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

GoFundMe

The Magic Of "May"

TrueNorth, Santa Rosa, California, USA

November 20, 2023

This essay, The Magic Of "May", is the third in a trilogy written at TrueNorth:

What do I mean by the magic of "May"? ie to what does the title of this essay refer? Left undifferentiated, it remains as the triple entendre that revealed itself to me, with its emphasis on magic. So to say to what the magic of "May" refers, I'd first have to ask one more question: to what is "May" referring?

If "May" is the name of the month, then it's the fifth in the Gregorian year with numerous occasions (some religious, some not) celebrated in different parts of the world. They include Mother's Day, Buddha Purnima (the Buddha's birthday), Lag B'Omer, International Family Equality Day, World Laughter Day, International Day Of Light, World Bee Day, World No Tobacco Day, Cinco de Mayo, etc. To represent all of that, and more ... epitomizes the magic of "May".

If "May" is the name of a woman, then she's the love of my life. "May" is magic - in every way the word can be applied to being human. My life is enriched, enlivened, rewarded, and validated by being in her presence. To meet her is to know what it is to experience loving and being loved as the magic of "May".

But in this essay, "may" (lower case "m") is a modal verb, and the magic of "may" refers to the magic of possibility. In particular, it refers to the outcome of a certain linguistic act that's magical when deployed. To be more specific, "may" refers to a linguistic act of assertion ie a way of asserting something so that possibility and not dogma is set up ie it's a way of asserting something such that it sets up possibility rather than shutting it down. Allow me to explain.

In Conversations For Transformation (in any conversation actually) we could say that the success (if you will) of what's said, is whether or not it's listened. Moreover, we could say the success of what is said, is whether or not it can be listened ie we could say the success of what is said, is whether or not it is listen-able. As long as the machinery of our ears works, what is said is always heard* - but is it listened? Consider that what is said is listen-able inasmuch as it sets up possibility rather than shutting it down. And when I deploy the word "may" rather than the word "is" (or one of many other derivatives of "is") then I'm setting up possibility rather than shutting it down, making what's said listen-able, and assuring the success of what's said. Here are two examples:

I can say "Werner's work is the surest access to transformation" ... or I can say "Werner's work may be the surest access to transformation.". They are the same, yes? But one is listen-able. One has my arrogance in the way (like I'm a smart aleck, a Mr know-it-all zealot who risks shutting down your interest in conversation), and one has my arrogance in check, leaving you open to more conversation. I can say "Transformation is what the world needs" ... or I can say "Transformation may be what the world needs.". They're the same, yes? But one's listen-able. One has my arrogance in the way (like I'm a smart aleck, a Mr know-it-all zealot who risks shutting down your interest in conversation), and one has my arrogance in check, leaving you open to more conversation.

And that is the magic of "may" (lower case "m"), the modal verb, the linguistic act of asserting something in a way that it sets up possibility rather than shutting it down. And it's not only that when I say "may" rather than "is", that I leave you open to possibility. It's I leave myself open to possibility as well.

Footnote: the difference between hearing and listening:

The grammatically syntactically correct way to refer to listening ie the way my school marms taught me, is to say something like "I listen to you" and "You listen to me" - the preposition "to" is deployed.

The trouble with saying it that way is when I listen to you, you're over there, and I'm over here. "I listen to you" has directionality across distance. That's not listening. It may be hearing ... but it's not listening.

When I listen you, on the other hand, you're over there, and in my listening I'm over there too with you. "I listen you", unlike "I listen to you", has congruence.

Hearing is automatic. Listening requires intentionality.

Communication Promise

E-Mail | Home

Permission