Let’s Be Clear About Service

by Christopher Lovejoy on March 10, 2019

Most everyone on the planet knows what it means to serve and be served. I would go a step further here and say that most everyone in the cosmos knows what it means to serve and be served.

At least on the surface, at least superficially.

If you’ve ever been to a restaurant that caters a buffet, you will know that you can serve yourself or, if a food item is especially popular, be served by a server designated for this one purpose.

This give-and-take of serving and being served is ubiquitous, so widespread in fact that the very term “service” can seem too banal to give it much serious thought; that is, it’s just something we all do.

But what if we all agreed to give “service” some serious thought?

I know, a radical idea, but there it is. Let’s explore, shall we?


When you think of service, do you restrict your notion of service to formal acts of serving and being served, or are you willing to extend this notion to informal acts of serving and being served, to include everyday acts of kindness committed or performed for their own sake?

When you serve in this everyday way, do you do it with a smile? Or are you just doing it from a sense of obligation? Are you operating on automatic pilot when you do it? Are you obsessed with providing service, perhaps in a way that suggests your service is compulsive?

When you serve yourself, are you serving only yourself? When you serve another, are you serving only the other? When you care little or not at all about the very notion itself of serving or being served, how does this lack/loss of caring make you feel about yourself and others?

Are you at all aware that when you interact with someone, that the potential for service, for serving or being served, is almost always there, waiting in the wings to be expanded and extended, to be activated and accommodated from a soul of gratitude in a spirit of generosity?

I grant you, these are not always easy questions to answer, even at the best of times, but they do serve to awaken us all to the true meaning of service ~ to the truth about serving and being served.


Many of us already know how it feels to serve or be served. If the service feels meaningful, on either side of the service, then it’s safe to say that we’re on the right track where service is concerned.

In the absence of care, however, the one who serves (or the one being served) merely goes through the motions of serving (or being served), but in the absence of such caring, it should be clear that no real meaning can ever arise from having served (or from having been served).

I know that sounds obvious, but it’s a critical piece in coming to a basic understanding and appreciation of service and its role in human life, as well as its role in gauging the extent and degree to which someone has evolved and ascended spiritually through serving and being served.


By now, in your reading of this post up to now, you likely have an inkling that service can go (that is, polarize) in one of two ways: service to self, which can be abbreviated as STS, or service to other, which can be abbreviated as STO. This distinction can be articulated as follows:

STS: serve yourself and you serve others


STO: serve others and you serve yourself

Do you feel more attuned and better aligned with the first or the second? Even if you don’t give the notion of service in your life much thought, which of the following statements resonates most and best for you: (a) to serve self is to serve all? or (b) to serve all is to serve self?

Take a moment, if you must, to ponder your response.

Your answer is a vital clue to your service orientation.


What does it matter whether I know my service orientation?

What does it matter whether I am polarized or polarizing as STS or STO? Can I not just take it for granted that I’m an STS kind of guy or an STO kind of gal? Why concern myself with such things anyways?

Well, you could take it for granted, but if you knew what was at stake, both for yourself and the world at large, you probably wouldn’t. At this point, I can say at least one thing that has a bearing on this question of whether it matters: what are you doing with your vital energy?

Are you drawing it inward, absorbing and expanding it, mostly on your behalf?


Are you putting it out there, extending and expending for the benefit of others?

Please understand, there is no judgment here. As a matter of fact, we all do both at least some of the time. We all need to do both because in doing both we get a feeling for the rhythm of playing with our vital energy, of “putting it out there” and “drawing it inward,” and vice versa.

Recall that energy flows where attention goes. If you draw the energy of your service inward most of the time, absorbing it and expanding it for your own benefit, you’ll relate to the world in one way, attracting those who are likewise inclined, but if you move the energy of your service outward more often than not, extending and expending it for the benefit of others, you’ll attract those who are likewise inclined.

Just to be clear: the more you draw such energy inward for your own benefit, the more inclined you’ll be to draw such energy inward; the more you move such energy outward for the benefit of others, the more inclined you’ll be to move such energy outward. Expressions of vital energy in service to others perpetuate themselves, just as the absorption and expansion of vital energy in service to self perpetuate themselves.

Most anyone can draw the energy of service inward or move the energy of service outward; over the course of time, it’s really a matter of extent, as the following question attempts to make clear, which offers up a practical guideline for coming to terms with this distinction:

Are you loving and serving yourself most of the time, or
Are you loving and serving others more often than not?

Again, no judgment here, as both are legitimate orientations of service energy. Having said this, however, it is important that you be aware of one of the major (to be discussed) consequences of choosing sides.


Do you feel more comfortable interacting and associating with those who are more inclined to love and serve themselves most of the time or are you more comfortable interacting and associating with those who are more inclined to love and serve others more often than not?

To give this question some meaning, which of the following would you prefer: a competitive game of hardball, where the players favor the guts and glory of one or more players, or a cooperative game of softball, where the players tend to favor having fun for all of the players?

Does this mean that anyone who plays hardball is necessarily polarizing towards being STS? Or that anyone who plays softball is necessarily polarizing towards being STO? Not at all; it’s not quite as black-and-white simple as that. Think of an awkward student who is compelled to play hardball during gym class; now think of a highly competitive, very athletic student playing softball for reasons other than playing softball.

Overall, though, the tenor of a ball game very much depends on the collectively felt service orientations of the players involved, in favor of STS or in favor of STO, in favor of guts ‘n glory or in favor of fun ‘n fancy, whether the game is a game of hardball or a game of softball.

Also, participation in one ball game alone, or even a series of ball games, cannot determine the service orientation of any given player. Such determinations would require many observations of a fair number of behavior patterns and tendencies in different situations over time.

In light of these caveats, how best to tell which is which?


Loving, trusting, and caring are three movements of the heart that are shared in common between those who serve themselves most of the time and those who serve others more often than not.

The statements that follow put this contrast into perspective:

STS: I love, trust, and care for myself at least 95% of the time

STO: I love, trust, and care for others at least 51% of the time

Other than the time factor, there are two fundamental differentiating characteristics between loving, trusting, and caring for oneself and loving, trusting, and caring for another that highlight the critical differences between these two service orientations, but before they can be revealed and discussed, we would do well to understand and appreciate the nature and meaning of what might be called the “experiential catalyst.”

A chemical catalyst is any substance that precipitates (spurs, sparks, activates, stimulates, perpetuates) a chemical reaction, increasing the rate of a reaction without itself undergoing any permanent change in its own structure and orientation. By way of analogy, an experiential catalyst is any stimulus in experience that precipitates (spurs, sparks, activates, stimulates, perpetuates) an emotional reaction. Such catalysts serve to increase the rate (frequency, duration, intensity) of an emotional reaction without themselves experiencing any permanent change.

In the following listing, which is by no means comprehensive either in scope or kind, I attempt to categorize some of the different types and forms of catalyst that occur or arise in everyday experience:

a condition (e.g., poverty or prosperity; scarcity or abundance)
a circumstance (e.g., a modest basement apartment or a high-rise luxury condo)
a situation (e.g., orderly or chaotic; quiet or noisy; tidy or messy)
a life form (e.g., a virus or parasite; a spider, centipede, or slug; a dog or cat)
a communication (e.g., a nasty rumour, a questionable report, a favorable speech)
a work of art (e.g., evocative or provocative; naturalistic or impressionistic)
a relationship (e.g., a superior or subordinate; an advocate or adversary)
an interaction (e.g., a provocation or a reassurance; a response or a reaction)
an instrument (e.g., a toy, a tool, a gadget, or a weapon)

In perusing this list, I invite you to keep these guiding principles in mind:

1) every category of catalyst has different types and forms: so, for example, a condition can be material or spiritual; social or economic; physical, emotional, or mental; psychological or financial. A material condition, for example, can be impoverished or prosperous.

2) every form of catalyst is relative (more or less of this or that): so, for example, a material condition can be more or less impoverished or prosperous; a spiritual condition can be more less resistant or vibrant; a social condition can be more or less stagnant or abundant.

3) every catalyst affects (activates, stimulates) everyone differently: so, for example, someone for whom poverty is an everyday occurrence will react more intensely to being given a few hundred dollars than someone for whom financial prosperity is an everyday occurrence.

The underlying process is the same, regardless of catalyst:

catalyst > perception > identification > evaluation > reaction

At any juncture in this chain, owing to the play of principle 3, a difference of opinion can occur (e.g., someone from a ghetto who spots a one hundred dollar bill fluttering in the wind will evaluate the significance of this bill differently than someone who lives in a gated community), but from the point of view of STS or STO, the process of making efficient use of such a catalyst is different, which I codify in the following way:

STS: reacts, then absorbs and reflects on catalyst, controlling to impress

STO: reacts, then accepts and forgives the catalyst, releasing to express

So, for example, someone from a gated community (e.g., a boy dating a girl) makes an impressive show of snatching the one hundred bill and then giving it to the girl, charming her with a smile; someone from the ghetto (e.g., a devoted husband and father of three) might make a fool of himself trying to grab the bill, only to watch helplessly as it slips behind the gate of a gated community, whereupon he accepts and forgives the miss, releasing himself from the moment so that he can continue doing what he does best: being a devoted husband and father of three.

Where those polarized as STS attempt to control the impact of a catalyst so as to impress, acting in the interests of passion (95%+ of the time), those polarized as STO attempt to release the impact so as to express, acting in the interests of compassion (51%+ of the time).

I codify this difference as follows:

compassion first, passion second: 51%+ STO
51%+ of the time in favor of compassion in service to others

passion first, compassion second: 95%+ STS
95%+ of the time in favor of passion in service to self

Is this to say that passion and compassion are not compatible? Yes … and no.

Let me explain.

Making time and space for compassion requires an ongoing forbearance of imperfection, perceived or otherwise, or, at the very least, an ongoing tolerance of imperfection, perceived or otherwise. Without either, compassionate feeling and forgiving are simply not possible.

The devoted husband and father of three from the ghetto cannot forgive himself for missing the bill without a compassionate tolerance of his imperfections, however he might define these imperfections for the particular situation and interaction in which he found himself striving.

Making time and space for passion, by contrast, requires an ongoing navigation through perfection, perceived or otherwise, one that conditions the navigator to expect perfection up to a certain standard, without which passion feels rather inclined to die a quick and merciless death.

The boy from the gated community, in having a certain preoccupation with perfection, cannot merely snatch the bill; he must snatch it with the aim to impress; likewise, he cannot merely present it to his girl; he must present it with a charming smile, so as to impress even further.

From these two illustrations, it is clear that passion and compassion are not compatible between STO and STS, but let’s recodify the schema given above by switching the percentages to see if there might be some compatibility between passion and compassion within STO or STS:

STO: compassion first, passion second: < 49%+ STS
< 49% of the time in favor of passion in service to self

STS: passion first, compassion second: < 5%+ STO
< 5% of the time in favor of compassion in service to others

Here, it can be seen that STO could “control to impress” no more than 49% of the time in the interests of passion (and still be polarizing as STO), and that STS can “release to express” no more than 5% of the time in the interests of compassion (and still be polarizing as STS).

The ghetto father succeeds at grabbing the bill, kisses it passionately, and then sheepishly recalls his reason for grabbing it; the boy snatches the bill, realizes he has no use for it, sees the ghetto father, and then gives it away with compassion, despite the protestations of his girl.

Within the bounds of STO or STS, passion and compassion are compatible.

Which brings us to the next topic, which will further complicate yet elucidate the many and various complexities of service, namely, mistaken impressions of STS and mistaken expressions of STO.


Now you might think that someone who appears self-absorbed and self-entitled is polarizing as STS and that someone who appears other-absorbed and other-entitled is polarizing as STO, but you might be mistaken without getting a fair reading of the context, inner and outer.

Suppose you see a well-to-do woman taking her well-to-do poodle (the larger variety) for a walk in the neighbourhood. She appears deep in thought and doesn’t seem to notice an elderly man nearby struggling to carry a load of baggage. You conclude that she must be STS in her service orientation, in it for herself. What you don’t know is that she’s preoccupied with the details of setting up a multi-million dollar charity.

Suppose you go to an event for this same charity. A man is going all around, smiling and laughing, glad-handing everyone he meets, soliciting funds for the latest charitable project. He seems quite sincere, and very capable of getting people on board with the new initiative. You think that he must be STO in his service orientation. What you don’t know is that he’s preoccupied with projecting a favorable image of himself.

Here’s the thing: impressions of STS and expressions of STO are not always what they appear. Unless and until you know “what is going on behind the scenes,” so to speak, you’re really not qualified to judge the service orientation of anyone that you happen to see or hear.

In both of these cases, appearances can be quite deceiving.


Let us now broach the topic of pure and impure polarizations of STS and STO. Polarizations are those acts of service that are committed or performed to reinforce the corresponding orientation.

The following criteria gauge the purity and authenticity of service polarizations:

(1) a motive with a firm and pure intent (yes or no?)

(2) consent (has tacit or explicit consent been given?)

(3) a culturally appropriate action taken (yes or no?)

The glad-hander is operating in a context where tacit consent has been given to being approached for funds; his glad-handing is also culturally appropriate for the event in question; but his motive for doing what he does is suspect based on past conduct. Does he truly care? Maybe.

And what about the female high-school teacher (age 24) approached by a male student (age 16) with a proposition to buy her dinner and see a movie together. She diplomatically declines by telling him to ask her again in a few years while fondly caressing the rim of his jaw with her pen.

True, the proposition from the student invited such a response from the teacher, but was such a response culturally appropriate? Not likely. Yes, her motive for responding projected a firm intent, but was it pure, given that it might have encouraged the young man to try again before long?

Now suppose the teacher is male (age 24) and the student female (age 16).

Suppose that he agrees to take her up on her offer. His motive is firm and pure: he really and truly adores the girl. He has her consent and he has given her his consent, but is the action he takes culturally appropriate? In the unlikely event that it is, would it be universally shareable?

Some might say that the girl would have been better served had he declined.


Now you might be wondering: why all this talk about service? Is it even worthwhile? For the remainder of much of this post, I will attempt to provide an answer to these questions, giving diligent readers an opportunity to go back and read this entire post in a whole new light.

Let’s begin with STS, the service-to-self orientation.

In serving the self, in loving, trusting, and caring for the self most of the time, one is well placed in society with a stable, intelligent, attractive identity with a solid yet flexible character and a secure yet versatile personality. Exploitable opportunities flow to one with grace and ease.

But for one not so polarized, that is, for one who is merely polarizing, the temptation to exploit others without their consent is ever present; for those who persevere, they soon come to realize that cosmic law is not all that forgiving about such moral breaches, and so, if they are diligent and intelligent enough, they soon realize the workaround: exploitation through manipulated consent, whether said consent be tacit or explicit.

Suppose a young, attractive lady given to hypergamous aspirations, who also happens to be a social butterfly, catches the eye of a handsome, charming gent of wealthy means. Unfortunately, she has a bit of a reputation for putting undue (needy) pressure on wealthy gentlemen, but she is now, fortunately for her, aware of this, which is why she has decided to calibrate her approach with a bit of dirt on the gent of wealthy means. In exchange for a dinner meeting, the lady is willing to keep the dirt under cover, knowing she has less to lose if the gent digs up any dirt on her.

Another young, attractive lady would have no need of such manipulations.

Now let’s flip the switch to STO, the service-to-other orientation.

If you think that STO has no dirt on it, think again.

It is the same deal as STS, but with a slight twist.

In serving others consistently and persistently, in loving, trusting, and caring for others more often than not, one is well placed in society with a stable identity that carries a good character and a warm personality. Empathy and compassion come easily; opportunities arise with ease.

But for one not so polarized, that is, for one who is merely polarizing, the temptation to intervene on the behalf of others without their consent is ever present; for those who persevere, however, they soon come to realize that cosmic law is not all that forgiving about such moral breaches, and so, even if they remain diligent and intelligent about it, they might resort to this workaround: intervention through manipulated consent.

In the helping professions, there is a dynamic known as the drama triangle that features a perpetrator, a victim, and a rescuer. In helping the victim, it is sometimes tempting for a helper to assume the role of rescuer and intervene on behalf of the victim. Such interventions are often made with the justification that they’re “for your own good.” Such interventions can be quite creepy scary, if not downright cold and chilling. In any service-oriented profession, most notably in law enforcement where intervening “on behalf of the common good” is a trickier proposition, such interventions are not uncommon. In the interests of fair play, many of these interventions are reported in the media for the public good.

Keep in mind, too, that interventions made “for your own good” can be quite benign and numerous in the course of everyday life; better to ensure tacit consent or, if unsure, better to obtain explicit consent.

Here’s the main difference between dirty STS and dirty STO:

dirty STS

exploitation through manipulated consent (without coercion)
exploitation through seduction, deception, and/or manipulation

dirty STO

intervention through manipulated consent (without coercion)
intervention through seduction, deception, and/or manipulation

In light of this formal distinction, exploitation and intervention are key distinguishers between STS and STO. Clearly, neither STS nor STO are immune to corruption and pollution. Indeed, interactions between dirty STS and dirty STO can be quite complex, leading to complications.

Service with a smile is almost always subject to interpretation.


Imagine a world where STS prevailed, where dominance hierarchies were par for the course, where competition for jobs, mates, favors, and resources was fierce, and where skirmishes and clashes between subjects and between groups of subjects were all too commonplace.

Now imagine a world where STO prevailed, where egalitarian communities were par for the course, where cooperation and collaboration ruled the day, where harmony and unity were the rule rather than the exception, where peace and prosperity for all could be taken for granted.

Two very different worlds with two very different approaches to the world.

Which begs the question: in which kind of world do we live? Or, if this isn’t obvious, in which kind of world are we fated or destined to live? Let me get personal: in which kind of world would you like to live?

In case you haven’t noticed, this world is presently in the throes of a cosmic battle, not so much between good and evil, as between those (at the top) who would serve themselves most of the time and those (closer to the bottom) who would serve others more often than not.

I’ve already provided some hints (see above) about what would happen if STS overtook STO on Earth by consolidating wealth, power, and control of this planet, or what would happen if STO went around STS on Earth by distributing wealth, power, and control for this planet.

Any striking indicators of which orientation might be dominant as of this writing?

Consider this report: eight (publicly acknowledged) people on planet Earth own 50% of the wealth in this world. Sit with this stat for a moment, contemplating its staggering implications for the planet.

Now suppose you were given access to a bank account that rivalled the wealth of these eight people before being invited to take part in their deliberations about what happens with and to this world.

Would you give your consent on both counts? Yes or no?

And if you did, what would your motive(s) be for doing so?

In light of your motive(s), what would your contribution be?

Most telling of all, how would you manage the rate of growth in global population? And in designing and implementing management strategies, would you implement them openly or covertly? Either way, how would you manage the many repercussions of these implementations?

At this point, you might want to consider your reasons for doing so in the light of your service orientation, if indeed you even have one. If you do have one, would you keep it as is or would you flip it? Would you become even more service-to-self or even more service-to-other?

Would you aim for more personal power or more positive energy?

Perhaps you might consider a way to extend and transcend either one with an orientation that serves Creation itself. Be this as it may, each service orientation has its own concerns and challenges.

Where the main concern of STS is to preserve a sense of vulnerability so as to experience the power of being invulnerable by contrast, the main concern of STO is to preserve a sense of individuality so as to experience the positivity of being a part of a larger, greater whole.

primary STS concern (usually wordless and implicit):
“if I conduct myself to perform at my peak, I put my sense of vulnerability at risk”

primary STO concern (usually wordless and implicit):
“if I behave myself to conform to my peak, I put my sense of individuality at risk”

Until those oriented toward STO transcend and include the ego, they continue to walk a tightrope of care between conforming and performing, whereas until those oriented toward STS consolidate the ego, they continue to walk a tightrope of care between performing and perfecting.

Pure impressions of STS pose a constant threat to pure expressions of STO, just as pure expressions of STO pose a constant threat to pure impressions of STS, which is why they tend to polarize away from each other, or else, why they tend to challenge or undermine the other.

In light of these distinctions between STS and STO, the field of play on Earth gets even more complex and complicated when you factor into consideration the many and various ways in which STS and STO polarize and manifest in dirty (compromised, corrupted, polluted) ways.

The challenges of humanity are legion. Some of the items in the following list are on the “cause” side of global population management and some of them are on the “effect” side of global population management. I leave it to readers to decide which is which. Here’s a sample:

* inadequate diet and nutrition
* chemically contaminated food and water
* chemically contaminated skin care products
* chemically contaminated cleaning products
* chemically contaminated food packaging
* the horrors of modern industrial agriculture
* poor gut health (issues related to gut permeability)
* inadequate sleep, rest, and relaxation
* electronic screen syndrome
* ubiquitous electromagnetic smog
* rising consumer and government debt levels
* lack or loss of affordable housing
* widespread environmental degradation
* the hidden dangers of genetically modified this or that
* the potential harms posed by vaccination lot(terie)s
* ongoing media misinformation and disinformation
* lack or loss of public (or private) accountability
* a corrupted and polluted entertainment media
* widespread poverty or impoverishment
* urban and suburban neglect and decay
* a steady (measurable) decline in human intelligence
* widespread human and child sex trafficking
* growing migratory pressures between nations
* ideological warfare (vis à vis the culture wars)
* marked declines in trust, empathy, and compassion
* a growing epidemic of loneliness in all age groups
* a growing epidemic of mental health issues
* dumping grounds of intractable homelessness
* a growing reliance on psychiatric medications
* global epidemics of suicide and opioid overdosing
* rising cult(ure)s of entitlement and narcissism
* low morale among those serving the public good directly
* a world full of people who simply cannot care anymore

This list is just scratching the surface. These challenges speak to a world in a state of crisis and collapse, all because humanity as a whole simply cannot get it together long enough to address, confront, manage, and/or resolve its many challenges as catalysts for growth.

So why doesn’t humanity get it and keep it together?

At root, it all has to do with the imbalances being perpetuated between and within STS and STO. Humanity simply does not understand the critical role that these service orientations play, simply does not appreciate the full extent to which they both play a role in this world.

A balance of power could be struck between STS and STO, provided each orientation gave the other a fair chance to impress or express according to its inclinations. Otherwise, dirty impressions of STS and dirty expressions of STO will prevail, putting the world at greater risk.

A balance of power between STS and STO would also make it much easier for those oriented towards STN to get on board with either STS or STO, thereby strengthening the overall balance of power.


Allow me now to conclude this post on a note (or two) of cautious optimism.

The world in which we live is situated inside of layered matrix that permits and encourages learning and growth, awakening and enlightenment, so that the empowered soul can evolve and the empowered spirit can ascend together according to their respective capacities and abilities.

each experiential catalyst
is understood and appreciated
by the growing, seeking person,
first in terms of survival,
then in terms of personal identity,
then in terms of social relations,
then in terms of universal love,
then in terms of how the experience
may beget free communication,
then in terms of how the experience
may be linked to universal energies,
and finally, … in terms of
the sacramental nature of each experience

~ adapted from Ra, humble messenger of the Law of One

Let us remember that we are all one. This is the great learning/teaching. In this unity lies love. This is a great learning/teaching. In this unity lies light. This is the fundamental teaching of all planes of existence in materialization. Unity, love, light, and joy; this is the heart of evolution of the spirit ~ Ra, Law of One, Book III, Session 52, Page 16

For soul and spirit, it’s a long road that requires many millions of years of evolution. Along this road, throughout incarnated experience, fear, pain, and anger are especially prevalent as reactions to the catalysts of growth, pushing soul and spirit to polarize in one of two directions.

From a deep sense of existential betrayal, soul and spirit can draw inward on its own resources, separating itself from the Source of its birth, so as to love, trust, and care for itself at least 95% of the time so that it can skip universal love and move directly to communicating freely.

It’s modus operandus is to react, absorb, and reflect, controlling to impress.

From a deep sense of gratitude and generosity, soul and spirit can push outward, drawing on reSources from the Source of its birth, so as to love, trust, and care for others at least 51% of the time so that it can evolve and ascend through universal love into free communication.

It’s modus operandus is to react, accept, and forgive, releasing to express.

For both the separators and the integrators, it is well to recall the requirements for polarizing and being polarized: (1) a motive with a firm and pure intent (yes or no?); (2) consent (has tacit or explicit consent been given?); (3) a culturally appropriate action taken (yes or no?).

Know, too, that one can tap both modi operandi, regardless of orientation.

Where we are now, in this world at this time, we all have (if only sporadic) access to all levels of density above our own. In drawing the energies downward and inward or outward, we shape our respective worlds, and the world at large, serving as we go, for good or ill.

service suggestions

do your best to be creative;
be creative and do your best

be at One with the Law of One,
regardless of service orientation

take a deep dive into the unknown,
adding something special to Creation

pose questions you cannot answer;
follow a path not yet wholly explored

tunnel through until you see the light,
creating something out of the ordinary

guide someone to evolve and ascend;
make efficient, effective use of catalyst

be intimate and ecstatic with loving intent;
tune into beauty and harmony with serenity

‘Tis but a sampling of how I see myself serving others and myself.

Service: could there be a more complex and complicated notion?

In the overall scheme of things, be mindful of your place in time.


A preview of my published work can be found here.

An outline of my masterwork in progress can be found here.

A listing of my posts on this site can be found here.

Previous post:

Next post: