My answers to "How?" questions can be the showstoppers of
conversations.
Here I'm
speaking
about answers to questions in the class of "How" do we
create?
or "How" do we
interpret?
or "How" do we think?
I'm not speaking about answers to questions in the class of
"How" do we
bake a cake?
or
"How" do we dismantle an atomic bomb? (as U2
may have asked) or "How" do we get to the north
pole?. You can read books which provide answers to questions in
this class.
Answers to questions in the class of "How" do we
create?
or "How" do we
interpret?
or "How" do we think? or even
"How" do we walk? are answered (accurately, I
might add, although not always palatably) in similar ways
like this:
More about
consideration
later. In the meantime, if I'm asked "How" do we
create?
or "How" do we
interpret?
or "How" do we think? or even
"How" do we walk?, I might answer to all of the
above "I don't know" (which really is the truth for me), and
then, after a pause for emphasis, offer the
vintage
Erhard
quote "Understanding is the booby prize.". For me, understanding
"how" I
create,
isn't required before I
create.
For me, understanding "how" I
interpret
or "how" I think, isn't required before I
interpret
or before I think. For me, understanding "how" I walk, isn't required
before I walk. To
createI
create.
To
interpretI
interpret.
To think I think. To walk I walk.
Then, if there's a
listening
for this, I'll point out "I don't know" can either be obfuscated with
ignorance, with not having the facts, with not being successful getting
the answers ...
OR ... "I don't know" can instead be an opening, a
clearing
in which new knowing can
show up.
In other words, "I don't know" and the willingness to tell the truth
about "I don't know" and the willingness to stand in the
possibility of "I don't know" can instead be,
counter-intuitively, a very high space.
If there's no
listening
for this, the
conversation
is often harumphed to an unceremonious end.
It's hard to get it's enough to be, and not have understanding
(ie "how?" questions) interfere with the process of being at all. We're
so heavily invested in "how?" questions. We're addicted to the
answers. Yet how profound is it when we have the
answers to so many "how?" questions, when we understand so,
so much, and yet our lives don't
work
any better as a result?
The best answer to any "how?" question I've heard is
Werner's
answer to
"How" do you invent? He replied "You invent
by considering
something invented like a possibility. You invent
by consideration
alone.".
Definition
consideration
noun
from the verb
consider
(POSSIBILITY)
to spend time thinking about a possibility or making a decision
<unquote>
Given the way this lands for me with the notion of thinking about a
possibility being too heavy and unproductive
(not to mention not powerful), plus the fact that
consideration
as I use it, doesn't require spending time, what I realized may be
wanted and needed here is an entirely new definition of the abstract
noun
"consideration"
which the existing dictionary definition starts to tease out but
doesn't quite fulfill on. So I've defined a new definition of
consideration
which includes what in my opinion is missing from the
existing dictionary definition of
consideration.
noun
from the verb
consider
(POSSIBILITY)
to call a possibility into existence, to make an idea or an action
manifest, or to make a decision then act
<unquote>
Let's try out the efficiency of this new tool on "How" do
we walk? Everyone knows how we walk, right? If you're
disabled and you're unable to walk, choose another of your everyday
activities for this exercise - like raising your hand.
Everyone knows how we raise our hand, right? Let's see.
We walk by putting one foot in front of the other. Yeah but ...
"How" do we put one foot in front of the
other? We put one foot in front of the other by lifting one
leg and moving it forward, then lifting the other leg and moving it
forward. Yeah but ... "How" do we lift one leg and
move it forward, then lift the other leg and move it forward?
We lift one leg and move it forward by contracting the
muscles of the leg etc etc. We contract the muscle of the leg
by sending it a signal from the brain etc etc.
Now, pretty soon, if you follow this chain of how do we
etc all the way back its origin, you realize you wouldn't
understand how to send a signal from your brain to a
muscle in your leg even if your life depended on it. Yes, you
can walk - you do it all the time. But if you tell the truth about it,
you're totally clueless about how you send a signal from your brain to
a muscle in your leg, and if that's the start of your understanding of
how we walk, the unavoidable truth is you don't
understand how you walk. Really.
I prefer
Werner's
answer to the question "How" do we walk?
which is we walk
by consideration alone
ie we walk
by considering
ourselves walking. "We walk
by considering
ourselves walking" roughly translates to the very
Zen
"we walk by walking". Walking doesn't require understanding
how you walk (so much for "How?" questions
...). You walk all the time. You're not focused on contracting the
muscles of your legs. You're not focused on sending signals from your
brain to the muscles of your legs, ordering them to contract. You ...
just ... walk. You
consider
yourself walking ie you make the idea of walking manifest
... and voila! ... you'rewalking.
Now, some wise ass is going to say "Yeah but ... how do I
consider
myself walking? ... how do I
consider?"
If I were a
Zen
master, at that moment I'd
stand
up, walk over to him, and slap him upside the head with a wet noodle.