"Agreeing to disagree" is really the starting point for real communication. Divergence in viewpoint - different perspectives - are originally intended (by our creator) to yield greater insight, greater learning, and expanding awareness.

The Enemy is the one who takes difference in views, and putting ego, selfishness and all of our fallen nature in the forefront, seeks to use those things to undermine and create division and then destruction.

He can do this when our hearts are not aligned with seeking truth, or insight, at the cost of "self" (or perceived cost of self, because learning the truth and expanding our awareness is actually always beneficial to the true self). When we say "agree to disagree" is the starting point wherein we adopt the attitude and intention: even though we do not see eye-to-eye or have the same focus here, we can, if we pursue with integrity and freedom from ego, actually learn from each other and from the interaction.

As I've mentioned, my context is one of art, or using "shakespeare-like words and tone" to inspire an appreciation for the transcendent nature of the truths, the messages and the spirit that Q provides. To do this, I clothe this "message" in some recognizable turns of phrase, drawing on pre-existing examples of "highlighting the transcendent" that Shakespeare is known and loved for and dressing that message up in them.

I could simply write up the message in shakespeare-like language - I'm pretty capable of that, but without alluding to actual shakespearean plays, scenes and motifs, would it be of any interest to anyone? People know Will, but they do not know Fractal.

Let me return and offer a question to you. Can you think of any actual examples of scenes or dialogs in Will's plays that match perfectly or strongly with a) words or messages that Q has dropped? b) realities and situations that the Great Awakening points us to? c) the Plan?

I've read Julius Caesar, and quite a few of the plays, plus I am fan of the numerous good renditions and translations into film that some have done, particularly in modern times by Brannagh. I am a linguist; and my connections with Sh go back 3 decades. But for me, Shakespeare is mostly about the language and the pointing to the transcendent that it raises in me, the emotional and spiritual response, rather than the other dimensions, such as political or social etc, that others may choose to focus on or resonate with. And I suspect in your case, this might be the case?

To elaborate, I'm more interested in how Antony mobilizes the emotions of his audience and the moral spirit that his character gives expression to than the political and social points he is or may be making. You seem to be drawn particularly to the harder political or social aspects ("the arguments") he is making to his audience.

You may not quite see it like that, which is fine. I'm simply expressing what I see from the angle I am using.

I would not think either of these two approaches is better, more important or more valuable than the other. It's simply what individuals choose to appreciate, focus on or enjoy. This is a natural aspect of art appreciation. Different people see different things.

Looking forward to your reply.

A blessing on you and your loved ones. FI