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.
When
speakingtransformation,
I notice what also
works
well and renders it
listenable
is
speaking
it commonly - that's "commonly" as in
"common
denominator".
It just
worksspeakingtransformation
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
speakingtransformation
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
speakingtransformation,
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
authenticSelf-expression,
I consider shaving off excessive style to be an important
tool
for
speakingtransformation.
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
listenedLennon / 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
listeningLennon / McCartney,
and
listeningWerner.
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: