Conversations For Transformation: Essays Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

Conversations For Transformation

Essays By Laurence Platt

Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

And More

No Line

Muir Beach, California, USA

Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2011

This essay, No Line, is the fifth in a group of nine written on Thanksgiving Day:

in that order.

It is also the seventh in an open group on Transformation:

so far, in that order.

When we speak the word "transformation", there's movement in it - you can hear it, yes?

It's understandable if you hear the movement in the word "transformation" as change - as if transforming something is the same as changing it. It's understandable because transformation is becoming jargonized in our culture. We talk about a renovation transforming a house - in other words, really, changing a house. We talk about a specialized piece of exercise equipment transforming your body - in other words, really, changing your body. It's not simply that in both these examples, the word "transforming" is misused. It's worse than that. It's that in both these examples, transforming is connected with changing. In other words, the word "transformation" is connected with change, thus diminishing its power to convey the real distinction "transformation".

<aside>

When words like "transformation" become jargonized to the point where they're no longer useful for conveying critical distinctions, then it's time to invent new language to convey these distinctions.

The real distinction "transformation" is the real distinction "transformation", regardless of which word it's conveyed by. A rose by any other name is still a rose, albeit by another name.

<un-aside>

The truth is (ie is discovered to be) with transformation, nothing changes. If anything, with transformation comes the realization things are and always have been and always will be the way they are and the way they aren't - in other words, with transformation things are unchanged, exactly the way they are, and exactly the way they aren't.

This isn't good news if what you have in mind is changing the world (the world is perfectly OK the way it is, and it's also perfectly OK the way it isn't).

<aside>

Let's be totally, unflinchingly honest about this: changing the world has been tried many, many times before. The plain truth is changing the world has never worked. This is because changing anything while standing on a soapbox of "something's wrong" merely produces something else which is also wrong. We human beings keep fervently changing the pieces of the scenario over and over and over again, yet we blindly leave the soapbox itself unchanged ...

It's a fundamental tenet of Life, whether I like it or not, that "What you resist persists" - to quote Werner Erhard. In other words, resistance causes persistence.

If you're going to make any difference at all, you have to stand on a platform of "the world is perfectly OK the way it is, and it's also perfectly OK the way it isn't", then look from there at what's possible. This doesn't change anything. Looking at what's possible isn't in the same domain as change. Change rearranges what's already here (which we already know has never worked). Looking at what's possible brings forth something entirely new.

<un-aside>

It's even worse news if what you have in mind is changing yourself (you're perfectly OK the way you are, and you're also perfectly OK the way you aren't).

So the movement you hear notwithstanding, there's no change in transformation. To the contrary, the movement you hear in the word "transformation" is a shift. To be specific, it's a contextual shift. Change and a contextual shift aren't in the same domain. Change is the remaking, the rearranging, the reshaping of already existing things. A contextual shift, on the other hand, is an experiential shift of the context in which all things show up.

Rather than merely remake something or rearrange it or reshape it, a contextual shift brings the context in which that particular thing shows up, into play. Said another way, a contextual shift brings who I am, bearing on that particular thing, into play. When who I am, bearing on any particular thing, is brought into play, the context in which that particular thing shows up, shifts. I then no longer experience who I am as he who interacts with that particular thing. I then experience who I am as the source of that particular thing.

When I experience who I am as the source of that particular thing (of all things, actually), this is transformation. The contextual shift which occurs, after which I experience who I am as the source of that particular thing (of all things, actually), as opposed to as he who merely interacted before with that particular thing (with all things, actually), is the movement you hear in the word "transformation".

When I experience who I am as the source of all things ie when I experience who I am as the source of my life, there's no "my life" outside of my experience. When I experience who I am as the source of my life, I can't separate my experience from my life. Indeed, when I experience who I am as the source of all things ie when I experience who I am as the source of Life itself, I can't separate my experience from Life itself. There's no line for me separating my experience, from Life itself. I'm alive. I'm experiencing. This means it's all my experience.

Communication Promise

E-Mail | Home

Permission