There are invisible people among us who want to destroy us...I think...well, maybe it is only a paranoid illusion...but we all have them.

They are our invisible victims, invisible heroes, invisible villains, all who grind and comfort us every day. We each choose our gatherings of invisible allies and invisible adversaries that best suit our orientations. Yet, we are all reasonable folks so, why so angry, why so passionate, why so inflexible?

I wonder how much time do we all spend worrying about invisible foes (or, invisible problems) when we should be spending our time building something of consequence-something to inspire others, creating something new that might spark others to spend their time being more productive rather than worrying about invisible things.

For every one, real victim, hero or foe worthy of our attention there are hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions who do not.

I know this is a terribly insensitive thing to say but, we all might have more in common with each other than most of us would care to admit.

When you talk to folks about what's important to them-that is to say, things that go far below the surface of what they are saying, down to the level of what they are meaning- we humankinds might just be in more agreement with one other than safety permits.

But hey, that wouldn't be much fun now would it?

There is just some quirkiness about the human make-up that impels us to be polarizing; a mentality that compels us to scurry toward opposite stances, to engage in a dodge and parry in an attempt to sway others that our invisible ideas are better than their invisible ones.

I do so miss the exercise of deliberate debate. They have been too few and too far in between to satisfy an accommodating spirit. Such debates where you cannot use any 'talking points' only armed with the objectivity of what you think/feel.

If I could, and I know I cannot, I would like to sit down with many to choose from, over a cup of coffee (or tea) and talk about stuff that bugs us. One rule stipulated is you can't use any data to reinforce your position, only your own thoughts. Data (a future article) is like spices in your kitchen cabinet; there are all sorts to choose from and can be used in many ways to reinforce intended results. But they only add flavor.They are never the primary ingredient.

Our 'talk' would be only about what's in the pot, sans seasoning. And I have an approach on how to moderate such a talk.

I knew a very wise man who gave me a notion that I have ever since enjoyed. It was an approach he often used with the intention of exploring ideas and bringing folks views in to the realm of common sense, rather than emotions.

He was a well known Kentucky preacher who could have easily been a doctor or lawyer but he chose, or rather was chosen, to be a preacher. He was also a rebel within the church because he emphasized stimulating you intellectually, rather than emotionally; he figured the spirit would flow as a natural progression of things in due time.

As he often traveled around the world he met many intelligent folks along the way. He was a very personable man, easy for anyone to talk to. And many did.

Early into any discussion each learned the other's occupation: (They) "I am a lawyer, an executive, a college professor (his favorite)..." (He) "I am a Methodist preacher."

He storied well the guarded look on their faces, surprised that such a bright, articulate man had wasted his life in some other venture than making money and worldly security. They were unsure of how best to respond but he made them relax enough to have a good, long talk. He usually got them in the end.

Often they would proclaim, "I don't believe in God."

To which he would ask, "Tell me about the God that you don't believe in?"

They would be glad to answer with a litany of reasons, well rehearsed over years of thought and rationales. "I don't believe in a God who can allow pain, suffering, poverty..." the list was usually long but the preacher would give a good listen and nod with each offense. Then the preacher would admit, "I don't believe in that kind of God either."

"Let me tell you the God that I believe in." and he would have them soon swimming hard against a torrid blast of ideas leaving them intellectually exhausted and open to reconsider their positions at some point in the future.

I think such an approach could work on other topics- Topics that divide yet, ones that there is reasonable ground for agreement. I think it could work for my invisible talk.

Start with a position: I don't trust ________.

Fill in the blank with any person or group (I don't trust; Educators, Corporations, people who live in New England or in the South. I don't trust Liberals, Progressives, Libertarians, Capitalist, Communist, Librarians (Librarians??).

Then as moderator I would ask, "Tell me about the ______ you don't trust?"

I figure that a net result, foranyone with an opposing perspective on things, might be inclined to move toward a more agreeable position and admit, "I don't trust that kind of ____either...let me tell you about the _____ I trust in."

Perhaps this approach could stimulate latent common sense. I figure the more common sense kind of talking done the more these invisible threats become real, tangible-if we can see them we can speak to them and, they can speak back!

So, we might discover that those vaporous evil people, or evil conditions that drive us all kinds of crazy, might be more of an illusion than a reality. Then we can actually do something about a condition rather than just talk around in circles.

If so perhaps we can achieve enough gumption to fix real things...but that is not the hardest part of the consolation process...

The hardest part is to convince ourselves that we don't need the comfort and security of our invisible universe that contains the good and evil we fabricate in the first place. Go figure.