The Culinary Institute Of America At Greystone, St Helena,
California, USA
April 23, 2007
I like
simple things.
Ultimately life is simple. I also like simple explanations. I don't
always explain things simply, and some things I can't explain at all.
Nonetheless the best explanations are simple ones. Simple explanations
are the best explanations to give and they're the best explanations to
get. Yet the truth of any explanation is often this:
I assert we really can't explain anything. I assert we simply
get to a point in our conversations where we stop drilling
down and agree we've reached bedrock, at which point
we question no further. That doesn't mean we've explained anything. It
just means we don't question beyond that point.
Try it on with something we all know about: walking. Explain it. How do
you walk? First you move one leg. How do you do that? You bend your
knee slightly and lift it. How do you do that? You
contract your thigh muscle. How do you do that? etc
At some point you realize even though we all know about walking and
even though you do it every day, you can't explain how you walk, a
corollary of which is you can't explain anything
... really.
That doesn't mean we're never going to be called on to explain things.
We don't live that way. One of the things I'd like to explain is
Werner's work. What do I say to someone who asks what it is? How do I
explain it to them?
In the normal course of events the receiving component of
explaining is understanding. You explain something. I understand
(or not, as the case may be). But when it comes to Werner's work,
understanding is the booby prize. Werner's work isn't received
by understanding. Instead it's received by getting or by
grokking (as Robert Heinlein may have said).
I'm clear a lot of explaining Werner's work is given by who I'm
being as a result of experiencing it. I'm clear a lot of explaining
Werner's work is given by dancing in the speaking and listening of it.
I'm clear a lot of explaining Werner's work is given by enrolling
people in the possibilities I've invented for myself and my life as a
result of participating in it. But I'm also interested in something
brief, in something terse, in something pithy, in something to the
point I can say in response to the question and request "What
exactly is Werner's work? Explain it to me in ten words or
less.".
The
magnum opus
which is the conversation for transformation ongoingly evolves from the
expanding speaking and listening a hundred and sixty thousand and more
new graduates a year bring to it around the world, adding to the
millions whose lives have already been touched by Werner's
work. Transformation is transformation, no matter where, no matter
when, no matter how, no matter who. That's a given. That's
axiomatic. What was possible for transformation in 1971 may not
have been as widely spoken as it is today even though
arguably it's always been and always will be the same possibility: the
possibility of being for human being.
Werner's
work has been described as "a rich body of distinctions" each of which
triggers and gives access to one of the many facets of transformation.
It's holographic. You can start anywhere, at the beginning or in
the middle or at the end, and you still end up in the same place. Every
component of the whole is embedded in every other component, and the
whole itself is embedded in every component. You could talk about it
forever and still not describe all of it.
That said, I've looked at what I would say about it if I had to choose
only onething to say about it ie if I had
to explain it in ten words or less. This is what I'd say:
Werner's
work
gives
the
experience
"who
you
are,
distinct
from
your
mind".
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
There it is. In ten words or less. Of all the distinctions in the rich
body of distinctions, I assert that's the source
distinction. That's square one. Everything else stems from it.
Everything else starts there. All breakthroughs are fueled by the power
of that distinction. All invented possibilities extrapolate to that
distinction. The possibility of possibility itself
predicates on that distinction. Werner's work is, before all and after
all, an experience of distinction.
In asserting Werner's work is an experience of the distinction "who you
are" as distinct from your mind, I own that's how it shows up for me.
It may not be the official point of view. And even if by
some coincidence it is, here I'm not speaking the official point of
view. I'm simply sharing my experience. I'm simply stating what for me
is the core distinction, what for me is a really useful response to the
question and request "What exactly is Werner's work?
Explain it to me in ten words or less.". If it explains
Werner's work to you, that's great. Just remember, all that implies is
we've reached bedrock so we won't question beyond this
point. Also remember, if my explanation works for you, if you
understand it, the best I can offer you is the booby
prize. To get it completely, to experience it like a
possibility, you'd have to participate in it. That's another
distinction entirely.
Distinguishing understanding from experience, especially when delivered
like this in writing, won't end neatly wrapped with a ribbon and a bow.
I'm leaving it rough and raw. I'm going to finish it like
this, ridden hard and put away wet.