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

A Loose Relationship With This Thing I Call "I"

Napa, California, USA

March 24, 2023


"If you're going to be a leader, you're going to have to have a very loose relationship with this thing you call 'I' or 'me'. Maybe that whole thing in me around which the universe revolves isn't so central! Maybe life is not about the self but about self-transcendence."
... 
"Who you mean when you say 'I' is not you. It's just something that shows up for you."
... 
"All through the day: 'I', 'me', 'mine', 'I', 'me', 'mine', 'I', 'me', 'mine'. All through the night: 'I', 'me', 'mine', 'I', 'me', 'mine', 'I', 'me', 'mine'. Now they're frightened of leaving it, everyone's weaving it, coming on strong all the time."
... George Harrison
This essay, A Loose Relationship With This Thing I Call "I", is the fifth in a quintology on I - The I Essays:

Foreword To The I Essays:

Language provides the tools for generating and sharing experience. Tools in my toolbox may be inadequate. A tool may not be as sharp  as it needs to be. I can render inadequate tools adequate in the context of Conversations For Transformation by tightening the definitions of words and including them in The Laurence Platt Dictionary. I can sharpen a tool ie I can sharpen my language  in the context of Conversations For Transformation by adding rigor.

Here's me adding rigor to what I'm indicating by "I" in the first three titles of The I Essays:

In the title of the essay I, the first in the quintology comprising The I Essays, "I" indicates who I really am, context, space, possibility.

In the title of the essay And Then Along Came I: The Genesis Of Identity, the second in the quintology comprising The I Essays, "I" indicates my identity  and how it came to be.

In the title of the essay The Illusion Of I, the third in the quintology comprising The I Essays, "I" indicates me  which doesn't exist out-here.


On close scrutiny I notice there are two anomalies which are challenging about this thing I call "I", and now I'm asking myself "How can they be resolved?".

The first anomaly, right off the bat, is the most vexing. It's this: if this thing I call "I" is who I really am, then who (or what) is experiencing  this thing I call "I"? Wouldn't I be who (or what) is experiencing this thing I call "I", and therefore I would not  be this thing I call "I" itself? If that's true, then this vexing anomaly would be resolved, given that I would not be this thing I call "I" after all. And since I must obviously be who (or what) is experiencing this thing I call "I", it would indeed seem to be the case that who I really am is not this thing I call "I" after all ("Curiouser and curiouser ..." as Alice may have said).

Wow! So with all that said, it's certainly beginning to look like whatever this thing I call "I" is, that it most likely would not be who I really am after all. That's wild! Hmmm ... if who (or what) I really am is not this thing I call "I" after all, that would be an interesting place to be ...  But look: what's more interesting than that, is this: if who (or what) I really am is not this thing I call "I" after all, then what exactly is this thing I call "I" really? That's the second anomaly.

The second anomaly is less vexing, yet it's more subtle than the first - which makes it harder to distinguish. What it is, is really just the first anomaly, but in reverse. It's this: if who (or what) I really am is experiencing this thing I call "I", then I could not be this thing I call "I" after all (watch: the experiencer of the thing, is not the thing itself) yes? So if who (or what) I really am is not this thing I call "I" after all, then tell me what exactly this thing I call "I" really is?

My observations about the first anomaly are these: if who I really am is who (or what) experiences this thing I call "I", then who I really am is the space in which this thing I call "I" shows up. And when I be  this space of who I really am in which this thing I call "I" shows up, I notice that I do not refer to this space of who I really am as "I". And when I be this space of who I really am which I do not refer to as "I", that's when I really get this thing I call "I" is not who I really am: it's just something that shows up up for me in the space of who I really am (which, by the way, is vintage Erhard  not a Laurence original).

My observations about the second anomaly are these: if I'm not this thing I call "I", then what is this thing I call "I" really? Could this thing I call "I" simply be the voice of ego*  intoning "I"? Now I don't say it is, and Werner didn't say it is. I'm merely conjecturing. But with that said, could it be that this thing I call "I" is not my  I? Instead, could it be ego's I which only shows up as my I whenever I forget to differentiate between ego, and the space of who I really am?  When I differentiate between ego, and the space of who I really am (ie when I transform my life)  then who I mean when I say "I" is not me, it's just something that shows up for me in the space of who I really am, but not as  who I really am (ie this thing I call "I" could be the voice of ego intoning "I").

The currency of the world ie its coin of the realm  is: who we are for ourselves and for each other, is this thing we call "I". Ergo  to be a leader, you have to have a loose relationship with this thing you call "I": be it when it's appropriate to be it; be the space in which it shows up when it's appropriate to be that.

* Postscript (Ego):

"From time to time, ego will reign supreme anyway regardless of any attempts to demote its tyranny. When you're lit up by ego like a hundred watt lightbulb, just don't deny it. Tell the truth about it. Be authentic about it. As soon as you tell the truth about ego, you've reinstated the being  in charge, rather than ego being in charge. The oft touted mystical notion that ego should be destroyed or purged or even fixed  is simply evidence of being unclear on the concept. Ego is as much a critical, essential, natural component of our human structure as an arm or a leg. The appropriate relationship to have with ego is to own it and to be responsible for it."
... excerpt from Conversations For Transformation #120: Ego

Note: when I refer to "ego", it's as a verb  (ie to ego) the way Werner deploys it, not as a noun (ie the ego) the way it's colloquially deployed.

Communication Promise E-Mail | Home

© Laurence Platt - 2023 Permission