Through ups and downs, woes and joys, we remain together, united in our love and laughter.
You are the first sight I see in the morning (and I smile)
You are the last sight I see as I go to sleep (and I am comforted).
Your smile, your joy, your heart,
Enliven me, fill me, gladden me.

Pulsing, my heart is always filled with love for you!

For my lovely fiance, all my love

Jeff was kind enough to leave a comment last week,  and in passing, he reminded me of something I was going to post on. 

Namely, he says this: "Which would be more or less a rejection of my work as an integrally-informed coach/consultant. Which would be more or less a rejection of my purpose. And me.)"

I completely relate to this, and I wonder who else does so?

My observation is that sensitive, intelligent guys, if they "grok" Ken Wilber - there's a pretty natural tendency to say "My life purpose is to be THAT type of coach/counselor, and help people get their lives together!"

Of course, maybe I am projecting.

But this is a common thing in literature, inspirational literature ABOUT the WORLD and IDEALS, that also motivates -

People who read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, everyone starts to see themselves as:

"The hero, Howard Roark, is Rand's ideal, a noble soul par excellence, an architect who is firmly and serenely devoted to his own ideals and believes that no man should copy the style of another in any field, especially architecture. All the other characters in the novel demand that he renounce his values, but Roark maintains his integrity. Unlike traditional heroes who launch into long and passionate monologues about their integrity and the unfairness of the world; Roark, in contrast, does it with a disdainful, almost contemptuous taciturnity and laconicism."

Same thing with Herman Hesse - the idealist Siddartha becomes a role model of emulation.

Talking to a lot of people about Wilber - I think there could be a lot of the same dynamic going on.  The idealized version of wanting to help, of thinking of integral as the "life passion", etc. 

I think it is also a TRUE inspiration - it certainly is true for me - but I also wanted to point out that there is a certain literary device being employed, that flows from Wilber's work, that all of us feel, when reading it - and that same type of literary device works the same way (but with different CONTENT) for other writers.

I don't know if this was a concious decision on Ken's part or not, but for me, it's an interesting phenomenon.