"Transformation is being in a conversation for transformation. When
you are no longer in a conversation for transformation, you are no
longer transformed."
...
"Words mean things, like they're numbers: if you add numbers together
you get answers, if you add words together you get answers, if you add
the wrong words together you get the wrong answers."
I am indebted to my maternal grandfather Benzion Morrison ("Grandpa
Ben") who inspired this conversation.
Until I started
paying really close
attention
to what I was saying about what was going on in
my life,
I was disconnected from my speaking. Indeed until then, I was
unaware I was disconnected from my speaking. When I did
become aware of it, I slowly but surely ie
inexorably
re-connected with it again.
Given the various paths there supposedly are to transformation /
enlightenment,
Werner
is arguably one of the few
leaders
of any renown, to distinguish speaking / language as
the access
to transformation. The assertion that speaking / language is
the access
to transformation, is truly extraordinary. And it's more than merely an
assertion actually, more then merely a notion,
a belief,
a bon mot. It's the actual experience of it in which the proof
lies. Realizing / experiencing that speaking / language is
the access
to transformation, is like going to the fridge to fix a midnight snack,
opening the door ... and seeing
the Grand
Canyon
in there. It's not expected. Far from it. And yet once experienced,
it's incontrovertible: speaking / language is
the access
to transformation.
The
difference between
speaking and talking
is that speaking, just speaking, is generative ie it
creates something new, whereas talking ie talking about, is
narrative ie it describes something that already exists.
Talking about human rights for example, discusses (with
the opinions
which go with any discussion) the now thirty human rights. But it
doesn't actually create anything, whereas Eleanor Roosevelt and others,
speaking "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family ..." literally
spoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into existence.
The first human rights charter before then, is considered to be the
Cyrus Cylinder, circa 539 BC. There was no such thing as human
rights. It wasn't until various individuals and institutions from
then on, spoke them into existence (notice only after
human rights are spoken into existence, can they be talked
about). And as valuable and as cherished as they are, this
conversation is not about human rights. It's about the power of
generative speaking to create.
Our speaking deploys language to create and deliver what we've created.
In this sense, it works better to say "our speaking deploys
language-ing (verb)" instead of "our speaking deploys
language (noun)". The take-away is when I refer to "language", I'm
using the term as a verb, which imparts more power than using it as a
noun. To "speak in the French language (noun)" is to "language (verb)
in French". The components of any language are its words. The Vedic
pundits of
India
of five thousand years ago noted when the naming word for any object
was uttered in the Sanskrit language by a saint, that object manifested
and materialized out of nothing (that's arguably the earliest
reference to the power of languaging to generate ie to languaging as
generative).
