I am indebted to the Chief who inspired this conversation.
ForewordToPresenceOfSelf:
To choose is to select
freely
and after consideration - to quote
Werner Erhard.
In other
words,
I choose because I choose. If there are justifications for my
choice, it isn't a choice - it's a decision. If there are
reasons for my choice, it isn't a choice - it's a decision.
Justifications and reasons have no
freely
in them. Furthermore, justifications and reasons are
considerations. To choose is to select freely and after
consideration.
All that said, this essay,
Presence Of Self,
fleshes out one yardstick which is useful to consider before selecting
freely.
When I
stand
alone, when I
stand
by ... my ... Self, what's the yardstick, what's the
validation, what's the authentication which makes any choice
the choice to make, which makes any direction
the direction to take, which makes any action
the action to take? What's the litmus test by
which I can determine whatever I choose which results in whatever it
results in is the optimal result, the
appropriate result, the outcome flush with and
congruent
withworkability
over the widest possible area?
Is there something against which I can measure that which I choose to
be not only optimal, not only appropriate, not only
workable
for me but also optimal, appropriate, and
workable
comprehensively ie inclusive of anyone and everyone and all things
within the domain and dominion of the results of my choices and of my
actions?
Indeed, projecting further, is it even possible for me to
make choices with all that in mind? Indeed, if it's
possible, against what background would or could such
choices be made? By what yardstick could they be pre-measured? By what
litmus test could they be validated? Or, as one solitary human being,
is it only possible for me to make choices for myself
which then by default impact those around me and all of my surroundings
but without me having any immediate mastery over the scope of their
impact on those around me and on all of my surroundings?
What if it were possible? Furthermore, if it
were possible, how would I know what to choose given all
the myriads of choices available? How would I know, how
could I know if any particular choice would deliver all
that? By what yardstick, by what litmus test would I know it?
If there were such a yardstick, if there were such a litmus test, what
would it look like? What would it feel like? Indeed, would
it feel like anything in particular? Would it be the result of a
pre-set list of questions which would check possible results of my
actions before they were implemented, and which would render them
plausible if a certain percentile of their answers were favorable?
Perhaps it's simply not possible to know ahead of time how
my actions are going to impact anyone and everyone and all things
within the domain of my choices. If it's not possible to know ahead of
time, I must proceed anyway wishin' and hopin' (which
isn't very powerful) whatever I do has a benign forwarding
impact. Yet I'll never be certain it will until after the fact - in
which case, I'll proceed anyway: not knowing the results
ahead of time is no grounds for
standing
still.
Before I respond to an argument, before I turn to face an
attack, what's the measure, what's the litmus test of the efficacy
of my response? Before I make a decision, for example, about where to
apply my energy, about the areas in which I'll work, about what
projects I'll take on, what's the measure, what's the litmus test of
whether it's something I'll wholeheartedly, unreservedly give myself
to? Before I accept invitations to participate in new endeavors, before
I add new
conversations
to my repertoire, what's the measure, what's the litmus test of whether
or not they'll compromise my
integrity,
of whether or not I'll commit myself to something I can't (or, worse,
don't want to) deliver my promise on?
I'd like to propose there is such a yardstick. There is such a litmus
test. I assert the yardstick, the litmus test is presence of
Self like a possibility. Here's my proposal:
If what I choose ie whatever I choose will result in an
expanded sense of presence of Self, then I'll choose it. That's what's
likely to
work
broadly across all impact zones in my life and for all people in all
impact zones in my life. If what I choose ie whatever I
choose will result in a diminished sense of presence of Self, then I'll
eschew
it.
If what I do ie whatever I do will result in an expanded
sense of presence of Self, then I'll do it. That's what's likely to
work
broadly across all impact zones in my life and for all people in all
impact zones in my life. If what I do ie whatever I do
will result in a diminished sense of presence of Self, then I'll not do
it.
If what I speak ie whatever I speak will result in an
expanded sense of presence of Self, then I'll speak it. That's what's
likely to
work
broadly across all impact zones in my life and for all people in all
impact zones in my life. If what I speak ie whatever I
speak will result in a diminished sense of presence of Self, then I'll
not speak it.
Although I'm speaking the litmus test for any choice as whatever it is
which will result in an expanded sense of presence of Self, in
actuality the litmus test for any choice is whatever it is which
won't result in a diminished sense of
presence of Self. Often, in both mathematics as well as in
Zen,
it's the double negative which defines the positive.
What's critical here is to distinguish what presence of Self is
not. Presence of Self isn't
ego.
While it may be appropriate, relevant, even useful from
time to time to choose, act, and speak in sync with that which furthers
my own point of view ie to choose, act, and speak in sync
with my
ego,
ego
isn't what I'm distinguishing as presence of Self.
Neither is presence of Self what I call
"I".
While it may be appropriate, relevant, even useful from
time to time to choose, act, and speak in sync with that which furthers
whatever it is I consider myself to be ie to choose, act,
and speak in sync with that which I call
"I",
"I"
isn't what I'm distinguishing as presence of Self.
I'm distinguishing presence of Self as
naked presence,
as a
clearing,
as a joyous opening for possibility, as a
context
which allows all of it to show up including my
ego,
including that which I call
"I"
yet neither limited to them nor defined by them ie
particularly not defined by them. Presence of Self in its
bold, manifest form is really
taking a standfor presence of Self. For human beings it's quite literally the
possibility of being being. That said, my thesis is this:
When faced with a choice, whatever the choice is which will result in
an expanded sense of presence of Self over and beyond that
which is specifically chosen, that's the choice I'll make.
When faced with an action, whatever the action is which will result in
an expanded sense of presence of Self over and beyond that
which is specifically actioned, that's the action I'll
take. When faced with what to speak, whatever the
language
which will result in an expanded sense of presence of Self over and
beyond that which is specifically spoken, that's
what I'll speak. Conversely a resulting diminished sense of presence of
Self is the litmus test of what to
eschew.
This is the litmus test which
works
for any situation.
Standingfor presence of Self doesn't provide
the answers.
Neither does it ensure being right. Rather what it ensures is a
certain authenticity in choice, action, and speech. It
positions me at the start of a future based on a
foundation on which I'm willing to
stand,
for which I'm willing to be a
stand.
Standingfor presence of Self doesn't guarantee I'll
win or be right.
Standing
for presence of Self in an attempt to improve one's chances of winning,
to underline being right or dominant, or to ensure one's
survival is to be unclear on the concept. What I'm
speaking about here is a far, far cry from the world of
manipulatability. You can't manipulate presence of Self to your
advantage, and neither can you use it to trumpet your own agenda. It's
simply
what's so.
The results, the outcomes when
standing
for presence of Self will be whatever the results and outcomes will
be when
standing
for presence of Self - just as surely as the results, the outcomes will
be whatever the results and outcomes will be when notstanding
for presence of Self. The subtle distinction for me is when I'm filled
with presence of Self, I can be responsible for any
results and outcomes. And if there's any blueprint at all
for the life I want to live, living a life in which I can be
responsible for any results and outcomes of my choices,
actions, and speaking is the life I want to live.
It's more than that, actually. For me, there's no other life even
worth living. And, when the truth is told, it's even more
than that also. For me, there's no ... other
... life. Period. Anything and everything else is simply a
reasonable facsimile of ie no more than a close
approximation to what's available, to what's really possible.