He'd read an essay I'd written for this
Conversations For
Transformation internet series of essays,
an essay which pivoted on
integrity
being a matter of
honoring one's word
(which by the way is arguably the only definition of
integrity
in a plethora of definitions of
integrity
which is worth anything at all). And what he said he got about word
from the essay, wasn't congruent with what the essay said about word.
He said he got that one deploys word to convince people something's
true
when it isn't, citing events in the current political landscape as an
example. In so doing, he was missing two things: the
integrity
of word, and (not to mention) the total gist of the essay.
That word (which is to say, that way of deploying word)
isn't word as
an access
to being in
integrity.
I got the sense (it occurred to me) we were actually in the middle of
not one but two overlapping conversations: one,
a conversation for
transformation
and word which isn't political in nature, and two, a
political conversation which is often famously (or infamously) devoid
of
integrity.
My challenge has always been to see if I can tease out the difference.
I'm not taken with the latter. Even more than that, it's that without
the former, the latter has no utility.
Muddying the water further, he then asked me who I'll vote for. "You
have to vote" he said. To his credit, he was touting "have
to" vote like
the privilege
it is, not like a coercion. As an immigrant, I agree it's
a privilege.
So vote. Just vote. But that's not what he was about. He was about
"Whose side are you on?". In
a conversation for
transformation,
who I am in the matter is the one who votes. That's what any
conversation for
transformation
is about. Who I vote for or why I vote, is actually beside
the point. But he persisted, as if he was trying to
trap
me into taking a position. I told him what's unimportant is my
position. I told him what's wanted and needed is unification, not
separating positions. People have separating positions, lots of them.
We take sides. It's what we do. But if you tell
the truth
about it, that we take sides is on full automatic.
It's our survival-of-the-tribe mentality. It's built-in to the
machinery.
He didn't let up. "What's your position then?" he asked
sarcastically. "My position is you have a position" I
said. "Isn't that avoiding the issue?" he asked, apparently missing the
distinction I was making. I suggested if he's
interested
in transformation, then he should read
Conversations For
Transformation
and if he's
interested
in a position, then he should watch
the morning news.
The morning news
doesn't provide transformation. It would be a bad place to go to get
it, just like
Conversations For
Transformation
don't provide a position (other than noting you have a position,
automatically). It's not smart to go there expecting to deal with /
debate / argue one position or another. And his entire thesis / subtext
was that
the work of transformationshould have a position.
I put it to you that no matter what position you have, be it right or
left, be it
east or west,
be it white or black, be it front or back, it
makes no
difference.
We've been taking / having / changing positions for centuries, and
this
is what we got.
This
is the way it turned out anyway. I put it to you that positions don't
solve problems (arguably they may only add more). And it's just
possible that why positions don't solve problems, is that they're
built-in to the same machinery (the very same mechanisms) which caused
the problems we face in the first place. Maybe
the starting point
to regaining power in the matter is to get that in being mechanical,
a position by its very nature is devoid of possibility. That is what a
position is like. And my position is you have a position.