I am indebted to David Kaplan who inspired this conversation.
Recently I happened to be in a conversation with
friends
during which one of them asked what "knowing in order to"
was, as opposed to merely "knowing".
If ever there was a distinction which could be said to epitomize being
transformed, this is arguably it. It's also a distinction that may not
be getable outside of the context of being transformed. Some of our
verbal
expressions
are just that way: when they're spoken in a context of being
transformed, they enliven certain distinctions and experiences of being
transformed which are simply not present when spoken outside of the
context of being transformed. It's true.
The words and
language
of
conversations for transformation
don't always fit colloquial use. There's no assurance dictionaries were
written by transformed people (they probably weren't). Dictionaries
were written deploying words and
language
for meaning, whereas the words and
language
of
conversations for transformation
deploy words and
language
for experience. And "knowing in order to, distinct from merely
knowing" is
language
for experience ie for the transformation of experience.
While it's
language
that's easily gotten ie grokked (as Robert Heinlein may
have said) in a context of being transformed, it may not enliven
anything useful outside of that context, instead causing more
puzzlement than it's worth, obfuscating the possibility of
transformation itself.
So ... what is knowing "in order to"? It's a good question I thought, a
great question, actually. Arguably it's the
question that gets to
the heart of Werner's
work:
how is knowing "in order to" different than merely "knowing"? (getting
/ grokking the difference, provides
a powerful access to being
transformed).
My first take on an answer to that
question
was this:
consider
prior to being transformed, there's no "knowing" anything. Indeed, all
there is prior to being transformed, is knowing "in order to". Knowing
in order to what? Knowing in order to avoid being conned,
knowing in order to win, knowing in order to
look good.
In other words prior to being transformed, all there is, is knowing in
order to survive. Prior to the onset of being transformed, I
assert we don't know anything. We only know "in order to". Don't
believe
that because I said so. Try it on for size. Check it out. If it fits,
keep it,
it's yours.
If it doesn't, discard it.
And ...
so what?!
What's the big deal? What's powerful about this distinction?
Consider
it's this: in being transformed, simply knowing allows for
presence of Self
along with knowing - whereas knowing in order to survive, isn't
conducive to allowing for
presence of Selflike a possibility to be there along with it. Knowing "in
order to" consumes the space of who we really are. Try that on for size
too. Check it out. If it fits, keep it,
it's yours
too. If it doesn't, discard it.
Knowing "in order to" is all that's available prior to transformation.
In contradistinction, simply knowing something but not necessarily "in
order to" is the mature transformed distinction. Said another way,
knowing "in order to" is the domain of survival, and simply "knowing"
is the domain of transformation. So first distinguishing "knowing in
order to" and then distinguishing not "knowing in order
to" ie just "knowing", gives
an access to transformation.
Try it on for size. Check it out. If it works, keep it,
it's yours.
If it doesn't, discard it. Oh, and all the
friends
in the conversation liked / got / grokked that - like a yardstick.
