Consider this: we don't see
the world
the way it is. That's right. We don't. Really. We
assume we do. But that's naïve. We really don't.
Rather, we see it in a context that colors the way it occurs for
us, and constrains what's possible. And because we haven't examined
/ don't even get the context that colors the way we see
the world,
we assume
the world
is the way we see it. So our view of
the world,
of life and of the possibilities available to us in
the world
and in life, are constrained by a context which for the most part,
we're not aware of or being responsible for.
Transformation,
Werner
says, is the "genesis of a new realm of possibility",
the onset of which pivots wholly and in part on our willingness to
discover and examine the context(s) which constrain our view of
life and what's possible for our lives. Discovering the unexamined
contexts which constrain our view of life and what's possible for
our lives, gives the freedom to totally discard those tired, old
constraining contexts, and to choose and / or invent new ones.
Wait Laurence! What do you mean by "contexts"? More than that, what
do you mean by contexts which we're not aware of or being
responsible for, which constrain our lives and what's possible for
our lives? OK, humor me for a moment: I'm holding up one finger.
What do you see? And you reply "I see a finger.". That's good. Now,
do you get the context that's constraining what you see? And you
say "Huh? What context Laurence?". Follow me on this:
Consider that the context that's constraining your view, is "body
parts". That's right: body parts! The unexamined
context in which you answer my question "What do you see?" with "I
see a finger", is "body parts". It's only in a context of "body
parts" that you see a finger. Now lets say the context is
"numbers". That's right: numbers. Watch:
I'm holding up one finger. What do you see? And you (realizing
something profound has just shifted) reply "One. I see the
number one.". Notice it's the same finger ... except now it's the
number one ... the same one finger, only the context has
shifted from "body parts" to "numbers". Now let's say the
context is "direction". I'm holding up one finger. Now what do
you see? And you (getting it quicker now) reply "Up. I see
the direction up.". Notice it's the same finger ... except
now it's "up" in a context of "direction". And if the context is
"color", then you reply "Pink" ... and if the context is "noise",
then you reply "Shhh!". We're looking at the same one finger. But
it's the context which constrains / determines how that one finger
/ life and
the world
occurs for us. It's the context that's decisive, not
what we see.
|
