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
Inside
Muir Beach, California, USA
Labor Day, September 7, 2006
This essay,
Inside,
is the companion piece to
Projector.
I am indebted to Barbara "Bobbie" Ractliffe Fairhead who inspired this
conversation.
This essay,
Inside,
showed up spontaneously one day - as the great majority of them do -
during a conversation with a friend. The actual words which provoked
the inquiry outlined in this essay were innocent enough, innocuous
enough. We were talking about my recent travels with
my daughter Alexandra
in
Europe during the summer of August of
2009,
a well thought through venture, months in the planning, which succeeded
beyond our wildest dreams My friend said these results are sure to
leave a deep glow inside me. It was a generous, heartfelt,
moving
acknowledgement.
In addition to being generous, heartfelt, and
moving,
it also kindled the inquiry "Where
exactly is 'inside me'?".
The more I look, the more I realize while "inside me" is a
popular figure of speech in everyday use, when I come from
experience, I can't find any such location (or whatever) as
"inside me". Coming from who I really am, coming from
Self,
no matter how hard I look, I can't find "inside me" anywhere. I
suppose the only situation in which it could be correct to say
something is "inside me" would be if I am my body.
I'm not my body. While I have a body (actually, to say
"while I own a body" is more accurate) for which I'm
responsible,
who I am
is the space in which the events of my life occur. I'm not my
body. Even my body shows up in the space in which the
events of my life occur.
"Since I'm not my body, does the phrase 'inside me' have any
authentic
world to
word
fit?" I wondered as the inquiry intensified.
One of the proven ways in which transformation is communicated
powerfully enough to be gotten is through a series of well
thought through processes, exercises, and interactions within a
group. A series of experiences are set up, the combined
insights of which kindle the breakthrough which allows
transformation to show up. You could call this access to transformation
access via experience. What I have in mind in these
Conversations For
Transformation
is to set up, rather, an access to transformation via
conversation. This access via conversation isn't all
that separate from the access via experience except given
the tools and the media available to me communicating transformation
this way via the internet, the access via conversation is
more appropriate.
This essay,
Inside,
is really an access to transformation via conversation
from inside the question "Is there really such a location as
'inside me', or not?".
If you pose the question "Where are you physically located in relation
to your body?", you're likely to hear something like "Why, I'm
inside my body, of course!". That's would be
typical. And even though it could be regarded as a conceptually
fuzzy response, it's genuine. But more than that, there's
also most likely an implied "Duh!" afterwards, as in "Why,
I'm inside my body, of course - Duh!". That's the implied
"Stupid! What do you think?".
You can tell by the expressions we commonly use to describe them, that
we locate feelings and emotions inside, along with what we call
our conscience which we also locate inside. Is the
language of those expressions used with real rigor? Or are
they simply day to day idioms? Is who or what
we really are inside? Is that really the
experience? Or is inside simply a concept we use
non-rigorously to give shape to an experience we have of
our being?
Inside ... as in "I feel good inside.". As in
"Outwardly she fakes calmness but inside she's wound up
like a cuckoo clock.". As in "I ate an apple in the supermarket and
walked out without paying as a lark, but inside I knew
better.". As in the
yogi's
ie as in the
meditator's
"Go within" - which is just another form of "Go inside.".
If it's language used with rigor, I assert (based on the fact I
can't find it anywhere), there's really no such place, there's
really no such location as "inside". It's arguably a
non-assertive, non-powerful distinction that doesn't bring forth
anything valuable. And unless it's a hamburger patty who stands up,
takes the microphone, and shares "Inside I'm hamburger
meat", who you are isn't hamburger meat. Only hamburger meat is
hamburger meat inside.
In other words, who you are isn't hamburger meat, and who you are isn't
inside. There's nothing inside except hamburger
meat.
If you take a close, quiet look you'll see what we call "inside" and
what we call (as the contradistinction) "outside" is really one
seamless whole. Let's call this joint field "inside/outside".
Different disciplines give it various names, but to call it
"inside/outside" is good enough for jazz. Then, since
"inside/outside" is obviously all there is, let's dispense with it
altogether as a distinction.
There's only experience, and as its communicator, there's only language
ie conversation.
You could say who you really are is prior to all that. You could say
who you really are is prior to inside/outside. You could say who
you really are is prior to experience, prior to the conversation.
Another way of saying this is who you really are is the
context
for experience, for the conversation.
We experience everything. As the
context
for experiencing everything (and to be totally rigorous with this,
let's rather say "as the experience of the
context
for experiencing everything"), how can we possibly be inside?
Listen: there's ... no ... such
... place ... as "inside" when rigorously languaging who
you really are.
Now, having said all that, your authentic locatability ie where who
you really are is located, isn't subject to debates or to
arguments, and it's certainly not subject to opinions in essays like
this one. That's the thing: to be able to look for yourself, calmly and
intently, and see who you really are, and see where you
really are - without concepts, without beliefs, without any
interpretive
filters or
epistemological
lenses.
What's that like for you? I'll venture this bet: if you look intently
and long enough, you'll notice the distinction inside, when it
comes to describing your location (or whatever) isn't generated with
rigor. It's conceptual and vacuous. It doesn't bring forth, that is to
say it doesn't language who you really are.