Can We Rebuild After Deconstruction?

[David]

I would like to take a word and try to point to that Reality that is beyond deconstruction. If there is such a Reality then it would seem to me that “reconstruction” has a chance. That word is gratefulness. One can see how this word can be approached from the point of view of correct belief and also from the point of view of correct action.

 

Here from the website “Gratefulness.org” is a fantastic “correct belief” about gratefulness: “The practice of gratefulness moves us in four directions. Aimed inwardly, it restores courage; aimed outwardly, it inspires generosity. These subjective qualities are matched by objective ones: Gratefulness reconciles relationships; and it has the potential to heal our Earth through interfaith dialogue, reverence for nature, intergenerational respect, awareness of opportunities to serve a world in need. These four directions add up to a commitment to live in the light of all we’ve been given – that is, fearlessly and therefore non-violently.” Many progressives would just want to stop here. Here we have a great “correct belief” about gratefulness. What more could we want? Well first of all, any “correct belief” is fodder for deconstruction. I’m not going to ruin these words by doing that here. But it can be done and it is done to all of the great words from all of the great authors and thinkers. My point is that we are looking for what is “deeper” than correct belief.

 

Gratefulness can also be approached from the point of view of correct action. Just the mere courtesy of saying “thank you” is much needed in our world today. There are so many actions that would help us live together based upon gratefulness. Again, many progressives would want to stop here. If we can just learn to live together based upon things like gratefulness what more could we want? Again skepticism can respond that context trumps content. It is just a power play after all. People will be used and abused by the process.

 

My point is that correct action and correct belief will always be subject to skepticism. The question is whether there is anything “deeper” than correct action or correct belief that is beyond the reach of skepticism. I have suggested in a previous post above some words that point towards a Reality that can only be called God. That is what we are searching for. If there is no Reality that can only be God then we all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship called post modernism.

 

My response is that gratefulness is all about that which is deeper than correct action or correct belief. When one truly experiences gratefulness there are no words. I am reminded of what Bill reminded me of—the birth of my child. I remember just breaking down and bawling at being overcome by gratefulness. There were no words. It was truly an epiphany.

[David]

Can we get personal here? Can we share what we each have ended up with so far during our rebuilding process, rather than talking in broad terms or quoting theologians?

 

TCPC is concurrently running a blog through Open Path. http://tcpc.blogs.com/openpath/

There is a related post on that site, where a member is asking if we are on thin ice dropping basic tenets of Christianity and at what point the ice breaks. Considering those questions may help us to understand what we truly have left, if we break with orthodoxy.

 

Personally I see the search for meaning as different than the search for correct belief. Jesus calls us to invest our life with meaning by serving others and trying to reflect the glory of God in our lives. The motivation for this is to be love for God. It is not about what is good for oneself, but rather what is good for the Kingdom of God. Also, the idea of the Kingdom and it's ongoing mission gives us a legacy to leave after we die. It is a challenge that motivates me to be better than I am and to live life abundantly.

Yes, please. Let’s get personal.

 

It may not be true for you but for many the path of orthodoxy is a search for correct belief. I had a Professor of Christian History for which this was not true. Christian History was not about the search for correct belief. It was about the search for meaning as you lift up as being different. So I can understand what you are saying.

 

I would suggest that every generation, and by implication, every person has to go through the same process that persons in Christian history went through. Understanding “orthodoxy” in this way can take it beyond the reach of skepticism. But if “orthodoxy” is suggested as the way to provide meaning without this process then I think it is doomed to the power of post modernism.

[David]

For those of you who need a map of where I’m going with this let me offer this without further explanation at this time. Reconstruction needs to have a “deeper foundation for faith”. We are only beginning to see what that may look like. But so far the “foundation” does not look like the one that was deconstructed. In fact it does not look like a “foundation” that one would expect could hold a construction called the Church.

 

OK we can throw out the word Church if you would like. But we need some way of coming together for many reasons including the spreading of the "good news". So we can find a better name later but for now let me use the word Church.

 

It would seem that the Church requires correct belief and correct action in order to exist. The Church is an organization. Can an organization have as it’s foundation this “deeper foundation for faith”? How do you do that without looking like any other organization that is either based upon correct belief or correct action? The biggest question for me will be how can you organize what can not be organized?

 

By the way. You don't have to follow this "map". There is much more to say about the "deeper foundation for faith". And the consequences of that discussion could go in other directions. If so let's go.

[PantaRhea]

My response is that gratefulness is all about that which is deeper than correct action or correct belief. When one truly experiences gratefulness there are no words. I am reminded of what Bill reminded me of—the birth of my child. I remember just breaking down and bawling at being overcome by gratefulness. There were no words. It was truly an epiphany.

 

It seems like I am just beginning to come out of my wilderness wanderings - but there have been cycles of wilderness wandering and..., what to call it? Public ministry? Maybe it has been simply cycles of confusion and clarity, lostness and discovery. Anyway, I stopped posting back in 2005 because I became discouraged with the quest for correct belief. The search for correct belief seems to be simply another form of domination and control.

 

In its search for truth, reason operates via conquistadorial dialectic: One idea, or one person's "truth," is confronted and overcome by an opposite idea or someone else's "truth." The clash or struggle between them produces the new synthesis-perceived as a creative advance in knowledge.

 

Trouble is, I love ideas. Recently I ran across some research by E. Richard Sorenson whose work was referenced by Christian de Quincey in his book, Radical Knowing . Yes, I know... more books, more searching for correct belief. But what Sorenson, de Quincey, and Whitehead point to, is a "knowing" that is non-rational. The answer to the deconstructionists who question whether there is any reality which is not constructed is, yes. We have just forgotten how to access it.

 

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

[fatherman]

It’s that “deeper foundation for faith” that I want to explore as the basis for construction after deconstruction. So I would suggest that we begin by thinking about what is “deeper” than correct action or correct belief?

 

First, a general comment about deconstruction and reconstruction. If your experience is anything like mine, you will prove yourself a fool a thousand times in this process....that is, if you choose to anoint your current perspective (which will change tomorrow) with any kind of blessing. So either cherish all of your perspectives as a valuable step in your journey, or assume that you are a fool even today; otherwise, you will despise yourself and others.

 

[The general comment section of this post is concluded. The remaining comments are either a reflection on cherished perspectives or utter foolishness ]

 

This is a great thread, friends. So many thoughtful replies and impassioned sharing. :-) I feel responses to a lot of different comments on this thread, but I'd like to just start by responding to the OP and his thread seed. We're like that kid who is sitting in his room 2 weeks after Christmas with a disassembled remote control car. At first, he's fascinated with all the cool junk that goes into a remote controlled car, but the novelty wears off quickly because he can't play with a bunch of car parts. He's thinking "Why did I take this thing apart anyway?". The answer is that either he was bored with it because it wasn't that much fun to begin with or it was broken. What are his options?

 

1.) Throw it away (seems like the easiest way)

2.) Figure out a way to put it back together. Maybe get some help.

3.) Make it into something else entirely.

4.) Sit and whine about it.

 

[Ok, Fatherman is scratching his head. This is not the post he intended to write. He was expecting to address the OP's thoughtful question and then proceed in sharing the inspiring story of his remarkable path of destruction and reconstruction, but instead he is going with the broken car metaphor and referring to himself in the third person. Oh well.]

 

I thought maybe I would figure out some way to point out that the car is, after all, a vehicle, and in the end we need to get in and ride. But since it's just a toy, the best we can do is play, so that didn't really work out. Also, I'll resist the temptation of painstakingly and tediously hashing out the meaning and implications of the 4 options that I've listed.

 

[Closing thought begins here]

 

In the end, as many of you have pointed out, it's a relationship that matters. The story's you use to form that relationship are important...they matter...just don't forget that they are stories.

[David]

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

Thank you. I think there are many, many, many examples of that which can not be deconstructed. So many that for me there is no other name than God.

[Guest billmc]

Here is what I am wondering, in a analogous nutshell:

 

People used to be "Ptolemains" (okay, probably not a word, but I'm just using it for illustration anyway). Their view of the universe was that the earth was the center and everything in the heavens went around the earth. Ptolemy's view was a package. It was a way of interpreting reality and even the Bible supports this view.

 

Along comes Copernicus and he basically proves the Ptolemy's view, despite centuries of being "the Truth", is wrong. Now, except for very few pockets of people, we are almost all "Copernicans", believing that we live in a solar system, not a Terra-sytem. The reality of our solar system has not changed, but how that reality is seen and interpreted has. So none of us are "Ptolemians" any more, that view is obsolete in view of something different, something that we think comes closer to actual physical reality.

 

Can this same reasoning being applied to Christianity? Or are Christians still basically "Ptolemains"? Are we moving into some kind of spiritual "Copernican" view that changes how we view either reality or spiritual reality?

 

And, probably my most important question on this subject, does it really make a practical difference in everyday lives? When Copernicus' view started to replace Ptolemy's view, did it really affect society in a pragmatic way? I'm not so much interested in what a new label might be, I'm just what difference the recontruction makes in one's daily life? Any thoughts?

 

billmc

[fatherman]

My recent comments to not reflect my deep compassion for folks who are sitting in front of a disassembled Faith and who are suffering the loss and who are not sure where to go from here. Know that this is not the end of the journey. This is the beginning. Groundlessness is the state in which we learn.

[JosephM]

It seems like I am just beginning to come out of my wilderness wanderings - but there have been cycles of wilderness wandering and..., what to call it? Public ministry? Maybe it has been simply cycles of confusion and clarity, lostness and discovery. Anyway, I stopped posting back in 2005 because I became discouraged with the quest for correct belief. The search for correct belief seems to be simply another form of domination and control.

 

To me that seems to be a very astute observation. It seems to me that the search for correct belief is merely the search of a different and more subjectively acceptable organized man-made religion. In my personal view, the original masters/teachers which are now regarded the founders of a particular religion never intended it to be such but pointed to something beyond the word religion which required no written words.

 

 

 

Trouble is, I love ideas. Recently I ran across some research by E. Richard Sorenson whose work was referenced by Christian de Quincey in his book, Radical Knowing . Yes, I know... more books, more searching for correct belief. But what Sorenson, de Quincey, and Whitehead point to, is a "knowing" that is non-rational. The answer to the deconstructionists who question whether there is any reality which is not constructed is, yes. We have just forgotten how to access it.

 

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

 

I believe both experiences previously mentioned "forgiveness" and "gratefulness" are indeed an important and deep experience found in reaching beyond correct belief to which it in my experience and view points to yes, 'radical knowing'.

 

Thanks for a wonderful post PantaRhea and good to hear from you.

 

Joseph

[David]

If your experience is anything like mine, you will prove yourself a fool a thousand times in this process....

Been there. Done that. Seen and heard many other fools. Hope in the end we can all just laugh.

 

But, your list of options does not include the one I am suggesting. Certainly there is a sense that we need to “make it into something else”. It’s the word “entirely” that I don’t like. It seems to me that the process repeats itself over and over throughout history. In that sense there is a continuity. Furthermore, I am suggesting that there is an underlying Reality that we do make fools of ourselves in trying to describe. So the stories are important as you say because there is something that the story is saying. Some of those stories are about people that actually lived and died and left something of their story that speaks to us. Some stories are fiction but nevertheless speak to us as being True.

 

The fundamental difference between the post modern conclusion and what I am trying to point towards is whether things like the “relationship” that you lift up connect us to that Reality or whether the stories are just words that relate us to each other.

[David]

Here is what I am wondering, in a analogous nutshell:

 

People used to be "Ptolemains" (okay, probably not a word, but I'm just using it for illustration anyway). Their view of the universe was that the earth was the center and everything in the heavens went around the earth. Ptolemy's view was a package. It was a way of interpreting reality and even the Bible supports this view.

 

Along comes Copernicus and he basically proves the Ptolemy's view, despite centuries of being "the Truth", is wrong. Now, except for very few pockets of people, we are almost all "Copernicans", believing that we live in a solar system, not a Terra-sytem. The reality of our solar system has not changed, but how that reality is seen and interpreted has. So none of us are "Ptolemians" any more, that view is obsolete in view of something different, something that we think comes closer to actual physical reality.

 

Can this same reasoning being applied to Christianity? Or are Christians, even of the progressive kind, still basically "Ptolemains"? Are we moving into some kind of spiritual "Copernican" view that changes how we view either reality or spiritual reality?

 

And, probably my most important question on this subject, does it really make a practical difference in everyday lives? When Copernicus' view started to replace Ptolemy's view, did it really affect society in a pragmatic way? I'm not so much interested in what a new label might be, I'm just what difference the recontruction makes in one's daily life? Any thoughts?

 

billmc

If our faith is dependent upon our current view of cosmology then it will be sucked down that beautiful black hole (by the way I love black holes---talk about deconstruction!!!)

 

As far as the "practical"....stay tuned.

[JosephM]

(snip for brevity)

 

Can this same reasoning being applied to Christianity? Or are Christians, even of the progressive kind, still basically "Ptolemains"? Are we moving into some kind of spiritual "Copernican" view that changes how we view either reality or spiritual reality?

 

And, probably my most important question on this subject, does it really make a practical difference in everyday lives? When Copernicus' view started to replace Ptolemy's view, did it really affect society in a pragmatic way? I'm not so much interested in what a new label might be, I'm just what difference the recontruction makes in one's daily life? Any thoughts?

 

billmc

 

It seems to me that you make a good point to show that correct belief though it might be more accurate than that of the past may have limited significance. In my view it may bring about positive change but it as PantaRhea pointed out, is just another form of domination and control for society at that point in time. To me, true liberation comes from reaching beyond correct belief which is what David seems to be pointing to.

 

Just something to consider.

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

First, a general comment about deconstruction and reconstruction. If your experience is anything like mine, you will prove yourself a fool a thousand times in this process....that is, if you choose to anoint your current perspective (which will change tomorrow) with any kind of blessing. So either cherish all of your perspectives as a valuable step in your journey, or assume that you are a fool even today; otherwise, you will despise yourself and others.

 

(snip)

 

In my view that is an important lesson to learn and I share that experience.

 

Joseph

[fatherman]

Been there. Done that. Seen and heard many other fools. Hope in the end we can all just laugh.

 

But, your list of options does not include the one I am suggesting. Certainly there is a sense that we need to “make it into something else”. It’s the word “entirely” that I don’t like. It seems to me that the process repeats itself over and over throughout history. In that sense there is a continuity. Furthermore, I am suggesting that there is an underlying Reality that we do make fools of ourselves in trying to describe. So the stories are important as you say because there is something that the story is saying. Some of those stories are about people that actually lived and died and left something of their story that speaks to us. Some stories are fiction but nevertheless speak to us as being True.

 

The fundamental difference between the post modern conclusion and what I am trying to point towards is whether things like the “relationship” that you lift up connect us to that Reality or whether the stories are just words that relate us to each other.

 

I agree that "entirely" is a limiting word in this case...and there are infinite "options". I can testify to you that the story can open the door to something very real...something that is beyond you and me....AND that the story can prevent you from ever opening the door. That's why the story is important.

 

Jesus didn't live and die for a "concept" or a "story". He lived and died for something very real. And I would certainly make a fool of myself (not that it would stop me!) to try to describe it except to say that it is something to be experienced. How silly would we be if we tried to learned to ride a bicycle by reading and discussing? But how painful, scary, and difficult it can be to learn by actually sitting on one and pedaling....but what other choice do we have?

 

In Loving Foolishness,

 

Fatherman

[David]

I agree that "entirely" is a limiting word in this case...and there are infinite "options". I can testify to you that the story can open the door to something very real...something that is beyond you and me....AND that the story can prevent you from ever opening the door. That's why the story is important.

 

Jesus didn't live and die for a "concept" or a "story". He lived and died for something very real. And I would certainly make a fool of myself (not that it would stop me!) to try to describe it except to say that it is something to be experienced. How silly would we be if we tried to learned to ride a bicycle by reading and discussing? But how painful, scary, and difficult it can be to learn by actually sitting on one and pedaling....but what other choice do we have?

 

In Loving Foolishness,

 

Fatherman

AMEN.

[PantaRhea]

The fundamental difference between the post modern conclusion and what I am trying to point towards is whether things like the “relationship” that you lift up connect us to that Reality or whether the stories are just words that relate us to each other.

 

I'm probably being foolish for asking this, but do relationships connect us to that reality, or are they the reality to which we are connected?

[minsocal]

I would like to take a word and try to point to that Reality that is beyond deconstruction. If there is such a Reality then it would seem to me that “reconstruction” has a chance. That word is gratefulness. One can see how this word can be approached from the point of view of correct belief and also from the point of view of correct action.

 

Here from the website “Gratefulness.org” is a fantastic “correct belief” about gratefulness: “The practice of gratefulness moves us in four directions. Aimed inwardly, it restores courage; aimed outwardly, it inspires generosity. These subjective qualities are matched by objective ones: Gratefulness reconciles relationships; and it has the potential to heal our Earth through interfaith dialogue, reverence for nature, intergenerational respect, awareness of opportunities to serve a world in need. These four directions add up to a commitment to live in the light of all we’ve been given – that is, fearlessly and therefore non-violently.” Many progressives would just want to stop here. Here we have a great “correct belief” about gratefulness. What more could we want? Well first of all, any “correct belief” is fodder for deconstruction. I’m not going to ruin these words by doing that here. But it can be done and it is done to all of the great words from all of the great authors and thinkers. My point is that we are looking for what is “deeper” than correct belief.

 

Gratefulness can also be approached from the point of view of correct action. Just the mere courtesy of saying “thank you” is much needed in our world today. There are so many actions that would help us live together based upon gratefulness. Again, many progressives would want to stop here. If we can just learn to live together based upon things like gratefulness what more could we want? Again skepticism can respond that context trumps content. It is just a power play after all. People will be used and abused by the process.

 

My point is that correct action and correct belief will always be subject to skepticism. The question is whether there is anything “deeper” than correct action or correct belief that is beyond the reach of skepticism. I have suggested in a previous post above some words that point towards a Reality that can only be called God. That is what we are searching for. If there is no Reality that can only be God then we all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship called post modernism.

 

My response is that gratefulness is all about that which is deeper than correct action or correct belief. When one truly experiences gratefulness there are no words. I am reminded of what Bill reminded me of—the birth of my child. I remember just breaking down and bawling at being overcome by gratefulness. There were no words. It was truly an epiphany.

 

This is where deconstruction and psycholgy collide. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt researches innate moral emotions and their correlated moral intuitions. The word he uses for your experience is "gratitude" which he classifies as an "other praising" moral emotion. He has found it in all cultures. Not only that, he uses examples from the Bible to demostrate what he is talking about. Related to gratitude is "awe" and sometimes both are experienced at the same time which can be very powerful. I use this research in Adult Sunday school classes. Acknowledging these emotions and intuitions is an important component of Process Theology where an attempt is made to bring the rational functions into harmony with the non-rational. This is another way of describing practical rationality.

[JosephM]

One last comment that I have as relates to this topic and then I have nothing else to offer in this area so I will just sit back and watch where this goes.

 

To me, there is a belief which comes in words and concepts and is of the thinking mind and when it is fixed it becomes 'radical belief' with unchanging words and when it is softened it becomes progressive in nature and the words change and then there is such a thing as 'radical knowing' that transcends mind and radically transforms lives and cannot effectively be communicated in words but is rather subjectively experienced and best communicated in actions.

 

Just my last 2 cents.

Love Joseph

 

PS Can we rebuilt after deconstruction? Yes, but if it is only by a quest for 'correct beliefs', it is my opinion, self built and will crumble again.

[PantaRhea]

One last comment that I have as relates to this topic and then I have nothing else to offer in this area so I will just sit back and watch where this goes.

 

To me, there is a belief which comes in words and concepts and is of the thinking mind and when it is fixed it becomes 'radical belief' with unchanging words and when it is softened it becomes progressive in nature and the words change and then there is such a thing as 'radical knowing' that transcends mind and radically transforms lives and cannot effectively be communicated in words but is rather subjectively experienced and best communicated in actions.

 

Just my last 2 cents.

Love Joseph

 

PS Can we rebuilt after deconstruction? Yes, but if it is only by a quest for 'correct beliefs', it is my opinion, it will crumble again.

 

If you spent your last 2 cents, where did the PS come from?

 

Deeply enjoyed yours and Minisocal's posts!

[minsocal]

One last comment that I have as relates to this topic and then I have nothing else to offer in this area so I will just sit back and watch where this goes.

 

To me, there is a belief which comes in words and concepts and is of the thinking mind and when it is fixed it becomes 'radical belief' with unchanging words and when it is softened it becomes progressive in nature and the words change and then there is such a thing as 'radical knowing' that transcends mind and radically transforms lives and cannot effectively be communicated in words but is rather subjectively experienced and best communicated in actions.

 

Just my last 2 cents.

Love Joseph

 

PS Can we rebuilt after deconstruction? Yes, but if it is only by a quest for 'correct beliefs', it is my opinion, it will crumble again.

 

Well said. Even those who resisted deconstruction, such as myself, would agree. The early or "soft" sources of deconstruction such as Husserl suggest the process you describe. For example, Husserl describes a 'radical belief' as 'sedimented' and unconscious. In this state, they act as automatic assumptions that we use to assimilate conscious content. He proposed that we must bring these back to consciousness from time to time and ask whether things have changed and are the beliefs in need of change.

[PantaRhea]

The implications of what we've been discussing are just beginning to dawn on me. I don't know if anyone saw that I'd embedded links in one of my posts, but I'll include another one here.

[minsocal]

The implications of what we've been discussing are just beginning to dawn on me. I don't know if anyone saw that I'd embedded links in one of my posts, but I'll include another one here.

 

The Preconquest and Postconquest theme echoes other theories along the same lines. Other theories posit that the transition from collective to individual-collective was a natural evolution. However, De Guincey seems to miss the point that the Preconquest mentality has hardly disappered and can be found in any society. You can find personality types exactly like this today in your own neighborhood. He is describing a concrete extravert as defined by Jung.

[PantaRhea]

The Preconquest and Postconquest theme echoes other theories along the same lines. Other theories posit that the transition from collective to individual-collective was a natural evolution. However, De Guincey seems to miss the point that the Preconquest mentality has hardly disappered and can be found in any society. You can find personality types exactly like this today in your own neighborhood. He is describing a concrete extravert as defined by Jung.

 

Rats! You mean I've been fooled again?

 

I don't know nuttin' about concrete extraverts, but I didn't think de Quincey and Sorensen were describing personality types. Rather they were describing an epistemology. To the point is this quote from the article:

 

For example, it is not accurate to say that in every case where postconquest reason encounters preconquest liminal consciousness the result is obliteration of the indigenous mind. This may well be true culturally-at least I'm not aware of any meeting between groups bearing modern reason and groups using primal knowing where the modern mind was consumed by the indigenous mind. But it is not true personally, at the level of individuals. We know from the literature (anthropological and psychological), and from copious anecdotal reports, that when a modern, reason-dominated individual ingests powerful psychoactive plant-derived substances such as ayahuasca or synthetic compounds such as LSD, or engages in some other powerful mind-altering practice such as intensive drumming or dancing, the overwhelming effect is that reason takes a back seat. It is swamped by non-rational feelings and other ways of knowing-and according to many of the participants in these "experiments" or "rituals" the states and contents of such "altered" consciousness are highly meaningful, informative, and veridical. In these instances, primal, shamanic knowing does overshadow rational knowing.

[David]

The implications of what we've been discussing are just beginning to dawn on me. I don't know if anyone saw that I'd embedded links in one of my posts, but I'll include another one here.

Thank you for this. There are many ways you could go with this including talking “about” things but I thought the key question was “Are we looking for decisive facts about consciousness or for enlightening lived experience?” I have said elsewhere that for me epistemology is more important than theology and I agree with much that was written here. It struck me that after a “cultural collapse” as exemplified by the New Guinea experience the question of “reconstruction” is raised. What do we do now? Too often philosophers raise great questions and get us excited about the “enlightened lived experience” and then we ask them “what do we do now”? And of course they say “how should I know—I’m just a philosopher”. The writer here concludes that “the task of great philosophers is to find how these uncommon truths cohere in a common reality”. That would be a great correct belief system but I’m not sure how that relates to an “enlightening lived experience”. He points us to the depth found in "mystical knowing" but then seems to default to his comfort language of philosophy. What do we do now I guess would be a question for our task of reconstruction.

[David]

PS Can we rebuilt after deconstruction? Yes, but if it is only by a quest for 'correct beliefs', it is my opinion, self built and will crumble again.

Yes, yes, yes (how many times can I say yes?)