The three essays which comprise this
Leadership
trilogy aren't about The
Leadership Courseper se. Neither do they purport to authoritatively
recreate
any of the underlying abstracts of it or any of the specific ideas
disseminated in it or any of the distinctions distinguished in it.
Ordinarilywe think
of a conversation as something we do
- which is to say
we think
of a conversation as something we make (ie we "make"
conversation) or as something we have (ie we "have" a
conversation). However I'd like to assert something much more
fundamental than that: what a conversation really is, is actually
prior to having a conversation, and even prior to making
conversation. Rather than something we do, a conversation is
something we are - more
rigorously
stated,
who we are
is a conversation.
Don't second guess me here. When I assert
who we are
is a conversation, it's not an analogy and it's not a
euphemism. When I assert
who we are
is a conversation, I mean it quite literally. The
intention
of this essay is to enliven the domain in which
who we are
is a conversation, a domain which is in contradistinction to the domain
in which a conversation is something we make or something we have. In
the latter domain, a conversation comprises an exchange of
noise (basically, yes?), often an exchange of
entertainment, and perhaps an exchange of information.
Try this on for size: to deem a conversation only an exchange of noise
(first you make noise at me, then I make noise back at you, then you
make noise back at me, etc - and sometimes as we all know, we both make
noise at each other at the same time) is to trivialize the
possibility of
who we are
as a conversation. To deem a conversation only an exchange of
entertainment (first you say something which entertains
me, then I say something back at you which entertains you, then you say
something back at me which entertains me, etc) is also to trivialize
the possibility of
who we are
as a conversation. Even if we escalate our
view
of what a conversation is beyond an exchange of noise and / or
entertainment, to an exchange of information, while
closer
to what a conversation really is, it still trivializes the possibility
of
who we are
as a conversation. It trivializes the full possibility of what a
conversation can be.
When you and I are in a conversation,
what actually happens
is your speaking (ie your mouth) programs my brain and
alters my way of being and
acting.
Your protocol ie the
machine
code for doing this, is
language.
Your mouth is causative in the neurons of my brain where I'm
standing
(as
Werner Erhard
may have said), and my mouth is causative in the neurons of your brain
where you're
standing.
The ramifications of this are
vast.
This is the full possibility of what a conversation can
be.
The neurons of my brain react when you speak. That's what they do - and
it's critical to get the fundamental choicelessness of it.
It's not "The neurons of my brain react when you speak great things.".
Neither is it "The neurons of my brain don't react when
you don't speak great things.". And it's definitely not
"Today's the day the neurons of my brain are off duty and
won't be reacting at all" either. It's when you and I converse, no
matter what you speak, no matter when you speak it, the neurons of my
brain react. Period. Look and see if that's true for you. There's no
on / off switch which flips to activate (or shut off) the
neurons of my brain reacting. The process is entirely automatic. The
automaticity is built into
the machinery.
The reactions of the neurons of my brain are always automatically
directly related to, correlated to,
in a dance
with
what you speak - in other
words,
your mouth and my brain are always automatically directly related to,
correlated to,
in a dance with
each other. This is your mouth and my brain. But its actually more
immediate than "this is your mouth and my
brain": it's "this is your mouth / my brain". Similarly the
reactions of the neurons of your brain are always automatically
directly related to, correlated to,
in a dance with
what I speak - in other
words,
my mouth and your brain are always automatically directly related to,
correlated to,
in a dance with
each other. This is my mouth and your brain. But its actually more
immediate than "this is my mouth and your brain": it's "this is my
mouth / your brain".
What's interesting is how obvious this mutual
interactivity (if you will) ie this mutual
interconnectivity of a conversation is, on
close
inspection. Yet what's also interesting at worst is how much energy we
expend
resisting
this essential nature of a conversation (by remaining aloof, by
disengaging,
by feigning disinterest, by claiming shyness, by
ego-tripping
if you will, etc), and at best is being totally unaware of it, having
never scheduled an occasion to inquire into it. Look
closer
(don't
think
about this: just look from your experience): given how
human beings are, it's simply not possible to live outside the
context
of its absolute, total, all inclusive interactive,
interconnected, inter-related oneness.