Jim Carville's "The economy, stupid!"*
was the second of three messages he created in 1992 for Bill Clinton's
presidential campaign to focus on (the first: "Change vs more of the
same"; the third: "Don't forget
health care").
Both it and its frequent misquote "It's the ecomony, stupid!", were
strong enough to draw
attention
to an issue that's important to people - and which if implemented,
would effectively improve the quality of life for many
votingconstituents.
Putting politics aside, the message "It's the significance,
stupid!" draws
attention
to an issue of an entirely different nature that's also important to
people. "It's the significance, stupid!" is a crucial distinction, a
fulcrum,
a tipping point
which fully taken on, has
transformative
power, an
access
to transformation.
From
Werner,
I get that we could distill a lot of the teachings of
the Buddha
as well as those of many of
the world's
great
enlightenedmasters,
from this bottom-line distinction: it's almost never what happens
that's the problem; what happens, is just
what's so;
the problem is almost always in
what we make what happens
mean
ie the problem is almost always in
what we make what's so
mean
ie the problem is almost always in the significance we add
to what happens. And look: don't believe that just because I said it.
Try it on for size. If it fits, take it,
it's yours.
And if it doesn't fit, discard it and walk on.
It's a fascinating assertion. It's not what happens that's the problem:
what happens, is just
what's so.
Said in another, similar way, it's not what happens that's the problem:
the problem only occurs in
what we make what happens
mean;
it's not what happens that's the problem: the problem only occurs in
the significance we add to what happens. It's the significance, stupid!
And that's that entire
transformative
thesis right there, a
masterful
distinction all to itself. So ask yourself (see if you can delineate)
exactly where meaning and significance
show up
(spoiler alert: they don't
show up
in what happens; they don't
show up
in
what's so).
Ask yourself what
the source
of meaning and significance is - or (even better) whothe source
of meaning and significance is.
Why is it so elusive to
discover
that the domain in which problems occur as problems, is where we
find what happens means, and the significance we add to
what's so?
To get this, we start with the a priori assumption that
life has no meaning or significance until we add
meaning and / or significance (it's an "A-Ha!"
experience actually ie an einsicht recognition really,
even more than it's an a priori assumption). We add meaning and / or
significance to ensure our self-preservation, self-defense, and
survival. And then
(human
survival being what it is) we forget we made that assumption in the
first place, ensuring we relate to life as if it's really
meaningful and significant. This preserves and defends us and ensures
our survival, arguably without our even realizing it.
Now: in where does the domain of
what we make what happens
mean,
and the significance we add to
what's so,
arise? I'd like you
to consider
/ try on for size, that it
arises in
language.
Then I'd like you
to consider
that life has no meaning or significance (problems) other than those
which
arise in language
ie other than those which we speak into existence. I'd like you
to consider
that if it's
language
that imposes meaning and significance (problems) on our lives, then
it's also
language
that can un-speak meaning and significance (problems) - which is
the subject for another conversation to have on another occasion.
