I am indebted to Victoria Hamilton-Rivers who inspired this
conversation.
Werner
Erhard's
famously
blunt assertion
"You are a machine"
rocks as effectively as it teases millions into completely reassessing,
into newly looking into our true nature. Taken literally at face
value, it's not surprising it's a tough idea to fully come to grips
with. But if you do take it on and own it like an inquiry, it
makes for a fascinating unfolding process of discovery which, once you
get clear about who (and what) you really are, sets up a
ground breaking breakthrough with discontiguous yet predictable
outcomes.
Confronting it as Werner's immutable position,
"You are a machine"
at first leaves some people flabbergasted, others horrified, some
aghast, others in sheer disbelief, and some virulently
skeptical. Others, on the other hand, are left in a state of profound
peace and ecstasy with the bliss that only comes with natural
knowing, with the joy that only comes with an authentic
"A-Ha!" experience. In many instances there's also an
accompanying respectfully incredulous yet delighted "Damn!
Why didn't I think of this before? Of course!".
Here's something to consider: I assert if you
interpret
Werner's
"You are a machine"
as primarily and only intended as an opinion
masquerading as a statement of fact, that is to say as a point
of view for you to debate and / or argue with, or as a position to
disagree with or to agree with, you'll not
only miss the point entirely - you'll totally miss who Werner is in the
matter as well. Please understand debate and argument, disagreement and
agreement are not only healthy: they're pragmatic tools useful in
assessing new material ... AND ... they're just not very
powerful tools in thiscontext,
given what's available, given what's possible. In thiscontext,
to get this, to get what's being said, to really get it,
you have to listen with
new ears
so to speak. You have to listen with
beginner's mind.
Speaking
rigorously
(which implies selecting each word carefully both for it's impact as
well as for the accuracy of what it invokes), I assert it's not so much
Werner's
"You are a machine"
which yields results per se although clearly that's the
source of the idea and the origin of it's breakthrough implications.
Rather it's you confronting Werner's
"You are a machine"
which yields the pay dirt. In other words, the source of the
breakthrough is you, eyeball to eyeball with, nose to nose with, face
to face with ie confronting the
machinery.
When confronting something rather than trying to
understand it causes a breakthrough in being, we call that
"something" an access. Confronting Werner's
"You are a machine"
is an access to who you really are. Who you really are is a being, as
in human being.
Make no error about what I'm saying here:
"You are are a
machine".
Period. End of story. Don't expect to be reading anything
subsequent soon in this or the rest of these
Conversations For
Transformation
which will get you off the hook.
Confronting Werner's
"You are a machine"
is, metaphorically speaking, an entry level course, a
qualifying reference without which you're precluded from
registering in Transformation 101. Confronting, then
getting, then being complete with the
automaticity is arduous at times, often uncomfortable,
even harrowing. It's also, from another vantage point which
sooner or later shows up spontaneously in any inquiry into the true
nature of who we are, blind numbingly simple, obvious,
clearly
what's so.
To avoid getting it, to cover it up, to pretend it's not
so, is about as naïve as a clock asserting it has no
automaticity either. If you could observe and interact
with a clock asserting it has no automaticity, you'd listen
compassionately, watching it wrestling with the
inexorable
truth about its own nature.
As you start telling the truth about the automaticity, as you start
distinguishing the automaticity, you invariably start to
notice the
context
for the automaticity, you invariably start to notice the
space in which the automaticity shows up. Only then can
the authentic languaging of who you really are, begin: you're a human
being, you're the
context
for the automaticity ie for the
machinery.
You're the space in which the automaticity shows up.
So why not simply assert first, rather, "Who you are is a human being"
instead of
"You are a machine",
and cut out the middle man entirely - so to speak?
Furthermore, if who you really are is a being, is it erroneous to
assert
"You are a machine"?
And if it isn't, is it a
paradox
or, worse, a lie to assert
"You are a machine"
when what you intend is for people to get the being they really are?
It's not erroneous. Neither is it a lie. And - truth be told - it's
not even a
paradox
either. By being who you really are, that is to say by being the
machinery
you really are, you get out of the way of the
inevitability of who you really are. You let be the
inexorability
of who you really are. You stop
resisting
who you really are. When you be the
machine
you really are, you assume ie you inherit the power to
create. In other words, who you are is a creatingmachine.
You're a magnificent creating
machine,
in fact.
But don't let that acknowledgement distract you. Don't let your
ego
become gratified by the compliment and side-track you. As your true
nature, as what you are,
you're a machine.
Period. End of story.
