To choose is to select
freely
and after consideration - to quote
Werner Erhard.
In other
words,
I choose because I choose. If there are justifications for my
choice, it isn't a choice: it's a decision. If there are
reasons for my choice, it isn't a choice: it's a decision.
Justifications and reasons have no
freely
in them. Furthermore, justifications and reasons are
considerations. To choose is to select freely and after
consideration.
All that said, this essay,
Being And Acting
Out-Here:
Presence Of Self
Revisited,
fleshes out one yardstick which is useful to consider before selecting
freely.
Transformation,
it could be said, is a matter of speaking
transformation
(that's not someone else's quote - it's something I said). Granted,
that's a tautology. A tautology is when something is defined in
terms of itself - as in
"Transformation
is a matter of speaking
transformation.".
Some purists may extend this definition by saying a tautology is when
when something is defined redundantly and / or
unnecessarily in terms of itself.
In this case, the extended definition doesn't apply.
Listen:
transformation
is
marvelously
tautological. Consider
Werner's
brilliant
and seminal
"Transformation
is the space in which the event
'transformation'
occurs.". Now that's a tautology for you! And there's
nothing remotely redundant or unnecessary about any one of the ten
words
it comprises.
As for his definition, don't try to understand it. You can't. It
doesn't fit into that structure. It doesn't fit into that category. But
you can get it.
This essay ie this
conversation,
however, isn't about tautologies. It's about
what happens
over time with
language
which effectively speaks
transformation.
In particular, it's about
what happens
over time with
languagetools
ie with
words
deployed in effectively speaking
transformation.
Two things of
interesthappen,
both of which result in such
words
starting off being sharp, incisive, and effective, then becoming
blunted, dulled, and progressively less effective.
There's
nothing wrong
with the original definition. After all, it succeeded
brilliantly
in carving out a new
listening
for
transformation
for millions of people
worldwide,
a new
listening
in which people could tangibly get the possibility of possibility
itself, hence calling for the re-engineering of the old definition.
And so it is with these
Conversations For
Transformation.
About five years ago I found it useful to key any choice I was making,
from the yardstick "Will this (ie whatever I was choosing) facilitate
presence of
Self?"
- as documented in the
Conversations
For Transformation
essay titled
Presence Of Self,
the prequel to this one,
Being And Acting
Out-Here:
Presence Of Self
Revisited.
Given the space that yardstick
created
for me to make choices at an entirely new level, I've re-engineered the
old yardstick as the new, current "Will this (ie whatever I'm choosing)
facilitate being and acting
out-here?".
It's really the same question ie it's really the same yardstick for
choosing, but with
"presence of Self"
appreciated at an entirely new level, now re‑engineered more
explicitly, more pointedly, and more tightly as the new, current "being
and acting
out-here".
Indeed,
"presence of Self"
shows up
as "being and acting
out-here".
"Being and acting
out-here"
is how you recognize
"presence of Self".
It's how you
authenticate
it.
That's an appreciation of
presence of Self
at an entirely new level - hence the new, current yardstick for
choosing: "Will this (ie whatever I'm choosing) facilitate being and
acting
out-here?".
Or not.