I am indebted to JeanneLauree Olsen who inspired this conversation.
I guess it's because I publish material regularly which is
internationally distributed, that people who have come across these
Conversations For
Transformation,
contact me, then engage with me (either in
face to faceconversations
or via
e-mail)
about what they evoke for them. Yes they are evocative. Now that's
actually not my main
intention
for them. Yet given their
context,
they are bound to be evocative. It goes with their territory. And
because they are evocative, they elicit comparisons born of similarity.
So people recommend books to me, or they'll ask me if I've read this
book, or if I've read that book. When they do, I take it as a
compliment. And make no error: it really is a compliment
to be
spoken
about in the same breath as known
writers.
Then I decline their recommendations or I let them know I (probably)
haven't and won't read the book in
question.
It doesn't end there. Who would not want to read all the
great material out there? There's value in the explanation I give them:
All evidence to the contrary, I don't actually see myself as an author
or as a
writer.
Really I don't. Who I am for myself is someone who
speakstransformation.
And I
speaktransformation
because it's the only way I know to have it come forth in my life and
stay. It just so
happens
that I
speaktransformation
deploying
this internet series
of essays
as my medium. So I suppose that does make me a
writerby default. I can own up to that. I can be responsible for it.
But who I am for myself isn't a
writer.
A
writer
is what some of us are. No, who I am for myself is a
speaker.
A
speaker
is what all of us are. In other
words,
what I do is
nothing
out of the
ordinary.
So when people recommend books to me, or when they ask me if I've read
this book or that book, I tell them the
truth.
I tell them I don't read a lot. That comes as a surprise to them. There
seems to be an
expectation
that I, a
writer,
would read a lot. But I don't. I tell them I prefer to leave the space
of my being
empty
and
open.
I prefer to look into this
empty,
open
space ie into this
bigemptiness,
seeing if I can derive new ideas from it for myself. After all, isn't
that what the goal of
writing
is? Isn't that others' goals too? If I'm going to say something
original
at all, then it
works
best for me not to add anything to the space in which new ideas occur.
It
works
best for me to look and see if I can come up with something out of the
emptiness
ie to see if I can come up with something out of
nothingauthentically.
An essential component of all these
Conversations For
Transformation
is distinguishing (distinguishing out of
nothing)
- not narrating nor commenting, not comparing nor
opining.
One of the things I've
gottenclear
about
being aroundWerner,
is where he
gets
what he
gets.
I mean where does he
get
it from?
Consider
this (not like it's the
truth
but rather like it could be it's
true):
he
gets
what he
gets
by
looking
into the space ie into the
emptiness
of his own being, then distinguishing what's there. I've heard him
assert on countless occasions he has no
interest
in explaining or in understanding what's
there (and he definitely has no
interest
in
fixing
what's there) - just in distinguishing it. I've made that my model:
looking into the
emptiness
of my own being, and distinguishing for myself what's there. Then I'll
speak
it (or
write
it as the case may be). It's useful
listeningWerner
articulate what's there to be distinguished. But it takes on a
power
all of its own when you and I distinguish it for ourselves.
That's why I don't read much. Said a slightly different way, that's
why I'm wary of reading. I'm not looking to present
others' theories, traditions, and customs in new ways. I'm not looking
to say something intelligent about them. Neither am I looking to talk
about
what other people are talking about. There's
nothing wrong
with any of that, mind you. It's just not what I'm
committed
to. What I do ie what I'm
committed
to is challenging myself to look into the
bigemptiness
of my own being, and distinguish the material
directly
for myself, rather than from any number of (intelligent) authors'
conjecturing. Of course, anyone who
eschews
reading altogether, is a fool. On the other hand anyone who's unwilling
to look into the
emptiness
of their own being, and distinguish the material
directly
for themself, is an even
bigger
fool.