Werner's
idea that who we are is constituted in language is, for
the most part, challenging ... at first. The very idea of
transformation being a function of language is
disconcerting, daunting. It implies transformation is (merely) a
function of our speaking - indeed, it implies the access
to transformation is less of a function of what we speak,
and more of a function of that we speak. It implies
transforming our lives and
transforming Life itself
is simply a function of our conversations.
If that is indeed the case, then the idea of transformation as
language is an acquired taste - and worthwhile acquiring.
If you tell people they can transform their lives just by altering
their conversations, in all likelihood you'd be met with a degree of
disbelief, with skepticism ... at first.
For the sake of this discussion, whatever the path to enlightenment or
salvation is or isn't construed to be, if you ask people for the truth
about how they personally construe it, they'll almost never include
language as its facilitator. And here, I'm not using language in the
sense of the speaking that speaks about enlightenment or
salvation. I'm using language in the sense of the speaking that makes
it possible ie that generates it.
Speaking, for human beings, mostly implies speaking about something. In
other words, speaking is mostly a means to describe. We consider
speaking to be about something already in existence. We hardly ever
consider that we speak something into existence. We have
it that speaking is narrative. It's hardly ever generative
for us. Actually it's worse than that. Speaking, the way we hold it,
has no possibility of being generative, of being anything
other than narrative, than descriptive.
Yet we recognize generative speaking when we hear it. And when we do
recognize generative speaking (even if we don't call it that) we say
its speakers are gifted, inspired, ahead of their time, that
they have "a way with words", etc. We almost never consider those
gifted, inspired, ahead of their time abilities to be normal, to be
quite ordinary, to be freely available to ourselves and to any and
every human being.
Martin Luther King, referring to equality for all races, spoke "the
promised land" into existence like a possibility ie he
simply conjured it up out of nothing. Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi, by inventing the possibility with his speaking, literally spoke
the colonial British out of
India
non-violently.
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela
spoke the end of apartheid. What's more, he also spoke it as the
non-violent, no-revenge end of apartheid when anyone who knew anything
about politics at the time predicted that if apartheid ever ended, it
would be heralded by a blood-bath of epic proportions, simply as a
matter of course. Amazingly too, apartheid ended just as
Nelson
asserted: bloodlessly, peacefully. On September 12, 1962 President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke a man onto the
moon
by the end of the decade. That possibility didn't exist up until the
moment of his speaking it ... and Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar
surface on July 20, 1969 for the first time, not even ten years later.
Dr King, Gandhi,
Nelson Mandela,
and President Kennedy didn't just speak about something.
It was their speaking itself which brought forth a new possibility and
ultimately a new reality. Their speaking generated new possibilities
for things not then possible, to become possible, and then to manifest.
To an extent, you know who I am when you see me. But when truth is
told, you really know who I am when you listen me
speaking. Speaking narratively ie as a commentator, I can only be in
the realm of what's already happened. However speaking
generatively not only brings forth what's not yet
happened like a possibility, but it also brings who I am forth. See, I
can't bring forth possibility without bringing forth who I am at the
same time. That's because possibility, like who we are, is constituted
in language. Once who we are is brought forth as our speaking ie once
who we really are is brought forth in language,
transformation becomes possible.
Be careful. I'm not saying that like it's the truth. In fact if
you want to completely devalue the idea that who we are is constituted
in language, just make a rule out of it, just make a belief out of it.
That's deadly. That will kill it deader than dead. What I'm suggesting
is if you stand with the idea that who we are is constituted in
language ie if you try it on, you'll notice the correlation between who
we really are as we come forth into the world, and our speaking. That's
proof / evidence by direct experience, not by explanation and
understanding.
So is there really a definitive way to enlightenment, to salvation? The
jury's been out for centuries on that one. Yet many paths have been
meticulously laid out, some of which are arduous, some of which require
multiple reincarnated lifetimes, and some of which are religiously,
adamantly exclusive. But I wonder: could the way be as simple as
speaking it? Is speaking our way to
enlightenment
really available to human beings? I mean really? is it?
The question is intriguing ... and worthwhile.