Oh yes and that's really simple. Why, you've only got to understand a bit of ancient and modern history, cultural dynamics, depth psychology, anthropology, esotericism - a snack, really. Piece of cake. No wonder there are so many experts on this forum.

How about:

You want herpes.

Or

The empire state building does not exist on the moon. — Merkwurdichliebe

What's the supposed problem? I know what they ordinarily mean, which is explained by my previous reply to you, and I would rightly answer that, no, I do not want herpes, and yes, the Empire State building does not exist on the moon. The second one is a little ambiguous, but I'm assuming that you're talking about the location of the Empire State building, which is how I think the statement would be most commonly interpreted. It exists, but it is not on the moon, it is on Earth.

Are you doing that philosophy-type thing of making a problem over nothing?

Experts extract complication from simplicity.

Whereas the ordinary man doesn't know what he doesn't know.

The ordinary man doesn't know what he knows either, just accepts his fate by letting it go for the sake of a common good, and the philosopher, an expert, accepts his fate by verbosely clinging to it, or to some defiance of it, on behalf of a common evil, and there is no ordinary man, and there is no philosopher, so all musings are vanity.

which prompts the question, why post on a philosophy forum.

For me, the problem with the God debate is that it requires a definition of ‘God’ that can be agreed upon and then objectively measured/observed. Does this particular definition of God exist - yes or no? It implies that someone ‘knows’ who or what God is. But we don’t, or at least we’re still trying to figure it out. So asking the question of whether God exists or not is unproductive, in my opinion.

The way I’ve been trying to tackle it is to think about all the information we have about ‘God’ as expressions of genuine human experience, without rushing into an evaluation. So, Moses relaying what God apparently told him on the mountain when everyone else only heard thunder probably didn’t happen in the way it was written - but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have an experience which he was motivated (as a human being in time and culture and with human emotions, etc) to describe in this particular way, and then for someone to write it in this particular way.

The question I keep asking is: how do these experiences we associate with ‘God’ relate to each other and to the experiences/understanding/knowledge of the universe that we can verify? What is it about the universe and how humans relate to it that enables these expressions of experience to make sense to those who experienced them? And if I leap to a conclusion based on what information I have, and then encounter those who disagree, I have to exhaust the very high probability that they at least have experiences of the universe that I don’t. Like the blind men and the elephant...

I realise it’s a messy way to approach it, particularly to those who prefer to work systematically or analytically (or alone). It often feels like I’m piecing together a jigsaw puzzle without an image - one that doesn’t have any edge pieces to speak of. I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’.

As far as I’m concerned, it shouldn’t matter whether ‘God’ exists or not. What matters is that people keep referring to experiences of ‘God’ as if the personal and reciprocal nature of such experiences point to the existence of an actual, sentient ‘being’. Like our experience and awareness of ‘time’, it could easily point to our ignorance of the complex relations between all events in the universe, and may effectively ‘disappear’ as an external entity as our awareness develops. I think we need to accept that possibility, frightening though it may seem to people of faith, if we’re going to engage meaningfully in the discussion.

But just as ‘time’ still exists for us in our inner experience of relating to the world, I’m confident that ‘God’ will continue to exist as part of this same inner experience for many of us. And for those of us who approach the discussion from an atheist perspective, accepting the existence of God as a very real part of people’s experience of the world will be as much of a challenge. That’s my take, anyway. Sorry for the long post.

Experts extract complication from simplicity. — whollyrolling

This is a great cliche! Which explains why I typically don't spend a lot of time reading the experts.

which prompts the question, why post on a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

Easy question. That's how we nerds jerk off.

For me, the problem with the God debate is that it requires a definition of ‘God’ that can be agreed upon and then objectively measured/observed. Does this particular definition of God exist - yes or no? — Possibility

But if our definitions of existence and non-existence bear little resemblance to reality, then all such questions are rendered pointless.

— Wayfarer

Or said another way...

...I didn't answer the question because there are no decent answers.

The epiphany nonsense is nonsense.

If there is a god that wanted to KNOW it exists...no epiphanies would happen.

Sorry you were insulted by my question. But considering the question might be a lot more beneficial than reading all those books that lead to your epiphany.

1) Our definitions of existence bear little resemblance to the phenomena of space, the vast majority of reality.

2) Our notion that time is a fixed measure which can be used to calculate the distance between events, completely wrong.

3) Our concept of intelligence, central to the God debate, derived from an immeasurably small sample.

4) Our unexamined assumption that human reason can make meaningful calculations on subjects the scale of gods, totally unproven, and not very likely.

For those few who might wish to actually learn something about religion...

Observe how you've completely ignored all of the above and continued with the same old God debate game as if none of these inconvenient facts were present.

Such a willful denial of reason, such a determined clinging to a comfortable fantasy... Not the religious condition, but the human condition.

To prove this, observe how I keep typing such things over and over again despite any evidence that it will ever do any good. Me too. Clinging to the self flattering fantasy that I can make some kind of difference here. I see the evidence of my delusion, I see the evidence is inconvenient, so I ignore it, and keep on doing the same old thing, over and over and over.

Human condition.

Or said another way...

...I didn't answer the question because there are no decent answers. — Frank Apisa

or, because you're never going to get the answer you think you deserve. You really should have had a lesson to Keb' Mo', he nails it. :-)

No, I'm just saying that there is an enormously undefined grey area in which ordinary language operates, and it is a sort of cop-out, philosophically speaking.

But if our definitions of existence and non-existence bear little resemblance to reality, then all such questions are rendered pointless. — Jake

I agree. The entire question is pointless, because neither definitions of God nor existence bear any resemblance to either the experience or understanding of reality. Hence the rest of my post:

I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’. — Possibility

What matters is that people keep referring to experiences of ‘God’ as if the personal and reciprocal nature of such experiences point to the existence of an actual, sentient ‘being’. Like our experience and awareness of ‘time’, it could easily point to our ignorance of the complex relations between all events in the universe, and may effectively ‘disappear’ as an external entity as our awareness develops. — Possibility

The entire question is pointless — Possibility

Then one wonders why we are endlessly discussing it in thread after thread after thread....???

But, there may be a good reason for that. If the process eventually leads us to the understanding that we have no idea what we're talking about, that could be useful information that could be acted on in a productive manner.

Got a long way to go yet though, eh?

About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.

Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. (The movie Contact depicts this scenario wonderfully). Perhaps only Art can convey such depth of feeling, such breadth of vision. (Art who? Vandelay? lol). But what about the majority of us who can’t produce a masterpiece that will make the ground tremble? We can only share our undoubtedly limited perspective, like the Ancient Mariner telling his tale. Hopefully as honestly, humbly, and accurately (and logically) as possible. If someone else happens to find it helpful or at least interesting, all the better then.

(And here I present a best case scenario. Those who callously wrap themselves in the holy and pure robes of sanctity and righteousness to intentionally mislead others for power and profit are the dregs of the earth, and are rightly mocked. Self-righteousness is the last refuge of a scumbag.)

For “evangelical” atheists who scorn and deride those clueless masses still injecting themselves with Marx’s “opiate of the people” *, I have little respect or time. Certainly, contempt, and controversy sells. And they are raking it in as much as the Bible-and-bombs school of thought(lessness).

How can one balance the need for answers with the benefits of having an open mind? It is like the tightrope that the Karamozov brothers were on.

I respect atheism in general. I respect belief in general. The ignostic skeptic in my mind debates with the curious mystic. I would not get rid of either of them, since they balance its opposite without negating each other. That which seems more complex and interrelated upon inspection is more deeply satisfying, imho. Simple answers devised after much market testing smacks of an ideological pyramid scheme.

(Perhaps this is a distinction between the natural and the artificial: upon closer inspection, does something display a complex connection with the outside world? Or is it all surface, with no depth beyond itself?)

(parts of this are from a post from another thread. Wanted to give it a chance to be ignored here too, lol).

* Marx’s full quote has much more nuance:

Such a willful denial of reason, such a determined clinging to a comfortable fantasy... Not the religious condition, but the human condition.

To prove this, observe how I keep typing such things over and over again despite any evidence that it will ever do any good. Me too. Clinging to the self flattering fantasy that I can make some kind of difference here. I see the evidence of my delusion, I see the evidence is inconvenient, so I ignore it, and keep on doing the same old thing, over and over and over. — Jake

Attempting to break down “the big question” into smaller ones, this thread about spirit was created. One would imagine that if there is indeed an Absolute source, there is a good chance that It would intersect or interact with us generally in the realm of what is described as spirit. And on the other hand if there is no Creator, the needs, hopes, dreams, and weaknesses might also reside in our spirit, or higher/deeper consciousness.

At human scale we experience time as a reliable fixed measure, which is reasonable and practical because at human scale that's very close to the case. But what science is teaching us is that what seems an obvious given in our everyday human scale experience can not be automatically assumed to be binding on everything everywhere.

Variable time speed seems relevant to the God debate because it further illustrates a pattern of assumptions that often attempt to impose facts that are reasonable at human scale on to the immeasurably larger scale addressed by God theories. — Jake

Exactly. The naïveté, hubris, or emotional longing that compels us to declare and define absolutely the nature and existence (or non-existence) of the Absolute is quite understandable and all-too-human. But we live in a relative world where absolute answers are rarely, if ever, seen in the wild. To put in Buddhist terms, let not desire or aversion lead us into ignorance.

The naïveté, hubris, or emotional longing that compels us to declare and define absolutely the nature and existence (or non-existence) of the Absolute is quite understandable and all-too-human. — 0 thru 9

Agreed, very understandable and very human. I'm attempting to develop more compassion for this need and a more realistic acceptance of it. I managed this a long time ago with the religious, but apparently still have considerable work to do in regards to the atheist true believers.

To put in Buddhist terms, let not desire or aversion lead us into ignorance. — 0 thru 9

I'm not debating here, just suggesting that if ignorance is the reality of our situation then let's embrace it and mine this asset for the value that it offers. Not sure how this relates to Buddhism though. For now it's merely Jakeism. :smile:

About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.

Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. — 0 thru 9

Or, to put it another way, problems appear when we try to translate an experience in to an explanation. A better approach may be to skip the explanations, and offer some practical tips on how the other person might have their own experience. An even better approach would probably be to wait until they ask for such tips. :smile:

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Most appreciated.

The question I keep asking is: how do these experiences we associate with ‘God’ relate to each other and to the experiences/understanding/knowledge of the universe that we can verify? What is it about the universe and how humans relate to it that enables these expressions of experience to make sense to those who experienced them? And if I leap to a conclusion based on what information I have, and then encounter those who disagree, I have to exhaust the very high probability that they at least have experiences of the universe that I don’t. Like the blind men and the elephant... — Possibility

Yes, that is a reasonable approach to that which seems to beyond reason. (Sometimes thinking about the possibility of the Divine is like trying to catch hydrogen atoms in a butterfly net, lol. Or as Huston Smith put it, a dog trying to comprehend the contents of a book by giving it “the sniff test”). Without totally abandoning healthy skepticism, I think we can learn from each other’s experiences.

I realise it’s a messy way to approach it, particularly to those who prefer to work systematically or analytically (or alone). It often feels like I’m piecing together a jigsaw puzzle without an image - one that doesn’t have any edge pieces to speak of. I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’. — Possibility

There is something of value in a “messy way”. Life is messy, birth is difficult, death is a downer. We intuitively know this, and eventually make some kind of peace with it. The experience of consciousness, and the awareness of experience is foundational to us. It is difficult to package and market, which is probably why simplistic slogans to rally the troops are so prevalent... and unfortunately so effective at controlling behavior.

Thanks for your reply, and for starting this thread which hopefully (with all of our best efforts) will generate more light than heat. And any heat present be used to warm the cockles of our hearts (whatever those are, hee hee).

Agreed, very understandable and very human. I'm attempting to develop more compassion for this need and a more realistic acceptance of it. I managed this a long time ago with the religious, but apparently still have considerable work to do in regards to the atheist true believers. — Jake

A noble goal, which if achieved, might deserve a Nobel prize, lol. They may be two sides of the same coin. (There’s no anti-Catholic like an ex-Catholic, as a saying goes). The polarity of beliefs, be they religious, political, sociological, or other, is attention-grabbing and divisive by nature. It’s a love-hate relationship. One person’s meat is another’s poison. For example, some entertainments I used to devour years ago, I can no longer stomach. Strength is a quality, but more is definitely NOT always better (despite appearances to the contrary).

I'm not debating here, just suggesting that if ignorance is the reality of our situation then let's embrace it and mine this asset for the value that it offers. Not sure how this relates to Buddhism though. For now it's merely Jakeism. :smile: — Jake

Definitely. Just adding to what @Wayfarer wrote above. Buddhism (and Taoism, which if I recall correctly you had elsewhere expressed an interest in) has a useful way of reconciling the opposites, as in the symbol and idea of yin and yang. Apparent opposites that complement rather than compete or wage battle against the other. In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. Ignorance (in Buddha’s thought, such as I understand it) would be more like pounding one’s own head with a hammer, and taking aspirin for the pain.

Or, to put it another way, problems appear when we try to translate an experience in to an explanation. A better approach may be to skip the explanations, and offer some practical tips on how the other person might have their own experience. An even better approach would probably be to wait until they ask for such tips. :smile: — Jake

Yes. Sometimes, I wonder if our animal pets listen to all our babbling, and think to themselves “there they go... human-splaining everything again! :monkey:

If the process eventually leads us to the understanding that we have no idea what we're talking about, that could be useful information that could be acted on in a productive manner. — Jake

That isn't where the process leads, that's where you're trying to lead us.

No, I'm just saying that there is an enormously undefined grey area in which ordinary language operates, and it is a sort of cop-out, philosophically speaking. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yet you haven't been able to provide an example, upon request, relating to the topic of discussion, where my method has caused a problem.

This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book, so, although I don't disagree with good science, I don't take that to be a justification for going around saying that the the Empire State building doesn't exist. That's rightly seen as a ridiculous thing to go around saying. It exists.

The question, "Does God exist?", is probably best met with another question, namely, "First, what are you talking about?". — S

Good. Excellent.

where my method has caused a problem. — S

Your method apparently is to force argument into the Procrustean bed of "ordinary language." That is, you give ordinary language priority. But it's a question of appropriateness. In argument, the inappropriate isn't just inappropriate, it's usually wrong. And when identified as inappropriate, it may be assumed wrong (Hitchen's razor) until demonstrated.

As method, then, reliance on ordinary language is wrong. It's as with tools and knots. The right tool for the job. And if a knot is not exactly right, then it is exactly wrong. Ordinary language is the right tool for ordinary-language arguments - and there's no error consulting the sense of ordinary language - but wrong if applied to and relied on in the wrong application.

As method, then, reliance on ordinary language is wrong. — tim wood

And what's your argument for that? Just because you've surrounded what I quoted above with text, that doesn't mean that you've actually supported it.

I give ordinary language priority because it makes the most sense in the bigger picture. It's appropriate to say that the Empire State building doesn't exist if we're playing a secluded language game where saying something like that, which is absurd on the face of it, is a rule of the language game. But what use is that outside of a little community of self-important know-it-alls? At the end of the day, the Empire State building is still there. It clearly exists. All you would've succeeded in doing is using the language differently, unusually, in a way which will raise eyebrows and require an explanation, whereas I don't have that issue because I choose to talk like a normal person and am not a willing participant in language games which I judge to be a foolish waste of time.

Thanks for your reply, and for starting this thread which hopefully (with all of our best efforts) will generate more light than heat. — 0 thru 9

Oh dear, too late for that, but anyway, life goes on.

In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. — 0 thru 9

Aha! I meet someone who understands what I am trying share, probably better than I do. :smile: If I had a brain I would be on a Buddhist forum, where I might actually learn something.

Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match.

I've been attempting, however ineptly, to pull the rug out from under the God debate so that the fantasy answer machine is destroyed. What makes this rather difficult is that many or most speaking to this subject are not actually interested in the God debate at all, but rather in the competitive shouting match experience which can be launched from it.

Anyway, should one succeed in liberating oneself from the God debate, if all the unproven and unprovable authorities are destroyed and discarded, one is left with nothing, no ground to stand on, no answer, or even any methodology which might promise an eventual answer.

At first, such an outcome may sound like a distressing, depressing failure. Isn't this opposite of what we were reaching for???

On the surface, yes, it is. But just underneath the surface the failure of the God debate is leading us towards the experience of unity that we most seek. That is, maybe the failure is not really a failure after all?

We feel isolated, separate, alone, fearful, and sometimes angry about this because we don't know how to escape. We try to think our way out of the trap, perhaps through religion, perhaps through reason, or something else, anything. And so we build a mountain of fantasy knowings and cling to it fiercely, protecting it from all enemies.

But what is hopefully eventually given to all who are patient and serious is the realization that it is thought itself which is generating this experience of isolation and separation, and the fear which springs from it. Once one has seen this it becomes obvious that no philosophy or ideology can cure the hunger we feel, because every one of them is made of thought.

But the emptiness can heal the wound. Not because it's some magic mystery medicine, but simply because it's not thought, it's not a conceptual machine which depends entirely on the processes of division. It's not that logical to assume one can reach the experience of unity via a device whose specific purpose is to divide reality in to conceptual parts.

I have little idea how this might relate to Buddhism, because as may have long been obvious, I'm not well read. Well, that is, I don't read many books.

Why settle for second hand information about the real world when the real world is all around us in every moment of our lives, entirely willing to be read directly? If Jesus knocked on our front door would we talk to him directly, or close the door and go read a book about Jesus instead? The answer is just common sense, right?

Regrettably, members are now reading what somebody says about the reality of the human condition, the very flawed methodology I just got done debunking. And I'm helping them do it. No wonder my application for guru status was denied!! :smile:

Blah, blah, blah to the power of ten. Oh well, the embarrassing irony is helping build my sense of humor. :smile:

Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match. — Jake

From an outside perspective, it looks like you have characterised investigations which do not reach exactly the same conclusions as you have reached as "ideological shouting". The irony is that that itself seems more ideological than investigative, especially when you decide to simply block out or dismiss these critical outside perspectives.

But the emptiness can heal the wound. Not because it's some magic mystery medicine, but simply because it's not thought, it's not a conceptual machine which depends entirely on the processes of division. It's not that logical to assume one can reach the experience of unity via a device whose specific purpose is to divide reality in to conceptual parts.

I have little idea how this might relate to Buddhism, because as may have long been obvious, I'm not well read. Well, that is, I don't read many books. — Jake

As I have mentioned previously, this theme is rather similar to the teaching of Krishnamurti. From the current homepage:

So the problem is our consciousness. Our consciousness, which means the way you think, the way you live, the way you believe, the way you react, your behavior, all that is your consciousness, which is your life. That consciousness is you. The content of that consciousness makes consciousness…

This content has been put together through time; it isn’t one day’s acquirement. Our brain is the result of time, evolution. Our brain is not your brain and my brain, but the brain of mankind. This is difficult for you to see, and even recognize, because we have been so conditioned that it is my brain. And it is your brain. But if you observe, human beings right throughout the world go through enormous turmoil, poverty, anxiety, insecurity, confusion, psychologically wounded, fear, fear of being hurt, physically, fear of psychological hurts, fear of death, and the enquiry, what is there beyond…

That is the content of our consciousness. And as long as there’s that content, which is always divisive, which is always fragmented, our action must be fragmented. Right?

So the problem then is: is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?

Very similar, right? So is Krishnamurti 'an authority'? He always denied it. 'The speaker', he would say, referring to himself, 'is like a telephone'.

As I have mentioned previously, this theme is rather similar to the teaching of Krishnamurti. — Wayfarer

I was significantly influenced by Krishnamurti in my youth. I credit him with first introducing me to the insight that thought is inherently divisive (ie. operates by a process of division). At this point so many years later, I can no longer say where the boundary is between that influence and other influences, my own life experience etc. For the last 15 years or so my primary influence has been a state park up the road from here.

Very similar, right? — Wayfarer

JK would have likely referred to the God debate as a bunch of silly nonsense, or words to that effect. There is also the similarity that JK typically didn't just spell things out, but tried to create an atmosphere where the reader conducts their own investigation. I've been reluctant to spell many things out as well until readers have rid themselves of the God debate, which rarely happens, so I remain mum on some topics.

So is Krishnamurti 'an authority'? — Wayfarer

As I'm sure you know (but most others probably won't) JK was raised from a child to be the next big savior figure etc, a role which he rejected when he came of age. He called a big meeting of the religion being built around him and told everyone to go home, claiming that "truth is a pathless land".

That said, Krishnamurti had a confident authoritative manner of speaking which did unintentionally suck some people in to authority worship. I once had an online conversation with the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California who told me Krishnamurti was the closest thing to a god we would see, which I read while banging my head against the monitor.

Another similarity between myself and JK is that I say way too much way too often. This can be useful to some (like myself when I was young) because the only way some folks will ever be able to enter this arena is through intensive nerd analysis. JK met over thinkers where they actually live, and that was helpful to me at the time.

All that said, there was another book which came out around the same time I met JK called "Be Here Now". I'm sure you know the book. I dismissed it as a college sophomore because the book Be Here Now was sort of a cartoon comic book, and I was an "intellectual!!" who wanted the "serious information!!". :smile:

With the passing of time I've come to see those three words Be Here Now are actually all any serious person really needs, and long honking bloward rants such as this are really just getting in the way, delaying the moment of decision.

But, I was born to blow hard, and nothing can be done about that apparently, and so I accept my embarrassing situation with a sense of humor as often as possible.

And, I spend the majority of my days in the woods from dawn to dusk. That too. Very important.

That said, Krishnamurti had a confident authoritative manner of speaking which did unintentionally suck some people in to authority worship. — Jake

There is a cure for this problem which I am pioneering. Regularly act like a junior high school jerk. I find I have a natural talent for this technique and am perfecting it to a high art form. It might have helped if Krishnamurti had added some fart jokes to his talks. :smile:

Be Here Now" — Jake

Encountered it in a shared house in London in 1972 (the year after it came out). Of course I was massively impressed by it, but I have never really followed Ram Dass in the decades since.

I read Krishnamurti from about 1978-84, but I realised that 'reading Krishnamurti' (and even listening to his talks) would only get one so far. If he hadn't been 'discovered', he might have lived in obscurity and died young, but I think his general character would have been much the same. But I think teachings are very like the Buddhist Prajñāpāramitā teachings. (Actually the Dalai Lama said the same.)

But when he asks 'is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?' the answer is: it's extremely difficult! Might not be for him and his (rare) ilk, but for persons, for individuals like ourselves - not so easy! Left to our own devices, that will never happen, unless by some miraculous 'stroke of insight' (like what happened to Jill Bolte Taylor, the neuroscientist who had a massive stroke which also turned out to be a spiritual awakening.)

So that is where the necessity of a 'sadhana' ('praxis' in Western terminology) arises. To actualise that sense of 'selfness awareness' is a life (or more's) work.