If language does indeed prove insufficient to the task of
definingwho we are,
does this lay waste to the possibility of language
beingwho we are?
I am
who I say I am.
In other words, I speakwho I am.
It's more than that, actually. It's in the act of speaking, and in
particular it's in the very act of speaking
who I am
when I'm most authentically beingwho I am.
In this sense, language is
who we arelike a possibility. It's possible to deploy language like that.
Now consider this (it's not necessarily "the truth" - it's
just something to consider for this conversation):
Your hand is your hand. It grasps, but it can't grasp itself. Your eye
is your eye. It sees, but it can't see itself. Similarly, your language
is
who you are.
It's the context for
who you are,
but it can't definewho you are.
Language, being
who you are,
may be insufficient to the task of defining
who you are.
But even if language does prove to be insufficient to the task of
definingwho you are,
that doesn't detract from, besmirch, or diminish language
beingwho you are.
Being and defining aren't in the same domain.
My assertion is language aswho I am
isn't diminished if it doesn't definewho I am,
any more than my hand isn't diminished if it doesn't grasp itself, any
more than my eye isn't diminished if it doesn't see itself.
And yet, be that as it may, if I can get you to getwho you are,
I won't need to definewho you are
anyway. You'll know - directly, intimately,
experientially.
The
Conversations For
Transformation
essay
Zen Bland
sprang from an exchange in which something monumental was shared in a
way which emphasized and embellished its monumentalness, if you
will. At the time, that seemed like the appropriate way to share it.
Yet in hindsight (and hindsight is always 20/20 vision), I
saw it ironically interfered with people actually getting
how monumental it was.
When I got that, I made a point of repeating the same conversation
using totally
bland
language. I simply let people have the facts without adding any
embellishment at all whatsoever. In that
bland
delivery, they totally got the monumentalness of it by themselves. This
approach worked much, much better in conveying the monumentalness of
it than any expression of the monumentalness of it could ever convey.
This is the
source
of
Zen Bland
for me.
Zen Bland
documents language being monumental without needing to
define monumentalness itself or without even needing to
define
why
something is monumental - although it may accomplish one or the other
or both also. Language may bewho I am
without being diminished if it turns out it's true language is
insufficient to the task of definingwho I am.
In any case, as for whether it's really true language is
insufficient to the task of defining
who I am
or not, I'd like to wait and see. The jury's still out on that one.