The models of what we are, are here ‘for’, and do that we carry, believe, and live out… are so unlike reality as to comprise almost the opposite of what they claim to represent. What we are is actually extremely difficult to point to, which is why words are largely inadequate, and direct, experiential immersion is the order of understanding. And we can have that, unless we insist on discussing our models, instead. What is it like, that which we ‘are ‘? It is never static. Perhaps the idea of a stream of ways of becoming, many ways, which relate and co-develop or co-inhibit each other, over time. We are many related streams of ways of becoming, is one perspective. And this is not like any model we can ordinarily compose, because it doesn’t share features with models at all… except as a convenience of language. The problem is this: the convenience of language takes over, and we too often become the images of models that not only bear little resemblance to reality, they bear too little resemblance to humanity. We need to encourage each other not toward compliance, but discovery. Not toward the norm, but development. Not toward memory, but revolution.