sweet dreams

note: i wrote this blog entry july 28th. that evening i got an update that my fellow blogger and friend posted this entry: i have a dream, or do i? check suzie-k's entry out, too!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there's a saying that goes like this:


"if you love something, set it free. if it comes back to you, it's yours. if it doesn't, it never was."


i think we often associate this with a person or a relationship. and it makes sense, especially before you exchange vows...but i'm sure doing this is painful. unrequited love must be unbearable, and i imagine letting go is scary because there are what ifs involved. the impetus would surely be to hang on, with stranglehold force, when releasing your grip is the better option. hanging on for dear life would surely create resentment for the one loved who wants freedom, but who on the other side wants to take that kind of risk? let go in hopes of getting back? what if that person never comes back? is that a chance worth taking?


well, i was thinking about this saying in relation to dreams, hopes, aspirations. don't get me wrong with my foregoing statements. i am a firm believer in fighting for what you want. if you want something badly enough, you'll make it happen...but admitedly, sometimes you can only fight so much. sometimes you have to take a step back and wait. and waiting is challenging when all you want are answers now.


i have some pretty sweet dreams. every birthday i get a card from my parents reminding me that this is my year. and every year i accept it. i am a very blessed individual, but i have unrequited dreams...dreams i've yet to see fulfilled...dreams that i believe are mine to be realized. dreams i love to dream because i believe they will eventually be realized. and i really do believe this is my year.


i don't know how much i agree with setting my dreams free...letting my dreams go and possibly never seeing them fulfilled. i know we are sometimes vicariously lived through, and become the agent for someone else's dreams coming true, but i think you have to hang on to your own dreams and pursue them. pursue relentlessly. let me interject this, for those looking for something of a spiritual nature: if your dream feels liks a burden at times, that's a little different, because the bible instructs the believer to give your burdens to God to look after. but make no mistake, i think God can look after your dreams, too. think about joseph in genesis 37-41. he had a couple of dreams as a teenager that he wouldn't see come to pass for over a decade...but eventually he would see his dreams fulfilled. between the ages of 17 and 30 he would also have the opportunity to interpret other people's dreams and see them come to pass...but for 13 years he waited to have his own realized. and he didn't let go. i think there's a lesson there.


the way i see it, martin luther king's famous speech was "i have a dream," not "i had a dream." have. present tense. what if he had let his dream go? what if joseph had let his dream go? think of any revolutionary, student, explorer, scientist, mother. what if they had let their dreams go?


don't let go of your dreams. don't let anyone steal them from you. they're yours. if you dreamed them, believe them. having to wait doesn't make them any less valid. and if they're good, and won't hurt anyone else, then trust they're from God and not just some fanciful pipedream. patiently pursue them. that might mean waiting, but as my pastor says, "wait for God's timing in your life! many things that will be a blessing to you later on can be a curse to you now if you get to them too soon." so don't lose hope; take heart and have faith. God has your dreams in His hand. He hasn't forgotten about them.

david said, "my times are in Your Hand" (psalm 31:15). i think this includes my dreams. the knowledge of that is sweet.

meant to be?

when you hear the expression "meant to be," what does it make you think of?


the eventful merger of 2 mediocre businesses into a dominant corporation that fortune 500 declares at the end of the first quarter "it was meant to be?"


some unique flavours that you've experimented with and decide to unveil for a dinner party, that garnishes you so many compliments that you know the menu combinations were "meant to be?"


the relationship where the pieces just seem to fall into place, where every onlooker endorses the union to be "meant to be?"


i'm no expert on any of the above. i don't follow rankings or annual business reports. my domestic skills are more in the cleaning department than the food preparation or entertaining fields. and my marital status would seem to indicate i don't have a great deal of experience in dating or securing 'the one.'


the thing is, no matter what it is, this phrase typically makes sense to the event, or experiment, or endorsement to which it's ascribed, though perhaps depending on who's doing the assigning. it's easy for someone on the outside to say something's "meant to be" when the something has time and space on its side, meaning there's a bit of history and distance and its feasibility is evident. it's also easy to say when you're the one saying it about your own event, experiment, or endorsement. of course you're going to say it was "meant to be."


basically, we say something's "meant to be" when it works. it might even defy reason and be precedent setting. it might even defy explanation. it might not even make any sense to someone on the ouside. but when you see the workability of the something that's "meant to be," you just know that it is.


if you've read any of my blogs, you'll know that the topic of being is something i address a lot. this "meant to be" expression has been knocking for days, demanding an audience. i gave it some attention today. as illustrated, while i'm no expert, i'm a firm believer that some things and some people are "meant to be." and when you know, you know. and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. i might have a hard time convincing you, and vice versa, but this doesn't diminish the "meant-to-be-ness" of something. and eventually, time and space will validate or invalidate anyway. the merger will destruct or dominate. the ingredients will combust or combine. the relationship will end or endure.

"meant to be?" well, it is a process--but it's a process whose workability and feasibility should be demonstrated eventually and regularly. i don't think it ever happens overnight, but having said that if it's "meant to be," it shouldn't be all about making it work--some days, sure. but the ebbs and flows of relationships--corporate, foods, people--should eventually yield the feeling that there is no question about whether it's meant to be. making it work? to me that implies that you're forcing it. and i feel flowing is more important that forcing. and let me just qualify my statements by saying that i doubt any relationship is always easy, so when i say it shouldn't be alllll about making it work, what i mean to acknowledge is that i know relationships take work to get them right. they are a process. but eventually and regularly you get the feeling that the unadulterated meant-to-be-ness outweighs the aggravating sense of just making it work.


about being, hamlet famously asked "to be, or not to be: that is the question." when it comes to living and being, existing and experiencing, i was meant to be. you were meant to be. i can't pair companies, or ingredients, or people, but i can say that if you are breathing you should be being. and you're a process. i know some days it's purely about surviving and keeping it together, but really, this life is about thriving and giving someone else a reason to thrive. throw yourself into living and your purpose will reveal itself. your fulfillment will come.

the way i see it, for the purposes of this entry, hamlet's question is rhetorical. you are meant to live. you are meant to be. maybe those companies, or those flavours, or those people aren't...but you are. period.

pop the question

have you ever asked a question that you already knew the answer to? have you ever asked a question but didn't want the answer? have you ever not asked the question begging to be asked? have you ever asked the wrong question? have you ever asked a question and not gotten an answer? have you ever asked the question begging not to be asked?
 
do you love me? are you moving? i should ask how she's doing, but i can't. oh, are you expecting? are you coming? have you put on weight?


questions are curious things. as a part of speech, it is a linguistic expression that can be either interrogative or an imperative statement. whether framed as a question or a command, both of these require an answer. for instance, what did you do yesterday? or, tell me what you did yesterday.


then there's the rhetorical question, that gets asked in an effort to persuade--or possibly dissuade--where an answer is not only not expected, it's often not wanted, because it's meant to make you think...not speak.


there's another form of questioning that doesn't require a verbal answer, and it's those questions that only require an action. if i ask you what you're doing tomorrow, you can answer by shrugging your shoulders to suggest that you don't know. or if i ask you if you're coming tomorrow, you can indicate your answer by nodding or shaking your head.


by extension, there are times when you ask a question and all you get in response is a hmmph, or an ugh, or a sigh, or some other unintelligible noise, or a yawn, or an mmm hmm...not actions like i just highlighted, but neither are they answers requiring language in the sense of words.


this little foray is the result of hearing something yesterday, which propelled my mind in the direction that just solicited the foregoing statements. "language was invented to ask questions." i thought this was brilliant so i began writing this blog entry. then at exactly this juncture in my writing, i googled the quote to find out who said it. american social writer and philosopher eric hoffer did, and he continues: "answers may be given by grunts and gestures, but questions must be spoken. humanness came of age when man asked the first question. social stagnation results not from a lack of answers but from the absence of the impulse to ask questions."


i'm not going to unpack what he said anymore than i already unkowingly did in my first few paragraphs, because it's pretty self-evident, and i'm not especially interested in the latter part anyway--except to elaborate by saying that i agree with my pastor when he says it's ok to ask questions. we're only human. we don't have all the answers. we need to ask questions. i think asking questions means your head's in the game or that you at least have some interest in what's being played out. but i should qualify my statement and say that if you ask questions just to be confrontational, or antagonistic, or to play devil's advocate with no impulse to be useful or instructional, then keep quiet with your questions. please, please, please stir your pot somewhere else :-) 


now if you're looking for something overtly biblical in this blog entry, here it is. think of one of the greatest questions in the bible from one who posed many. job asked, "if a man dies, will he live again?" and, if the bible says to always be prepared to give an answer for the reason for the hope i have, then it's safe to infer a question has been asked. so, my point is that asking questions is healthy. it shows you're alive and not stagnant...oh, and ps: the answer to job's question is yes :-) message me at t-lstewart@hotmail.com if you wanna know more about that! oh, and double ps: the hope i have is because i get abundant life now and eternal life later...and the whole dying and living again, and hope of eternal life is all connected. so, again, message me if you wanna know more :-)

but, it's the first 2 statements that got this ball rolling. "language was invented to ask questions. answers may be given by grunts and gestures, but questions must be spoken." i know i've taken a bit to get here, but i operate sequentially :-) and in this operation we come full circle...

the way i see it, we've all asked a question we know the answer to. we've all asked a question we didn't want the answer to. we've all not asked the question begging to be asked. we've all asked the wrong question. we've all asked a question and not gotten an answer. we've all asked the question begging not to be asked.

and we should. i won't repeat any of what i've already said, except to say that sometimes it's not necessarily the answers that are important; it's the asking. it's knowing what questions to ask. there's an expression that says "inquiring minds want to know." knowing doesn't mean always getting the answer you want, but part of the knowing is asking the question, which can be just as telling, promising, clear, constructive, instructive--and so on--as the answer. 

i recently prayed a prayer. i didn't ask God for all the answers, because really, sometimes i just don't need to know, and if i knew, maybe that wouldn't good for me. but i did ask God to help me ask the right questions. and i think that's part of the answer to our foibles and faux pas. i hear parents say to their children who are learning to talk, "use your words." i think it applies here. don't assume anything; it makes an ahem out of u and me ;-) ask questions. and don't be afraid of looking stupid. really, there are no wrong questions...unless, of course, you're asking someone who's a little chunky if they're expecting :-)

so, pop the question. your asking might be the answer, even if you don't get the answer you're anticipating...