This is
why
"Can I (is it possible to) stay current with
the work of
transformation?"
is an inquiry I've engaged in for a few months now. This essay
re‑creates
and shares what's emerged for me. Here's the punch line
(*** SPOILER ALERT!
***):
the idea of staying current with
the work of
transformation
is almost impossible in at least one critical sense, and it's also
really moot, an absolute non sequitur in another.
Here's the first question: in what sense is it almost impossible to
stay current with
the work of
transformation?
The work of
transformation
travels at the speed of sound ie at the speed of
language,
at the speed of the spoken
word.
The more it's
listened,
the more it can be spoken, and the more it's spoken, the more
accurate it becomes. The more accurate it becomes, the
more likely it is to expand into new areas. Indeed the more likely it
is to expand into new areas, the more likely it is to make a
difference in new areas. At the speed of the spoken
word,
what's current today with
the work of
transformation,
becomes old very quickly as it ongoingly
breaks through
into new areas, making the idea of staying current with
the work of
transformation
almost impossible.
That, and the very
language
which generates
the work of
transformation
is constantly evolving. In
Werner's work's
originating years, the
language
of
transformation
(which is to say the
language
with which
transformation
is generated and shared) was blunter, more abrupt, more
confrontational. In spite of various opinions to the contrary,
this wasn't due to some boorish lack of skill, finesse, or social
grace. It was that way simply because given it's newness,
unfamiliarity, and striking
maverick
originality at the time, it was hard to
listen.
Consequently it required a certain
commitment,
a certain unwavering strength, a certain unstopping power
to communicate it effectively.
Today, given its familiarity in
the world,
it's easier to
listen.
It can be gotten faster and without effort, and so it naturally needn't
be as blunt. This natural evolution as an ongoing process, has also
called for crucial definitions to be
re-written
or at least to be
re-worded
more appropriately to the zeitgeist.
Transformation,
for example, once defined
self-referentially
as "The space in which the event
'transformation'
occurs" is now the lighter, less cerebrally challenging
(if you will), more direct (albeit less
interesting,
in my opinion) "The Genesis of a New Realm of Possibility.".
This isn't a difficult transition to make. It's quite smooth actually.
The new definition is the outcome, the result of what came before. The
new definition comes from what came before. It
stands on
what came before. However, if you aren't actively engaged in the
conversation for
transformation,
it's almost impossible to segue from the earlier to the
newer, to keep up, to stay current.
And then there's the whole advent of the notion of
possibility.
Ah,
possibility!
When
the work of
transformation
began ie when the
conversation for
transformation
began, it was primarily concerned with setting the foundation for,
distinguishing, then delivering
transformation.
Thereafter it was clear something new had become
available. It became apparent something new had become possible which
wasn't possible before. When that fish walked up on the land for the
first time, it brought with it
elephants
and eagles like a possibility. What had become possible and
reachable which wasn't possible before, was the possibility
of possibility itself.
Those are but a couple of examples of how staying current with
the work of
transformation
is almost impossible - almost impossible, that is, without
participating
in it ongoingly. And this anomaly isn't likely to change any time soon
in the foreseeable future.
The work of
transformation,
by its very nature, always opens up newer and newer possibilities.
There'll always be something newer and newer to get, on
and on, forever and ever.
All that said, here's the second question: in what sense is the idea of
staying current with
the work of
transformation,
on the other hand, really moot, an absolute non sequitur? In this
sense:
Consider there's an arbitrary line I could draw. On the one side of
this arbitrary line is becomingtransformed:
the searching, the seeking, the path, the struggle. On the other
side of this arbitrary line is beingtransformed.
The arbitrary line is drawn between nottransformed
(past and present) and soon to betransformed
(future). After I
miraculously
cross this line and look back, I could say the line stood between
amtransformed
(present and future) and wasn'ttransformed
(past).
Except that's not
what happens.
That's not how it goes. And
why
we're surprised when it doesn't go that way, is because looking at it
like that, assumes
transformation
is linear ie sequential, that
transformationhappens
in a moment in time.
It's in this sense of timelessness that the idea of staying current
with
the work of
transformation
is really moot, an absolute non sequitur. Because
transformation's
timeless, you being
transformed
are always current with it. You being
transformed
are always current with
the work of
transformation.
And you're always congruent with it too, by the way. How could you ever
not be?