Some people
are just plain powerful. Others are very powerful. And
then there's a category of power beyond those two for
people
like him, a category I call "scary powerful". A
conversation with him is like inadvertently poking
your finger
into a wall socket (the analogy of being shocked is
fitting). He and I are in a conversation that repeatedly differentiates
between
what's so, and the
significance we add to what's so.
It's quite likely the distinction to master. If you're
ever going to master it, he's someone to
coach
you. And be ready to be shocked - not only by its unintuitive material
but by
your resistance
to it.
His intellect is like
steel trap.
Nothing gets by
this guy
- and I do mean nothing. Something he says elicits this comment
from me: "That's profound" I say. "No, it's not
profound" he says, chiding me, his eyes flashing, "It's
just what's so. 'Profound' is BS.". What gets me about
this remark is when I inquire into it, I get that I hold "profound" as
something intelligent to
share.
But it's not necessarily heard that way. It's just an add-on. I get
that now. The world is not profound: it's just what's so (listen:
there's that differentiation between
what's so, and the
significance we add to what's so,
again - it's definitely a theme).
Then he says something about "the way it is" which is so simple that
I wonder
why I haven't ever come up with it myself before. I can get that the
way it is is the way it is (simple, straight-forward,
obvious - if not now, then in retrospect). But wait! There's more: what
he brings forward is "the way it is" can't be any way other
than the way it is. Now that's an angle I certainly hadn't
inquired into before, and when I do, it rocks and shocks my world.
Look: if you are comfortably chillin' in your world like you're
relaxing in a tepid bath, it's a jarring wake-up call: "The way it is,
can't be any way other than the way it is.". If you live under the
illusion that the way it is can be any way other than the
way it is, be ready to have your tenuous world rocked and shocked
around him.
In the course of our sweeping, far-reaching conversation, I suggest to
him something which could have two possible outcomes: this
way or that way. "Or whatever ..." he says,
not getting locked into only two ways of looking at anything. There's
that
steel trap
again: irrepressible. It won't ever be repressed.
Our conversation shifts into an inevitable debrief of how our lives
have been going in the year that's gone by (ie flashed by) since we
last met on Zoom. I'm reporting back on the
Conversations For Transformation website,
and the plethora of essays posted to it: "You know, the purpose of
that website,
is really just to showcase
Werner:
conversations,
experiences,
encounters,
papers,
photographs,
questions,
quotes,
videos,
visits
... and more. So I continue posting new essays simply to keep
people
freshly exposed to and in touch with the
Werner
material. The essays themselves are really only of secondary
interest.".
His eyes drill mine like
a laser.
He's
quiet.
Then he says "You're a like an ontological trout
fisherman" (quote unquote) and continues speaking.
"Wait!" I interrupt, "Did you just say ...
'ontological ... trout ...
fisherman' ... ?", grabbing pencil and paper to jot it
down,
loving
his turn of phrase. "I did" he nods.
