|
One Foot On The Line
|
|
If life isn't
working,
and I intend to get out of the way so it can
work,
that is to say I intend to be in a way that let's life
work,
then I'm not enrolled in asking the question "Why?", as in
"Why isn't life
working?".
If life isn't
working,
and I intend to get out of the way so it can
work,
that is to say I intend to be in a way that let's life
work,
then neither am I enrolled in finding the reason, as in "The
reason life isn't working is ... (etc etc)". If
you're looking for enlightenment (which is a classic
oxymoron, if ever there was one, by the way, yet to say it
that way is
good enough for
jazz),
if you're looking to get clear (which arguably is what
we considered transformation to be before we realized
the notions of "enlightenment" and "getting clear" both
conceptualize transformation to death), the oft touted bon
mots "Things happen for a reason" only get
in the way. They throw up a veritable wall of concepts
which only get in the way.
The "Why?" question doesn't interest me, although it
can make for a really great evening's entertainment. If its purpose
is to get to the bottom of and to understand what's
not
working,
its power is extremely limited when applied to my intention to
be in a way that let's life
work.
Understanding what's not
working,
and being in a way that let's life work, are worlds
apart.
It's hard to wean away from "Why?" given the
investment we've placed in it. Asking "Why?" goes on
and on and on, its answers purely arbitrary, purely
arbitrarily agreeable and acceptable. Neither asking
"Why?" in an attempt to come up with an understanding
of why life isn't
working,
nor coming up with a reason life isn't
working
make anything work better. Understanding, it's been said before -
and often - is the booby prize. If their intention is to get out
of the way so life can
work,
that is to say to be in a way that let's life
work,
people will stop asking "Why?" when they realize it's
a contextual shift which is called for, rather than
understanding.
|