The structure of your own account carries the argument: years of reading reports left the separate self intact, and what finally moved it was Plum Village — days of silence and shared work, a different position occupied long enough to retrain what you could perceive. Your awareness/acceptance line marks the difference between what argument can reach and what only practice can reach. The separate self runs deeper than a story modernity told us; it's a perception our positions train into us (the suit was a vantage point before it was a costume), and perception yields to repositioning, rarely to evidence. I suspect that's also what Ostrom was seeing: a tribunal meeting in open air for centuries is the practice that keeps the watershed perceptible as a shared thing — your "relationship, made durable." Which sharpens your caution about the instruments: a digital twin extends what a community can see, and seeing was never the scarce resource. Thanks for this, Ernesto.
Please don't be offended by the following question. I quoted and shared your image of the "bridge that is built in the crossing..." A generally quite intelligent friend said that "It is really bad AI", and claimed he had run it through an AI that "tests for AI". That the words were either written by AI, or at the very least were an AI translation from another language.
I personally don't think this but I'd rather ask the author, than AI!
Ernesto, this resonates deeply. The distinction between awareness and acceptance feels especially important. Awareness informs us; acceptance transforms us. Once we stop resisting what is, we can begin asking a different question: "Who am I becoming through this?" That shift, for me, is where responsibility, relationship, and hope all begin. Thank you for such a thoughtful reflection.
The structure of your own account carries the argument: years of reading reports left the separate self intact, and what finally moved it was Plum Village — days of silence and shared work, a different position occupied long enough to retrain what you could perceive. Your awareness/acceptance line marks the difference between what argument can reach and what only practice can reach. The separate self runs deeper than a story modernity told us; it's a perception our positions train into us (the suit was a vantage point before it was a costume), and perception yields to repositioning, rarely to evidence. I suspect that's also what Ostrom was seeing: a tribunal meeting in open air for centuries is the practice that keeps the watershed perceptible as a shared thing — your "relationship, made durable." Which sharpens your caution about the instruments: a digital twin extends what a community can see, and seeing was never the scarce resource. Thanks for this, Ernesto.
Ernesto, this is stunningly beautiful. Thank you.
I behold the long awaiting hope. Thank you so much.
Thanks you. Wonderful, living images.
Please don't be offended by the following question. I quoted and shared your image of the "bridge that is built in the crossing..." A generally quite intelligent friend said that "It is really bad AI", and claimed he had run it through an AI that "tests for AI". That the words were either written by AI, or at the very least were an AI translation from another language.
I personally don't think this but I'd rather ask the author, than AI!
your friend is right, yes bad AI for image, less energy use. and then, English not my first language.
Brilliant as so often, Ernesto 👌
Ernesto, this resonates deeply. The distinction between awareness and acceptance feels especially important. Awareness informs us; acceptance transforms us. Once we stop resisting what is, we can begin asking a different question: "Who am I becoming through this?" That shift, for me, is where responsibility, relationship, and hope all begin. Thank you for such a thoughtful reflection.