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


How Are You Jude?

Cowboy Cottage, East Napa, California, USA

January 17, 2015



This essay, How Are You Jude?, is the companion piece to Naked Presence: Deploying A New Grammar.

I am indebted to MichelJoy DelRe and to Reg Leonard who inspired this conversation.




This Conversations For Transformation internet series of essays should, by their purported nature, stand, and intention, be thoroughly and critically proofread before they're posted online. The finished product ie their internet presence  should be immaculate, perfect, impeccable, and free of typos and other errors. Transformation however, sometimes calls for language which can't be expressed deploying the traditional rules of grammar. Elsewhere in this series I've addressed the issue of using non-traditional grammar when and where traditional grammar rules and syntax fall short of bringing forth transformation. If you listen these Conversations For Transformation without granting me the license to occasionally deploy non-traditional grammar and for this purpose, it will almost certainly get in the way for you.

In addition to non-traditional grammar, there's also the matter of my own personal style in these conversations. Overly personal style can also get in the way of bringing forth transformation as much as if not more than non-traditional grammar. When it comes to errors of style, I have more flexibility than with non-traditional grammar. Style I can change. Non-traditional grammar I may not be able to change - like when traditional grammar simply doesn't work ie doesn't get the job done.

I'm open to criticism - in fact I welcome it. There's a small army of people, friends who generously proofread these Conversations For Transformation pointing out any errors (factual, syntactical, spelling, grammatical, typographical, as well as errors ascribed to the distractions  caused by style) I occasionally miss in my own already searching and thorough proofreading. I can't thank them enough - and I can't make their corrections fast enough or post the corrected pieces back to the internet fast enough. It's only their suggestions concerning my use of non-traditional grammar and personal style which I may not include, and in fact more often than not, don't.

What works speaking transformation (and what's possibly the most effective  way of speaking transformation) isn't necessarily dependent on traditional grammar or on likeable style. It's speaking transformation in a way which can be listened. It's not even necessarily speaking transformation in a way which can be agreed to, but rather speaking it in a way which can be listened. In fact given the nature of transformation, and given what's at stake  speaking transformation, perhaps the only  criterion for speaking transformation that works, is speaking it in a way which can be listened.

When speaking transformation, I notice what also works well and renders it listenable is speaking it commonly  - that's "commonly" as in "common denominator". It just works  speaking transformation commonly even though transformation itself may be uncommon, and not speaking it as if I'm only speaking to insiders ie preaching to the choir  who already know that to which I refer, nor speaking it in a way which is overly stylized. As a human being, I have my own style, as do we all - it's a given. The thing isn't to eliminate style. It's simply to ensure it doesn't get in the way.

That's not always easy. My personal style is so deeply embedded and entrenched in my presentation that left unexamined, it's almost impossible for me to catch it by myself. So when speaking anything creatively, and when speaking transformation in particular, I distinguish and honor my own style ... and  ... I take responsibility for it when it gets in the way of my speaking landing in others' listening the way I intend it should - as it surely will from time to time if I'm not careful. I honor my own style, even though when it comes to speaking transformation, it's probably true to say that what works best is less style rather than more.

All that said, while personal style unavoidably comes with the package  and is an intrinsic aspect of ie a component of our authentic Self-expression, I consider shaving off excessive style to be an important tool for speaking transformation. Yet if, when those friendly Eagle eyes  among you suggest I should change or delete it (I count on you to; I request you do), and if after consideration I determine a particular stylized expression speaks something I can't speak any better without it, I'll decline to change it. If I decline your suggestion, it's not personal. If I listened Lennon / McCartney and offered them my personal opinion that "Hey Jude" would work better if they changed the title to "How are you Jude?" and after consideration they declined my suggestion, I wouldn't take it personally. And neither should you.

Now there's a vast  difference between listening Lennon / McCartney, and listening Werner. The difference may not be what you think it is. It doesn't occur in the domain of music either. And in this particular conversation it's appropriate to flesh it out because it creates the context for everything that's spoken here. It's this:

When listening Lennon / McCartney, I become acutely aware of what great guys they are. I mean, how do you even begin to measure their kind of great? It's off the charts  great (no pun intended). When listening Werner however, I become acutely aware of what great guys we  are. They  (Lennon / McCartney) are great guys ... as contrasted with we  (you and I, Werner, Lennon / McCartney, all of us, humanity) are great guys. That's the big difference. That's transformation.



Communication Promise E-Mail | Home

© Laurence Platt - 2015, 2016 Permission