I am indebted to Mark Spirtos who inspired this conversation, and to
Joseph "Joe" Kempin who contributed material.
In the olden halcyon days,
enrollment
was sharing a personal experience of him. You only have to consider the
millions of people
worldwide
who
enrolled
that way to know it
worked
pretty well. Today sharing a personal experience of him rarely
features in the modern
enrollment
scenario. Today
enrollment
is sharing a possibility which touches,
moves,
and inspires people. And you only have to consider the millions more
people
worldwide
who
enroll
this way to know it also
works
pretty well.
But (and this is my underlying question): aren't the two really the
same?
If you have the
privilege,
if you have the sheer good fortune to know him today, to
be in communication with him today, to be around him today, to work
with him today, when you first experience the way he's always in
action,
it's an eye-opener. It's decidedly unusual - at first.
Now, if someone is unusual, they can be that way simply by being
more of something than the rest of us usually be. Or they
can be that way just by doing better at something than the
rest of us usually do. Or they can be that way by having something
different than the rest of us usually have. None of that
is the way in which he's unusual. His unusual isn't a more,
better, different unusual. His unusual is an
authentic
unusual. It's more than a bit disconcerting to
observe
for the first time. When you
observe
it for the first time, it's so
authentic
that it's ... well ... usual. And because his unusual is usual,
it makes your own erstwhile usual, unusual. Like I said,
observing
it for the first time is more than a bit disconcerting.
Being always in
action
is a new possibility for people - literally. For the most
part, we have no idea (and we rarely consider the
possibility that) we can be always in
action.
I mean, "everyone knows" it's simply not possible to be
always in
action.
We all know it can't be done. We all know we can't be that
way. We all know "it can't be done" and "we can't be that way" is
just the way it is for us human beings.
Well ... that's not true, actually. Those are just some of the
unexamined, entrenched, congested thoughts we have when
considering being always in
action,
and
why,
for the most part, we don't have being always in
action
as a possibility for human being, and
why
his being always in
action
effortlessly, joyously,
exuberantly
is a
breakthrough
in being for human being, which brings it forth as a new possibility
for all people. When one person starts being always in
action
effortlessly, joyously,
exuberantly,
it
creates
the possibility of everyone being always in
action
effortlessly, joyously
exuberantly.
That fish, walking up on land for the first time, brings with it
elephants
and eagles like a possibility.
I've generated my fair share of
enrollment
conversations. I've
enrolled
thousands of people. When I first shared his way of being always in
action
(which is one of the many effective, pertinent ways of sharing his way
of being which, in turn, is one of the many effective, pertinent ways
of sharing possibility itself), it was occasionally met with
skepticism. When people are skeptical about what I'm saying, their
skepticism is simply evidence there's no possibility for
them in what I'm saying.
There's
nothing wrong
with that. There's
nothing wrong
with skepticism or with being skeptical. There's nothing
personal about it, and I don't take it personally. If you
don't hear possibility in what's being said, then for you there's no
possibility in what's being said, and you're skeptical.
Sharing he's always in
action
is occasionally met with skepticism simply because for some people
(people who included myself ... initially) there's no
possibility of being always in
action.
None. And especially if we're not now engaged and / or are not now
enrolled
in inquiring into the possibility of being always in
action,
we can't hear it newly either.
For skeptics there's no possibility of being always in
action.
But being skeptical doesn't make it so. It's not true there's no
possibility of being always in
action.
His being always in
actionis 1,000% proof positive evidence of the possibility of
this for human beings. It's more than that actually. It's his being
always in
action
is 1,000% proof positive evidence of the very possibility of
possibility itself. The exception proves the rule.
Listen: "being always in
action"
may not look like what you think it looks like. It doesn't look
frantic. It doesn't look frenzied. It doesn't look like being speedy or
like being revved up. It actually looks quite relaxed and calm albeit
powerful.
It
shows up
as
deliberate
and
intentional.
Being always in
action
doesn't look like and neither does it require a lot of doing.
You should give up any and all
images
you may have of what being always in
action
looks like - like lurching from one activity to another, like being
constantly at the effect of and dealing with one thing and
another ... in other
words,
like a lot of
sound and
fury
and spinning wheels. In fact what it is, what being always in
action
looks like is being ongoingly,
relentlesslycreative24 / 7 / 365.
Then, in a class of its own, there's
being creative
like making a difference ...
His "being always in
action"
as "being ongoingly
relentlesslycreative24 / 7 / 365"
is
being creative
by bringing forth something out of
nothing.
It's
being creative
by inventing new possibilities where before there were none.
It's
being creative
as a purely
linguistic act
ie by
sourcing
a conversation which generates
transformation
and possibility and
enrollment
rather than merely describing, complaining about, reporting on,
criticizing, commenting on, or gossiping about the status quo.
It's
being creative
in a way which makes a far-reaching difference by breaking new ground
in what's possible for being for human being.
You could say that's its humanitarian aspect. Its
practical aspect if you will (and the line between
"humanitarian" and "practical" in this case is blurred at best) is
breaking new ground in what's possible
for business and for
academia
- and notice this particular way of his
being creative
is second only to his
being creative
which makes a difference with what's possible for being for human being
ie with what's possble for the girl next door and the boy next door -
actually for millions of girls next door and boys next door on six
continents
worldwide.
His being always in
action
is not merely as American as apple pie although to be sure
it's that also. For its reach, for what it's proven capable of, for
its impact, that would be way too constrained, way too confining.
So rather than stopping at "(it's) as American as apple pie" I'll add
"... and as human as being".