly. It landed the way things land when the person speaking to them has earned the right to say them — when the words come not from aspiration but from having stood in that place, in that fear, and taken the next step anyway.

He is in his winter season now — spacious, steady, deep. He hopes for more presence over productivity, more wisdom than certainty, more love over fear, more accompaniment over expertise. He is done, he said, trying to become more. He is learning to become enough.

Three conversations with this man. Three movements of a life still very much in motion. The formation that made him. The work that holds him. And the fire that, even in winter, has not gone out.

If you are doing hard work in difficult conditions — work for justice, work for belonging, work that nobody may be watching — he is speaking to you. The whisper is louder than the fear. He would know. To get in touch with Ajene use this link. ajene@donajene.com

If this conversation touched something in you, we invite you to explore how emotional intelligence and spiritual formation can deepen your own capacity for courage and presence at spiritofeq.com.

Peace and every good.

spiritofeq.com/blog & mystical seeker.substack.com

The Work That Holds Everything Together

/0 Comments/in , /by

A CONVERSATION WITH DR. DON AJENÉ WILCOXSON · PART TWO OF THREE

A Man Who Stands in the Room

On teaching, spiritual direction, and what it means to carry many callings at once

There is a question I have wanted to ask Ajené for years, and as we continue our 3 part conversation I finally asked it when we sat down together: what is the connective tissue across everything you do? Because from where I sit, the list is remarkable. Distinguished Professor at Riverside City College — recently elevated to Professor Emeritus after more than three decades. Spiritual director. Six Seconds EQ faculty. Enneagram teacher. Minister. Business consultant. Dream worker trained in the Jungian mystical tradition at the Haden Institute. Scuba diver, salsa dancer, Lego builder, student of classical guitar.

He smiled at the question. Then he said something I have been turning over ever since.

“Emotional intelligence is intertwined with who I am at a soul level. One moves the other. From this perspective, I am passionate about living and teaching how to experience a soul-centered emotionally intelligent life.”

That is the connective tissue. Not a set of skills or roles, but a way of being — the conviction that what we feel and what we believe and how we treat the people in front of us are not separate compartments but a single integrated life. Everything Ajené does flows from that integration.

The classroom is where I have seen him described most often by others, and the descriptions are strikingly consistent. His dean at RCC said he has a natural ability to connect with his students — that he “allows students to find solace in his presence when they are struggling.” The Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs recognized him with their Teaching Excellence Award; he was one of only twenty faculty nationwide to receive it that year. But when you ask Ajené what he is doing in the classroom, he does not talk about pedagogy. He talks about presence.

“The classroom is the students’ space, not mine,” he told me. “I enter their space with respect. I leave my own baggage outside the door so I can meet them where they are.” His approach is rooted in listening rather than answers — in the recognition that every person arriving in that room is carrying something, and that learning cannot happen until the person feels held.

This is, at its core, an emotional intelligence practice. In the Six Seconds model, the capacity to “increase empathy” — to genuinely enter another person’s experience before responding to it — is one of the deepest and most difficult competencies to develop. Ajené has built a classroom around it. And notably, he has done this in a business and entrepreneurship department, which is not the first place most people would look for this kind of formation work. That gap between where it is expected and where he practices it is, I think, part of the point.

The spiritual direction practice carries the same posture into a different room. Ajené works with people across Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, and no-tradition backgrounds — a range that reflects his own formation. He grew up with a mother who was Jehovah’s Witness, a father who was Buddhist, a grandmother who was Baptist, an uncle who was Muslim, and a Catholic school. His doctorate from New York Theological Seminary was in interfaith, inter-spiritual, and intercultural theology — not because he chose a specialty, but because he was already living at that intersection and needed language for it.

He describes his approach to spiritual diversity through a Baha’i image: the most beautiful garden is a mixture of flowers. He is not interested in resolving difference into uniformity. He is interested in what each tradition offers to the whole — and in holding space wide enough that a person from any background can find their own ground.

“The most beautiful gardens are a mixture of flowers. I see my own spiritual life that way — enriched by every stream, not threatened by any of them.”

His work as a Narrative Enneagram teacher sits at the center of all of this. The Narrative tradition is distinctive in that it asks real people to speak from their own lived experience of a type — not to have a type explained to them, but to hear from those who inhabit it. Ajené is a Nine, the Peacemaker, and he brings to that work a rare self-awareness about both the gift and the cost of his type. Nines tend to minimize their own needs and giftedness in service of harmony. They absorb the priorities of others. They can mistake self-erasure for humility.

When I asked him where his Nine-ness serves him most and where it costs him most, he was characteristically honest. The gift: the capacity to enter any room and genuinely see every person in it, to hold multiple realities at once without needing to collapse them into a winner. The cost: the temptation to smooth over things that need to be said, to defer his own voice when it is exactly his voice that is required. He is aware of both. That awareness is itself the work.

He describes his current life season as winter — and he is careful to define what he means. Not decline. Not retreat. Spaciousness. The steadiness that comes from having built something over decades and knowing now what matters. He hopes, he told me, for more presence over productivity, more wisdom than certainty, more accompaniment over expertise. And the phrase that has stayed with me: not trying to become more but learning to become enough.

That phrase does a particular kind of work on me, because it runs counter to almost everything our culture tells us about professional life. Enough is not a word our productivity-saturated age handles well. But for a man who has earned Distinguished Professor status and a national teaching award and a doctorate and a spiritual direction practice and three decades of student relationships — for that man to say he is learning to become enough — that is not resignation. That is a different kind of ambition entirely.

There is a thread in the contemplative tradition — I am thinking of Thomas Merton, of Howard Thurman, of the desert fathers and mothers — about the movement from doing to being, from accumulation to presence. Ajené is living that transition with his eyes open. He knows what season he is in. And he is choosing to inhabit it rather than fight it.

In our next conversation, we will go to the harder places. The grief he carries about racial injustice. The threats he faced in high school for speaking up. The discrimination he encountered at the institution where he would go on to build one of the most distinguished careers in its history. And his word — direct and unhurried — to the people standing at the edge of the room, wondering whether there is a place for them.

But here, in this middle movement, I want to simply name what I see when I look at his life whole: a man who has refused, across decades and contexts, to let his work be less than his faith. That refusal is its own kind of witness.

To get in touch with Ajene use this link. mailto:ajene@donajene.com

If you are curious about how emotional intelligence and the Enneagram can deepen your own integration of work, faith, and presence, we would love to continue the conversation at spiritofeq.com.

Peace and every good.

 

When the Map Runs Out: Finding Your Way Through the Desert In-Between

/0 Comments/in , /by

When the Map Runs Out: Finding Your Way Through the Desert In-Between

On liminal seasons, sacred disorientation, and the slow work of becoming

There is a moment — if you have ever been truly lost — when the map in your hand stops making sense. The road it promises isn’t there. The landmarks don’t match. And you realize, with a strange mix of dread and something almost like relief, that you have entered unmapped territory.

That is the desert. Not necessarily sand and scorching heat, though those images carry real weight across ancient wisdom traditions. The desert is any season where the familiar landmarks disappear — where the identity you carried into a transition no longer fits, and the one you will carry out has not yet taken shape. Theologians and contemplatives have long called it the wilderness. Anthropologist Arnold van Gennep named it liminality, from the Latin limen, meaning threshold. You are on the threshold. Neither here nor there. The door is open, but you haven’t stepped through.

I have lived in that doorway. In different seasons, I found myself between jobs, between marriages, and navigating the slow aftermath of a health crisis — like pancreatitis, which has a way of stripping everything to bare essentials with very little ceremony. Each loss arrived not as a single blow but as a kind of systemic unraveling. What I thought I knew about myself, about my direction, about what I was building — all of it came into question at once.

What I did not expect was that the desert would become a teacher.

⸻

The Threshold Has a Name

Liminal space is the technical name for the in-between — the transitional zone that exists between what was and what will be. Van Gennep first mapped it in his study of rites of passage: every significant human transition, he observed, moves through three phases. There is separation from the old identity, a liminal period of disorientation and becoming, and eventually reincorporation into a new form.

The middle phase — the liminal — is not a waiting room. It is a crucible.

 

Ancient traditions knew this. The Hebrew Bible is full of desert wandering — forty years for a people who needed to become something they were not yet. Moses on Sinai. Elijah under the broom tree. Jesus in the wilderness before the beginning of his public ministry. The desert, in these stories, is never incidental. It is the point. Something essential is being formed that could not have been formed any other way.

The desert fathers and mothers — those early Christian monastics who literally fled to the Egyptian wilderness in the third and fourth centuries — went to the desert on purpose. They understood that the stripping of comfort was not punishment but preparation. What could not be heard in the noise of ordinary life could sometimes be heard in the silence of the barren places.

“The desert is unadorned. It removes noise and clutter allowing you to reevaluate your values and focus on what is truly essential.”

I did not choose my desert. Most of us don’t. But I did, eventually, choose how to inhabit it.

⸻

What the Desert Actually Does

There is a temptation, when you are in a liminal season, to treat it as a problem to be solved. To scramble for the next thing, the next role, the next relationship — anything to end the suspension. I understand that impulse deeply. The in-between is uncomfortable in ways that are hard to articulate to people who are not in it.

 

 

But the desert has purposes that cannot be rushed.

It strips away self-reliance. When the external scaffolding of identity falls away — the job title, the relationship, the health you assumed — you are brought into contact with something deeper. Who are you when you are not who you were? That question, honestly held, is one of the most spiritually generative questions a person can carry.

It establishes roots. A plant in the desert sends its root system down far deeper than plants in well-watered soil. It must, to survive. Liminal seasons do something similar in us. The roots we grow in the in-between often reach depths we would never have explored in ordinary seasons.

It offers distillation. The desert is ruthlessly clarifying. What matters to you? What were you carrying that was never really yours to carry? What were you building toward that came from someone else’s vision for your life? The desert asks these questions quietly and persistently, and if you are still enough to hear them, the answers begin to come.

During my own desert season, I found myself returning again and again to contemplative practices — extended periods of silence, long walks without destination. Not as escape, but as a form of listening. I was learning to let the quiet do its work.

The emotional intelligence framework Lynette and I work with at spirit of EQ has a concept that became very real to me during this time: the difference between reaction and response. In a liminal season, there is enormous pressure to react — to fill the silence, to fix the disorientation, to manufacture certainty. Learning to pause, to stay present to what is really happening rather than what you fear might happen, is one of the deepest EQ practices I know. And the desert is where I learned it at a cellular level.

⸻

Learning to Look for Small Signs of Life

One of the most important practices I developed in those seasons was what I can only describe as desert botany — the discipline of looking for small signs of life in apparently barren ground.

The desert is never as empty as it first appears. It is full of life that has adapted to scarcity, that blooms in small and unexpected ways, that knows how to wait. When I stopped looking for the dramatic turnaround — the moment when everything would resolve — and started looking for the small green shoots, something shifted.

A conversation that went deeper than I expected. A morning of clarity after weeks of fog. A friendship that appeared out of nowhere and offered exactly what was needed. A passage from a desert father that named something I hadn’t been able to name.

Julian of Norwich, writing from her own experience of suffering and disorientation, offered words I returned to often: that all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well. Not as denial of the present difficulty, but as an orientation toward a goodness that exists beyond the current view. The desert does not last forever. It has a purpose, and when that purpose is accomplished, a new season comes.

But the new season is shaped by how we inhabit the desert. Those who fight it or flee it arrive depleted. Those who learn to dwell in it — not comfortably, but honestly — often arrive at the other side with something they could not have acquired any other way.

Desert Journal Worksheet Link

⸻

A Practice for the In-Between: The Three Questions

This exercise is best done slowly, with a journal or open space for reflection. Allow at least twenty minutes. There are no right answers — only honest ones.

The desert fathers practiced a form of structured self-inquiry they called examen — a slow, honest review of what was present, what was absent, and what was stirring beneath the surface. This exercise draws on that tradition.

Settle first. Before you begin, take three slow breaths. Release the urgency of solving anything. You are here to notice, not to fix.

Question One: What has been stripped away?

Name, without judgment, the things that have fallen away in this season — roles, relationships, certainties, identities. Don’t evaluate whether their loss is deserved or fair. Simply name them.

Question Two: What remains?

When the stripping has been named, turn your attention to what has not been taken. What is still true? What in you has endured? These are often the things that matter most — the ones the desert is revealing rather than removing.

Question Three: What small sign of life can you see today?

Not a resolution. Not a next step. Just one small sign — a glimmer, a green shoot, a moment of clarity or connection. If you cannot see one today, that is honest information too. Write it down.

⸻

The Map Will Come

I am on the other side of that desert for now — or perhaps more accurately, I am in a different landscape, carrying what I learned in the in-between. The job that came after that season shaped Lynette and me into what we now call spirit of EQ. The health crisis that stripped my certainty about my physical resilience also deepened my empathy for people navigating their own fragility. The relational losses became — slowly, painfully, eventually — the soil from which something more honest grew.

I don’t want to romanticize the desert. It was hard. There were stretches of genuine desolation. But I also don’t want to minimize what it gave me — a set of roots that go deeper than anything I had before, a clarity about what matters, and a capacity to sit with others in their own liminal seasons without needing to rush them out the door.

If you are in the in-between right now — between who you were and who you are becoming, in a season of dryness, disorientation, or loss — I want you to know two things. First: you are not lost. You are in unmapped territory, which is a different thing entirely. And second: the map will come. It is being drawn, even now, by the roots you are growing.

The threshold is not the end of the journey. It is the most important part of it.

⸻

Peace and every good.

 

The Chairman Thought I Wasn’t Paying Attention

/0 Comments/in , /by

Picture a waiting room. You’ve been there five minutes, and without meaning to, you’ve already written a story about everyone in it — the man with the expensive watch who checks his phone every thirty seconds, the woman with paint on her jeans who hasn’t looked up from her book, the teenager in the corner with earbuds in like armor. You haven’t spoken to any of them. You may never speak to any of them. But somewhere in the architecture of your brain, a file has opened on each one, and it is filling itself in without your permission.

This is what we do. It is fast, it is mostly unconscious, and — here is the part that costs us — we tend to trust it.

Confirmation bias is the cognitive shortcut that turns a glance into a verdict. Once we’ve formed an impression, we filter everything through it, collecting evidence that confirms what we already believe and quietly discarding what doesn’t fit. The psychologist Leon Festinger spent decades helping us understand how fiercely the mind protects its working assumptions — not because it is lazy, but because uncertainty is expensive. The brain is a prediction machine, and prediction requires categories. The trouble is that people are not categories. They are houses you have never been inside, and the front door tells you almost nothing about what’s in the rooms.

It causes me to think about the ways I’ve been filed.

I was asked to lead a financial committee for an international organization. In the first meeting, I was the quietest person in the room. I tend to listen before I speak, to let the space fill before I take up any of it. I was watching. I was also reading — the numbers that weren’t adding up, the relationships between people that were bent in ways that take time to see, the kind of bent that looks like warmth from a distance but reads differently when you’re close and paying attention. Embezzlement. Alliances that were costing the organization more than they were protecting it. I could see it, and I called it out.

The room exploded.

What I learned later — from the chairman himself — was that he had watched me sit quietly when he asked me to be on “the committee” I wasn’t really present and could not tell what was going on. That my stillness read as absence. That I could be managed, even manipulated, and that bringing in someone so apparently passive had been, in his mind, a calculated move toward a controllable outcome.

He had filed me. Quickly, confidently, and very wrong.

I am not the first person this has happened to. You are not either.

Think about the moments you’ve been looked past — the job interview where someone’s eyes glazed before you finished your first sentence, the meeting where your idea was ignored until someone else said it twenty minutes later, the day you walked into a room in the wrong clothes for the assumptions people had already formed about you. Your hair too natural, your accent too layered, your stillness too unreadable, your energy too large. The label arrives before you do, and it does not ask for your input. It does not ask for your history, your interior life, your gifts, or your grief. It just lands, and it sticks, and quietly it shapes every interaction that follows.

The philosopher Martin Buber, my fav, spent much of his intellectual life writing about what he called I-Thou and I-It encounters — the difference between meeting someone as a full subject, irreducible and alive, and relating to them as an object, a role, a function, a category. Most of our daily encounters, Buber admitted honestly, are I-It. The world moves fast; we cannot hold everyone in full attention at every moment. But the cost is real. We move through life surrounded by people we have reduced to fit the size of our assumptions, and we call that knowing them.

The label is not the person. The label is a shortcut we mistake for a destination.

There is a practice I’ve come to think of as staying curious past the first sentence. Not the performance of curiosity — the enthusiastic head-tilt and the “Tell me more” — but the actual discipline of holding your impression lightly, the way you’d hold a rough draft: with interest, not authority. And this is what real coaches do. It tells you something. It does not tell you everything. The quiet person in the room is watching. The loud one is sometimes afraid. The polished one is held together with things you cannot see. The disheveled one has already solved a problem you haven’t noticed yet. Every label you apply is a door you close, and some of those doors open onto entire worlds.

What Josh Freeman of the emotional intelligence company Six Seconds has trained us to do here is not to have certainty but curiosity — not the confident read, but the open question. It asks us to notice what our brain wants to do with a stranger in the first thirty seconds and then, gently, invite it to wait. To ask a question we don’t already know the answer to. To sit with not-knowing long enough to find out who’s in the room.

The chairman’s assumption about me wasn’t malicious. It was human. But it was a choice — and choice is where practice lives.

When I left that boardroom after the explosion, I wasn’t angry. I was, in a strange way, grateful — because what had just happened was the clearest possible evidence that the quiet person had been paying the most attention. The label had failed. The person it was attached to had not. I walked out still whole, still present, still myself. And whatever the chairman thought he had managed had just become the thing that managed him.

That is always the risk when we label. The person inside the box tends to be larger than the box. And eventually — not always, not on our timeline, but eventually — they will show you.

Mystery Workbook Link Here

So the next time you sit across from someone, in a meeting, at a table, on a commute, in a waiting room, try this: let them be unknown a little longer. Let the file stay open. Notice what your brain wants to do and then invite it to wait. Ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

The person across from you is always a mystery.

That is not a problem to solve. It is an invitation to pay attention.

Come continue the conversation in the community where these ideas live — [link here].

Peace and every good.

Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957)

Martin Buber, I and Thou (1923; trans. Walter Kaufmann, 1970)

From the Frats to the Hippies: How Not Belonging Taught Me to See

/0 Comments/in , /by

Good Enough for This Life

Do you ever think about whether you are good enough for this life?

I ask it that way on purpose — not “good enough at your job” or “good enough for the relationship” but for this life, the whole thing, the fact of being a particular kind of person moving through a world that was mostly built for a different kind of person. It is a question I have carried for a long time. And I want to tell you where it came from, because the origin of this story matters.

Picture a room full of people who seem to know where to stand. You are at the edge, not by design but because the middle arrived too fast and too loud, because you are already receiving the room — not just the nearest conversation but every conversation, the ambient emotional temperature, the undercurrent of music, the way the light is sitting differently on one side than the other. You are cataloging all of it without meaning to, because that is simply how your mind moves.

I know that room. I spent most of my adolescence looking for the group that would finally let me in — not merely tolerate me but receive what I was bringing. I tried the frats, with their crisp hierarchies and their belonging-by-exclusion, their handshakes and their unwritten ledgers of who counted. I tried the greasers, leather and bravado, a different code but a code all the same, enforced with the same quiet ferocity. I tried the soul brothers, drawn by the warmth and the music and the sense that community here might stretch wide enough to hold more kinds of people. And finally, tentatively, I found the hippies — loose-structured, philosophically suspicious of tight categories, practicing a kind of radical acceptance that was imperfect and sometimes chaotic but real. They were the closest thing to a fit I had found. And even there, I was only partly in.

What I didn’t understand then, standing at the edges of all those circles, was that the thing keeping me out was also the thing that made me able to see.

I have dyslexia and ADHD. Together. Which, if you’ve lived it, means the mind doesn’t run one stream of consciousness but several — simultaneous, layered, cross-referencing, sometimes chasing each other into corners before snapping back. The squirrel jokes are accurate. Mid-sentence, mid-thought, something peripheral catches your sight and suddenly you are somewhere else entirely, following a thread that no one else in the room can see.

What I couldn’t name as a teenager was the experience of receiving a conversation on six channels at once — the words someone was saying and the words they weren’t saying, the slight tension in their shoulders, the way their story didn’t quite line up with their eyes, the ambient emotional weather of the room, the connection to something said three exchanges ago that suddenly mattered now. All of it arriving at the same time. All of it real.

This was not comfortable. For years it was almost unbearable — the sensation of always arriving sideways to the conversation, unable to slow the intake down enough to meet people where they were. I tried to explain it, and it came out tangled. I tried to belong and it came out strange. Large parties still overwhelm me quickly; the signal-to-noise ratio collapses under too many inputs running at once, and I learned early to find the wall, the corner, the quieter edge where the room could be read rather than absorbed whole. And so, the question I carried — quietly, persistently, the way you carry things you cannot put down — was: Am I good enough for this?

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, developed in the early 1980s, named what many people had quietly suspected: that intelligence is not a single axis running from less to more, but a wide range of distinct capacities — linguistic, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and more — that show up differently in different people, and are cultivated or suppressed depending on the environments those people move through. Ned Hallowell, who has written about ADHD from the inside for decades, describes it as a Ferrari engine with bicycle brakes: enormous processing power that simply needs a different kind of structure to channel it well. What both are pointing toward is this — the brain that struggles in one environment is often extraordinarily capable in another. Not as consolation. As fact.

The multiple streams I couldn’t turn off at parties became, in smaller rooms and deeper conversations, something closer to precision. I could hear what people meant underneath what they said. I could hold several threads at once and notice where they crossed without losing either. I could sit with someone in confusion and not rush them toward clarity, because I knew from the inside what it felt like to have the mind moving in many directions at once and not yet know which one was true. The gift and the difficulty were the same thing, running on the same hardware, expressed differently depending on context.

I think now about that teenager trying the frats and the greasers and the soul brothers and the hippies — not as someone who failed to find a home, but as someone learning, by accumulation and by refusal, what belonging required. It wasn’t a group that would tolerate him. It was a context in which his actual nature could be useful. The hippies came closest because they had, almost by philosophy, released the requirement to be one thing, to arrive in a straight line, to present a coherent and unified self at all times. They were practicing, imperfectly and sometimes chaotically, the idea that a loose structure could hold more kinds of people and more kinds of minds.

What I do now — working with people around emotional intelligence, around the interior life, around the persistent gap between who we are and who we think we should be — is built directly from those years of standing at the edges of rooms and learning to read them. The overwhelm at large gatherings is still real. The squirrels still appear. But I have learned to trust the multiple streams, to follow rather than fight them, to understand that the signal is often in the thing that looks like noise. Observation turns out to be one of the rarest things one person can offer another. And it was built, in me, precisely by not being comfortable in the middle.

So: do you ever think about whether you are good enough for this life?

Edge Of Room Workbook

Here is the reframe I want to offer — not a reassurance, not “of course you are, everyone is,” which is kind but lame and thin. Instead, the question assumes a standard that was probably never built for you. The thing you experience as a deficit — the way you process or move or think or feel that doesn’t match the room — may be exactly the mechanism by which you will eventually see most clearly.

I still sometimes find myself at the edge of a room, taking in more than I was asked to take in, following threads no one else is following. But I am no longer trying to get to the middle.

The edge, it turns out, is a very good place to observe from. And observation, it turns out, is exactly what most people are waiting for someone to offer them.

If this landed somewhere in you, the conversation continues at [Substack/Mighty Networks] — a community that keeps asking these same questions together.

Peace and every good.

Beholding: Learning to See What’s Always There

/0 Comments/in /by

The Art of Beholding: Learning to See What Has Always Been There

There is a particular quality of light that appears in the late afternoon of an Ohio April. It arrives low and amber, slanting through leaves that have already begun their eager growth to bright greens. If you are moving fast enough — hurrying to a car, glancing at a phone, managing the thousand small demands of a day — you will miss it entirely. Not because it isn’t there. Because you haven’t learned to behold it.

Beholding is an old word. It carries weight in it, a kind of gravity. We use “seeing” now, or “looking,” but beholding suggests something more — a sustained, willing act of attention that changes both the one who gazes and the thing being gazed upon. It is, in its truest form, a practice. And like all practices, it has a history.

An Ancient Hunger

Long before cell phones, before television, before the printing press turned information into a torrent, human beings struggled to pay attention. The desert fathers and mothers of fourth-century Egypt walked out into the Saharan silence precisely because the noise of Alexandria made attention impossible. They were not fleeing the world so much as trying to see it. To behold it, without the distortion of constant stimulation.

The medieval contemplatives — Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich — built entire theologies around the act of sustained looking. Julian, sealed in a small room attached to a church in Norwich, spent decades beholding a series of visions she called her “showings.” She looked at them not once but repeatedly across a lifetime, returning, noticing new things, going deeper. Her great work, Revelations of Divine Love, is less a transcript of mystical experience than a record of what happens when someone refuses to look away.

What they all understood — and what we are slowly, painfully rediscovering — is that attention is not passive. It is not what happens when you have nothing else to do. It is, as spiritual writer Amy Frykholm describes it, a form of discipline every bit as demanding as any physical practice. “The practice of beholding,” she writes, “takes desire and discipline.” The desire is the easier part. We often want to see more deeply, feel more fully, live with more presence. The discipline is where most of us quietly give up.

A Story About a Garden

I remember when my grandmother kept a garden in the backyard of a house in a small Michigan town up in the thumb area. It was not a grand garden — a few beds, a few tomato stakes listing to one side, herbs growing in a few terra cotta pots along the fence. But she tended it with a quality of attention I didn’t understand as a child and have spent most of my adult life trying to remember these times of quiet and what they meant.

She would go out in the mornings, before it was fully light, and simply stand in it. Not weeding, not harvesting, not doing anything that could be explained by utility. Just standing. Sometimes she held a cup of coffee. Sometimes she didn’t. I asked her once what she was doing. She thought about it for a moment and said: I’m watching it wake up. WOW!

I thought she was being poetic. Now I think she was being precise.

She had learned, through years of practice, to behold. To give her full attention to something outside herself without immediately needing to act on it, explain it, or use it for something else. She was, in the language of the contemplatives, practicing presence. And the garden — the wet soil smell, the hum of early insects, the way light moved through bean leaves like green stained glass — the garden held her in return.

The Difficulty Is the Point

Frykholm names the struggle honestly: “Don’t underestimate the paradigm shift required for the act of beholding, just how different it is from our everyday lives and just how shiny and compelling our everyday life will seem when we propose pausing.”

This is not a problem technology created. Technology has sharpened it, given it new urgency, made distraction faster and more elegant. But the problem itself is ancient. The mind that wanders from prayer in a stone monastery cell and the mind that reaches for its phone in the middle of a sunset are doing the same thing: fleeing the discomfort of full presence.

Because presence is uncomfortable. To truly behold something — a person, a landscape, an idea, a grief — is to become vulnerable to it. You cannot behold something and remain entirely in control of what it means to you or what it does to you. This is why beholding is an act of courage as much as attention.

And then there is the second difficulty Frykholm names, the one that arrives even after we’ve managed to sit still. Our own thoughts. The internal narrator who cannot stop generating commentary, to-do lists, memories, anxieties. “Any act of attention is not a sustained experiencing,” she writes. “It’s a series of successive efforts to bring attention back to the same thing, considering it again and again.”

This reframe is quietly revolutionary for us. We tend to judge ourselves harshly for the mind that wanders — as though a wandering mind is evidence of failure. But Frykholm describes the return itself as the practice. Every time you bring your attention back, you are training something. You are doing the work. The wandering is not the obstacle. The returning is the path.

What Beholding Makes of Us

My grandmother died on a cold day in November. The garden had long gone to frost by then. But on the morning of her funeral, I went outside and stood in my own backyard — not her backyard, mine, a inner city lot quite different then hers — and tried to do what I had watched her do. I tried to behold. Her passing touched a part of me that needed to wake up.

The sky was the gray of Midwestern November, cold, stark, the kind that seems to press down gently on everything beneath it. A cardinal landed on the fence, bright as a wound, and regarded me with one black eye. I noticed my thoughts moving immediately toward meaning — a sign, she’s here, she’s saying goodbye — and I watched myself doing it, watched the mind rushing to make the moment useful, to metabolize it into narrative.

So, I came back. To the cardinal. To the gray sky. To the cold that was starting to find the gaps in my coat.

And for a few seconds — Frykholm says sometimes it is only a few seconds — something opened. The fence and the bird and the sky and my grief and the cold and the smell of dead leaves all existed together without needing to be explained or arranged. I was held by it.

“Whatever you behold,” Frykholm writes, “you eventually become beholden to. You enter into a love relation.”

This is the fruit of the practice: not escape from the world, not transcendence of the ordinary, but a deepening into it. A recognition of what has always been present, waiting for us to slow down long enough to receive it. The interconnected, openhearted world, as she puts it, welcomes us — not as strangers who finally arrived, but as the ones it has been waiting for all along.

My grandmother knew this. The desert fathers knew it. Julian knew it, sealed in her small stone room, looking and looking and looking.

The light is still there, amber and low, arriving every October afternoon.

We are still learning to see it.

Peace and every good

 

As cited by the Center for Action and Contemplation.

Chicago/Turabian: Frykholm, Amy. Journey to the Wild Heart. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2025, pages 28–30.

“The Gap Between Good Intentions and Real Justice”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Dr. King, “Sincere Ignorance,” and the Work of Becoming Intelligent

There’s a moment I keep returning to—quiet, ordinary, and surprisingly revealing. A conversation starts with goodwill. People want fairness. They want safety. They want to be decent. Then the same pattern appears facts arrive without their context, a few details get trimmed, and the outcome starts to feel inevitable. What stays with me afterward isn’t only the disagreement. It’s the question: Who is willing to look closer?

Growing up in Detroit in the ’60s, I learned early that social justice isn’t abstract—it’s something you watch unfold in real time. July 1967 lives in me like a knot that never fully unties. I was playing ball at Palmer Park when I looked east and saw smoke rising from the direction of my house. My body understood something was wrong before my mind could name it. I ran home through smoke and fire, searching for friends and neighbors—and finding some of them too late.

The unrest of not looking closer had finally exploded in riot.

I also lived next door to neighbors who looked different than me but carried the same human needs: fear when things worsened, hope when someone promised change, love for family, and a dignity they never asked anyone to grant—only to recognize.

That’s why Dr. King’s words land so gently and so powerfully—not as condemnation, but as an invitation to wake up.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. We have a responsibility to be intelligent.”

Dr. King wasn’t only warning about cruelty. He was naming something subtler: sincerity that feels honest, and conscience that grows numb—not because people lack intelligence, but because they avoid the work required to use it. This isn’t merely about knowing. It’s about becoming the kind of person who refuses to let comfort masquerade as truth—even when the truth costs you something.

An Invitation into Three Kinds of Becoming

If we approach Dr. King with humility, his warning opens into an invitation:

  1. Becoming the kind of person who can learn without self-protection.
  2. Becoming the kind of person who can keep loving while seeking clarity.
  3. Becoming the kind of person who treats truth as a responsibility—not something to be avoided.

So, let’s take Dr. King’s phrase “sincere ignorance” seriously, not as a label to throw at others, but as a mirror—one that helps us notice where we may be missing something, and where we can grow.

Sincere Ignorance: When Not Knowing Feels Like Innocence

Sincere ignorance can happen even with the best intentions. It often begins quietly—with being handed only a portion of the story. We learn in fragments: family traditions, school lessons, community conversations, headlines. When that information is offered as complete, it can feel natural to accept it as reality. Over time, a partial account can solidify into a belief system—not because someone has thought deeply, but because they were never given a reason to question it.

“Ignorance” here doesn’t mean wrongdoing. It often means you simply didn’t have access to the full record—you weren’t trained to doubt yourself in healthy ways, and you weren’t offered the better questions.

And yet—here is the invitation—staying in that ignorance can still carry harm, even without intent.

Sincere ignorance disguises itself as innocence. Confirmation bias works quietly: we notice what aligns with our assumptions and overlook what doesn’t. We confuse “no doubt” with “truth.” In Detroit, I remember how hard it was to make meaning fast enough—how emotions demanded answers, but language didn’t arrive in time. I carried confusion that never became clarity. Dr. King’s phrase invites us to notice that gap: between what we feel, what we assume, and what we know.

Here’s the layer that makes this personal rather than merely intellectual: sometimes sincere ignorance causes harm through kindness. You respond with genuine empathy to someone who needs help—but the facts you’re relying on are trimmed. You’re responding to a portrayal rather than to the full context. Your compassion, guided by incomplete knowledge, may strengthen the very harm you hoped to prevent.

The invitation is not to shame people for what they didn’t know. It’s to learn how to stay compassionate without becoming careless. Becoming intelligent, in this sense, is how we protect love from becoming blind.

Conscientious Stupidity: When We Could Know and Choose Not To

Dr. King’s second phrase carries more weight, because it points to choice. Learning is possible. Clarity is available. Evidence exists. But discomfort protects comfort.

In daily life, this can look like postponing that never ends—asking for proof indefinitely while the pattern stays visible; insisting everything is too complicated until responsibility disappears; debating endlessly while inaction becomes normal.

Conscientious stupidity shifts the emphasis from not knowing to defending not knowing. It can look like demanding receipts while refusing to examine the receipts already within reach—or choosing abstraction over action, talking about nuance while ignoring what harm looks like on the ground.

It often sounds reasonable. It can wear the mask of “I’m just being cautious,” while quietly avoiding the steps that would test the belief.

But I want to keep this an invitation, not a threat. Dr. King isn’t asking, “Are you bad?” He’s asking, “Are you willing to wake up?”

A Spiritual Lens: What Fruit Are You Producing?

Howard Thurman’s approach to scripture offers a grounding question I find spiritually honest: What fruit is this teaching producing? Does it deepen love in action? Or does it produce obedience without transformation?

That question matters here because becoming intelligent is not only cognitive—it’s spiritual. Faith that cannot bear evidence will eventually become a shelter for denial. But faith that can bear evidence becomes a doorway to courage.

The invitation is to let your theology, your spiritual commitments, and your daily habits be tested by fruit. Are you becoming more loving and more accountable? Or more defended and less open?

What “Be Intelligent” Looks Like in Practice

Becoming intelligent isn’t cold or superior. It’s love with clarity.

  1. Pause before repeating a claim. Ask: Where did this come from? What context might be missing?
  2. Seek the full record. Look for credible evidence—not only persuasive stories. If a claim matters, the sources should matter too.
  3. Read teachings by their fruit. Ask: What does this lens train me to do? Compassion with courage, or comfort without accountability?
  4. Turn learning into one next right action. Share what you learn respectfully. Support local justice work. Join conversations that welcome both evidence and humanity.

Don’t Stop at Agreement

If this resonates with you, don’t stop there. Dr. King’s warning is an invitation to become awake—to let truth shape conscience, and to move from confusion to action, so love doesn’t stay trapped in good intentions but becomes something people can feel in the world.

Pick one claim you’ve heard often—something you’ve repeated without fully checking. Don’t choose something to debunk. Choose something to understand responsibly. Research it thoroughly, then name one specific change you will make: how you will speak, what you will support, what you will no longer excuse.

Then invite someone else—gently—into the same work. Not by humiliating them, but by modeling what humility looks like: the courage to say, “I might be missing something,” and the willingness to learn anyway.

Sincerity is not enough. Intelligence, in Dr. King’s sense, is responsibility: the courage to look again, to learn, and to act as though what’s true matters—and as though what happens next matters too.

Dr. King’s warning is not a verdict of you doing something wrong. It is a doorway for truth and love to abound.

Peace and every good.

Let Me Listen: Shared Humanity Love

/0 Comments/in , /by

Let Me Listen: A Love Letter to Shared Humanity (and What It Asks of Us

There’s a particular kind of courage in saying: let me listen. Not “let me fix.” Not “let me respond.” Not even “let me impress you with my empathy.” Just… listen.

In a poem by Charles Anthony Silvestri (2022), that invitation becomes the heart of a relationship—between two people, yes, but also between any two humans who have crossed paths and recognized the sacred value of another person’s inner world. I have learned that we do not need to rush to claim space; we ask permission to walk alongside someone for a while, to hear their story, to respect their silence, and to be present long enough that loneliness can loosen its grip.

If you’ve ever felt overlooked, talked over, or trapped in a conversation where you were really just waiting to be heard—this poem may land with surprising force. Because listening is not merely a skill; it’s a form of emotional attention. And emotional attention changes people.

A Brief History of Listening (That Isn’t Just “Being Quiet”)

Listening has been discussed for centuries, but what’s powerful about Silvestri’s poem is how it modernizes the idea: not listening as passive silence but listening as a relational commitment.

  • In many traditions, listening is treated as a spiritual discipline. Ancient teachings often place “attentive listening” at the center of wisdom—because wisdom requires receptivity.
  • In philosophy and ethics, listening becomes a way of acknowledging another person’s reality rather than dismissing it as irrelevant.
  • In psychology, listening is central to connection and mental health. Therapists and counselors often emphasize that feeling truly heard can reduce stress and shame while increasing emotional safety.
  • In communication research, we’ve learned that “active listening” involves behaviors—reflecting feelings, asking clarifying questions, and validating experiences—rather than simply keeping quiet. What we do in Spiritual Direction.

But Silvestri’s poem goes a step further. It frames listening as presence with boundaries: if the other person’s silence is their choice, the listener doesn’t break it. They honor it. That is both an emotional intelligence skill and a relational ethics practice: letting someone control their pacing and their vulnerability.

“We Come from Different Places” Why Listening Begins Before Speech

The poem opens with difference: “We come from different places… on different paths we journey.” This matters. Many of us approach conversation as though common ground is required before empathy can begin. Silvestri suggests the opposite: you can begin connection precisely because people are different. You can honor a person’s path without needing it to match your own.

That’s a subtle shift and a powerful one….

  • Instead of asking, “Does your story make sense to me?” we start with, “What is true for you?”
  • Instead of asking, “What can I say to show I understand?” we ask, “What do you need from me right now?”
  • Instead of rushing to similarity, we slow down to curiosity.

Emotional intelligence begins with awareness—of self, of emotion, of impact. If you’re carrying your own anxiety into the conversation, your listening will become a performance. But if you arrive grounded, you can stay open long enough to see what’s there.

Loneliness Ends When Someone Learns Your Song

Silvestri writes about convergence: “So briefly do our lonely paths converge… Yours and mine, along this human journey.” That line hits me because loneliness isn’t always about being alone. Sometimes it’s about being misread. It’s about feeling like your story doesn’t get recognized.

Then comes one of the most striking phrases in the poem: “what hollow loss to never hear your song.” The metaphor of a “song” is more than romantic language. It implies identity—each person has a unique rhythm, a pattern of hopes and griefs, strengths and wounds. If we never listen deeply enough, we don’t just miss information. We miss meaning.

In real life, this looks like

  • Someone repeating the same emotional truth because nobody responded to it the first time.
  • Someone choosing silence because every previous attempt to share was met with judgment or speed.
  • Someone shrinking themselves to fit the conversation, only to become quieter over time.

Listening restores dignity. It tells a person: You matter enough for me to slow down.

“Let Me Listen” The Emotional Intelligence of Being With

The poem’s repeated refrain— “Let me listen”—isn’t only a request. It’s a method. Listening here includes

  1. Allowing the story to be theirs.

The speaker says: “Your story never has been mine to tell—so let me listen.” This is emotional intelligence at work. Some of us accidentally steal someone’s narrative by translating it into our experiences (“That happened to me too…”). Others appropriate by concluding how the person must feel or what they must have meant. Silvestri’s speaker refuses that impulse. They don’t take over the narrative; they honor the ownership of the voice.

  1. Valuing the whole range of emotion.

“Your triumphs and your tears / Your trials and your fears.” Many people are comfortable with success stories but stumble with pain. Yet real listening includes joy and sorrow. It also means you don’t treat sadness as an inconvenience or “overreaction.” You recognize emotion as information.

  1. Staying present without forcing resolution.

Listening doesn’t always lead to solutions. Sometimes the “help” a person needs is not action but witnessing. Emotional safety often comes from being allowed to feel without being rushed to fix.

  1. Respecting silence as a choice.

“And if a silence is your choice to keep, then I will keep it with you.” This is especially rare. Many conversations become uncomfortable when someone stops talking, and that discomfort pushes the other person to fill space or pressure them for more. But Silvestri suggests something gentler: you can stay in the quiet and still communicate care.

If you’ve ever felt pressured to “say something” while your heart was still assembling its words, you’ll understand why that line matters. Silence is sometimes where grief breathes. Silence can also be where a person regains control after overwhelming.

“Too Long You’ve Waited” Listening Is Also an Act of Repair

The poem concludes with urgency: “Too long you’ve waited, too long, to share your journey, your song—so let me listen.” That “too long” is a mirror. It asks: how many people around us have been waiting—patiently or desperately—for someone to hear them?

Waiting may show up as

  • Being consistently the “strong one,” while everyone else forgets they also need care.
  • Staying agreeable, because honesty has not led to safety in the past.
  • Sharing gradually, as if testing whether the listener will punish vulnerability.

When you truly listen, you don’t just respond to words—you signal that waiting is no longer necessary.

Practice Listening Like You Mean It

So, what can we do with this poem right now—today—with real emotional intelligence, not just inspiration?

Here are three practical actions you can take, whether with a partner, friend, coworker, parent, or even yourself

  1. Choose a listening posture for 10 minutes.

Put your phone away. Don’t plan your reply. Ask one open question: “What part of your story feels most important for me to understand?” Then reflect what you heard: “It sounds like…” and “What I’m noticing is…” Keep going until they say you got it.

  1. Validate the emotion before evaluating the facts.

Try phrases like,

  • “That sounds painful.”
  • “I can see why you’d feel that way.”
  • “Your fear makes sense given what you’ve been through.”

Validation doesn’t mean you agree—it means you respect the person’s internal experience.

  1. Honor silence without panic.

If they go quiet, don’t rush to fill it. Let the quiet exist. You can say: “I’m here. Take your time.” That sentence alone can create safety.

And if you want a simple daily prompt: Listen for the “song.” Ask yourself: What unique rhythm is this person carrying—what are they trying to express that words can’t fully capture?

Make Listening a Way of Loving

Charles Anthony Silvestri’s poem is ultimately a vow. It says: I will not rush you. I will not take your story. I will walk beside you. And if you cannot speak yet, I will stay with your silence.

If we take that seriously, relationships change. Communities change. Even workplaces change—because listening is one of the fastest pathways to trust.

So, here’s your invitation, in the spirit of the poem:

Who in your life has waited too long to be heard?

Choose one person. Give them ten minutes of honest listening this week. Let your presence be the response. And when they share—triumphs, tears, trials, fears—remember, you don’t need to become their hero. You only need to be a safe witness.

Let me listen. Now—go do it.

Peace and every good

We come from different places,
You and I,
on different paths we journey;
let me walk beside you for a while –
let me listen.

So briefly do our lonely paths converge,
Yours and mine,
along this human journey;
what hollow loss to never hear your song –
let me listen.

Let me listen,
let me listen as you tell your story:
Your triumphs and your tears,
Your trials and your fears.
Your story never has been mine to tell –
so let me listen.

And if a silence is your choice to keep,
then I will keep it with you;
as long as we walk together,
You and I,
I will listen.

Too long you’ve waited, too long,
to share your journey, your song –
so let me listen.

             – Charles Anthony Silvestri, 2022

 

 

Numbness, Discernment, and Voting with Care

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sometimes I am just plain numb.

Not in a dramatic, storybook way—no fireworks, no sudden collapse. It’s quieter than that. It feels like driving through fog for days: my hands still move, my calendar still gets filled, my words still come out in the right order. I can answer emails. I can make dinner. I can show up.

But something inside me turns down the brightness.

It’s as if my heart has decided, If I can’t carry all this, I’ll carry less. Do you know what I mean here? Not because I’ve stopped caring—at least not exactly—but because my body seems to be trying to protect me from the cost of caring all at once, for too long, in a world that never stops asking for attention. EVER!

Numbness doesn’t always announce itself. Sometimes it disguises itself as competence. Sometimes it sounds like, “It’s fine,” when what I mean is, “I can’t feel the full weight of this moment and still function.”

Then the information comes.

It doesn’t arrive all at once anymore—it arrives like weather. Right? Headlines. Updates. Breaking news. A constant parade of opinions wrapped in certainty, wrapped in urgency, wrapped like they’re personal medicine for whatever I’m currently hungry for. You don’t even have to choose it. It just finds you. It knows what makes you afraid. It knows what makes you feel righteous. It knows what you’re lonely for.

And somehow it keeps stacking until numbness looks less like rest and more like survival.

I used to think numbness was the opposite of hope. Lately I’m wondering if numbness can be a protective shutoff—not because we stopped caring, but because we’ve been overwhelmed with caring for too many things we can’t fix alone.

And that leads me to a question that keeps waking me up at night:

What can we believe? Anything?

Because belief—at least the kind that’s constantly being pushed at us—doesn’t always arrive through reflection. It arrives through pressure. Through targeting. Through personalization. Through a feed that seems to understand my nerves better than I do.

If everything is designed to convince you, then belief itself becomes slippery. I don’t just weigh information; I experience a kind of emotional tug-of-war. I borrow certainty for relief in the moment. I scroll until I find a voice that makes my feelings sound wise. I trade listening for winning. I trade the slow work of discernment for the quick thrill of being right.

Then the next wave arrives.

And I realize the certainty I leaned on wasn’t built to last inside me. It doesn’t grow roots in my values or my conscience. It just briefly covers the exposed parts of me. It soothes discomfort without earning trust. It can feel true because it feels stabilizing—but stability isn’t the same thing as truth.

What I didn’t fully understand until very recently is that the battle isn’t only “what people believe.” The battle is also the environment that trains my mind to adopt beliefs quickly, intensely, and defensively.

And I’ve felt what that training does to me—especially when I start getting stuck around elections.

I keep thinking about how I decide when everything feels like it’s trying to decide for me.

Not just who wins. Not just what side I’m on. But what I can responsibly believe long enough to vote. I was talking with one of my daughters the other day, and she is pretty dog gone smart, we got into this tug of war over voting, who’s right, who’s wrong. Because there are only two choices, correct? I mean we must stand on that statement, right?

Well, voting isn’t theoretical for me. It’s a real choice with real consequences. And I don’t want numbness to steal my discernment while I’m pretending, I’m just “being realistic.”

I’ve noticed a pattern in myself that I don’t like but can’t ignore when information gets relentless, I start chasing certainty. Then I start getting suspicious. Then I start getting overwhelmed. Then numbness shows up again—not calm, not peace, but a kind of emotional dimming so I don’t have to keep bracing.

It’s not that I can’t think. It’s that my thinking gets hijacked by urgency. Can you hear that? Urgency!

So, I’ve been trying to build a decision process that slows down instead of speeding up—one that treats belief like something I cultivate, not something I grab.

Here are a few shifts that have helped me, at least a little:

1) I check my nervous system before I check the headline.

When I’m tense, my brain reads like a courtroom. I look for evidence that will make me feel safe in my conclusion. If I notice my body is on alert, I don’t scroll as much. I pause long enough to ask: Am I trying to find truth—or trying to calm fear? Those are very different tasks.

2) I separate “credible” from “certain.”

A claim can sound confident and still be unreliable. A person can sound convincing and still be careless. When I’m tempted to treat certainty as proof, I try to look for things that last longer than a moment: consistency, willingness to update, clear sourcing, and an ability to hold up under questions.

3) I let my values be a filter, not a shortcut.

Values matter to me—compassion, justice, truth-seeking. But I’ve learned that values can accidentally become permission slips. So instead of asking, “Does this match my values?” I try to ask, “If this policy is applied in the world, who does it help, who does it harm, what tradeoffs are being ignored?”

4) I make decisions in steps, not in panic.

The election cycle tempts me to compress everything into one anxious sprint: gather all info, feel certain, choose immediately, feel morally resolved. But discernment doesn’t work well under time pressure that’s designed by other people. I’ve started asking myself what I can know enough to make the next small responsible decision—and what I need to postpone until I can look again with better clarity.

5) I treat belief like a draft.

If I notice my belief requires me to reject nuance completely—if it demands, I treat disagreement as stupidity or betrayal—that’s a sign. I want convictions that can survive complexity, not convictions that collapse the moment reality gets complicated.

Numbness and discernment both show up as signals, not enemies. Numbness can mean I’m overloaded. It can mean I need boundaries with my attention. It can mean I’ve absorbed too much conflict with no outlet except more information.

But numbness can also become its own trap: a quiet way of opting out. A way of “not feeling” that looks like neutrality while it quietly reshapes what I’m willing to care about.

I don’t want numbness to decide my vote by dulling my conscience. I don’t want exhaustion to turn into apathy dressed as wisdom.

And this is where my concern returns, again and again—back to elections.

I worry about how easily I can be pulled into certainty that doesn’t actually come from evidence. I worry about how easily my mind can be trained to treat emotion as proof. I worry about how the feed can make every issue feel like a personal referendum on whether I’m good, smart, safe, or right.

I worry that the louder the certainty gets, the more I may reach for it simply to stop the feeling of being unmoored.

When I think about voting, I try to come back to a simpler question than “Who is correct?”—a harder question that might protect my integrity:

What would I choose if I weren’t being rushed into belief?

Not what would feel best in the moment. Not what would win the argument. Not what would make me feel righteous fastest. What would I choose if I had time to look carefully, compare responsibly, and accept that I might need to revisit my understanding?

I’m still learning how to do that. I’m still prone to getting tugged into the certainty treadmill, still vulnerable to the fog.

But I’m trying to treat this moment—this election moment—as more than a headline cycle. As a chance to practice discernment instead of numbness. As a chance to believe with care, not with cravings for certainty.

Because at the end of all this, I want my vote to be an act of responsibility, not an act of shutdown. And I want my belief to be sturdy enough to survive contact with reality—especially when reality keeps changing.

Peace and every good!

Presence as Witness: The Quiet Power of Showing Up

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I remember the day my youngest child was born like a photograph in slow motion. It was 43 years ago, in a delivery room that smelled of antiseptic and hope. I promised myself I would be there — not because I thought I could do anything technical, but because something inside me insisted I needed to witness this threshold. What unfolded in those hours was not ordinary. It was raw, loud, fragile, triumphant. It was a miracle. And watching it changed me.

The delivery room was a small ecosystem of attention: my wife in the epicenter, midwives and doctors orbiting with focused calm, nurses moving with quiet purpose, machines humming like low prayers. My daughter arrived with a cry that sounded both new and ancient. As I watched, I wasn’t merely observing a birth. I was bearing witness — and that act of presence reshaped how I understood life, love, and what it means to simply be there for another human being.

What does it mean to “bear witness”? For me it meant surrendering the impulse to fix, comment, or perform. It meant holding a space with no agenda other than to attend. I saw my wife in ways I’d never seen before: fierce, vulnerable, triumphant. I saw my newborn, blinking and bewildered, entering a world I had only ever imagined for her. I saw the team at work, each person contributing a small essential piece to a profound whole. In the silence between contractions, in the quick exchanges of hands and glances, I learned something about the power of presence that has stayed with me for decades.

Bearing witness is not limited to dramatic life events like childbirth. It’s the practice of showing up when it matters: in grief, in joy, in mundane moments where another person might otherwise be alone in their experience. And you don’t need words to do it. Sometimes the most powerful language is the sturdy quiet of your attention. When you stand there and truly see what someone else is going through — without interrupting, diagnosing, or diverting — you give them something priceless: validation. You acknowledge their reality as worthy of being seen.

Why this matters now,

We live in a world of interruptions. Notifications, opinions, and obligations make us spectators to our own lives and to the lives of people around us. Bearing witness is an act of resistance against this fragmentation. It restores human connection. It heals small wounds before they become deep scars. It fosters trust and invites vulnerability. And it’s accessible: anyone can do it with a little intention and practice.

So instead of just talking at you I wanted to share two practical steps to start bearing witness today. They’re intentionally minimal so you can repeat them in any context — at home, at work, in a hospital waiting room, or on the street.

  1. The Two-Minute Presence Ritual
  • What to do: When someone begins to share something — good or bad — stop. Put down your phone, close your laptop, and face them. Take two full minutes of uninterrupted presence. Don’t plan a response; don’t analyze or advise. Let your eyes meet theirs, and if it feels natural, offer a soft touch: a hand on the shoulder or a brief squeeze of the hand.
  • Why it works: Two minutes is short enough to be manageable and long enough to break the loop of reactive listening. In those two minutes, you communicate that the person is important, that their experience matters. The ritual trains your nervous system to slow down, reducing the urge to interject or fix.
  • Where to use it: With a partner during a tough conversation, with a friend telling a story, with a colleague after a hard meeting, or even with a stranger who’s visibly distressed.
  1. The Question of Seeing
  • What to do: When someone describes an experience, ask one simple question: “What was that like for you?” Then pause and wait. Resist the urge to paraphrase right away. Allow silence to do some of the work. If the other person hesitates, follow up with: “I want to understand more. I’m here.”
  • Why it works: This question moves the focus away from facts and toward feeling. It invites deeper sharing and avoids the common trap of turning the conversation into a comparison or a problem-solving session. The follow-up line reaffirms your intent to be there for them without imposing your viewpoint.
  • Where to use it: In conversations about loss, transitions, parenting struggles, mental health, or moments of celebration where the other person wants to be witnessed rather than analyzed.

Stories that teach:

In that delivery room, I could have tried to make light of the pain to ease my wife’s tension, or I might have sought to take charge of logistics. Instead, I learned to breathe with her breath, to let my attention rest on the reality before me. Later, when friends and family told me about their own losses or breakthroughs, I found myself showing up differently — less eager to problem-solve and more willing to simply be present. Over time, the small acts of bearing witness built up a quiet network of care around the people I love.

People sometimes worry that bearing witness will overwhelm them, as though absorbing another person’s reality means carrying their whole burden. That’s not true. Bearing witness does not require you to fix anything. It asks only that you offer a portion of your attention and your heart. If emotions become too intense, honest boundaries are part of good witnessing: “I want to be here with you, and I also need a short break so I can come back present.” You can hold both care and self-preservation.

Who benefits? Everyone. The person being witnessed receives validation, validation that can transform isolation into connection. You, the witness, gain emotional fluency and deeper relationships. Communities become more resilient when people practice simple acts of presence. Teams at work perform better when members feel genuinely seen. Families heal faster when they adopt listening as an act of love.

A small practice, a big ripple:

The birth of my daughter taught me a simple truth: sometimes the most revolutionary act is to show up and stay present. You don’t need a certificate or training. You only need the willingness to slow down and give someone else a piece of your attention.

Call to action Try it this week. Choose one person — a partner, friend, coworker, or family member — and practice the Two-Minute Presence Ritual. Then, later in the week, use the question of seeing in a conversation where you usually would have jumped in to advise. Notice what changes: in the other person’s expression, in the flow of conversation, and in how you feel afterward. Share your experience with someone else or post a short note on social media about what you learned using #IWasThere. Invite a friend to try it with you.

If you want, tell me about your moment of bearing witness — what you saw, how it felt, and what changed. I’ll listen. No advice, no judgment. Just presence.

We don’t need words when bearing witness. We just need to be present. And in that simple presence, we can witness miracles — big and small — and be transformed by them.

Looking back on the birth of my daughter in that delivery room 43 years ago, everything contracted and expanded around a single point of arrival. My wife labored with a fierce determination I had never seen; her face was a map of pain and purpose. The medical team moved with practiced urgency, voices calm, hands steady. I stood at her side, breath matching hers, palms clammy but steady on her knee. There were moments of quiet concentration and moments of bright, startling noise — a mix of instructions, encouragement, and the rhythm of machines. Then the cry: a raw, immediate announcement that life had crossed the threshold. They placed my daughter on my wife’s chest and for a second the world narrowed to three breaths and the soft, wet weight of newness. Tears blurred everything; laughter and prayer braided together. In that instant I knew I had witnessed something holy — not because of drama, but because of the raw, shared humanness in that room. That witnessing changed me: it taught me the language of presence in a way no book ever could.