It's the essential question of our lives. To ask it, to interact with
it is quintessentially what it is to be a human being. It's a question
which is inextricably intertwined with another question
"What am I?". Given the choice, I prefer interacting with
"Who am I?"
because in so doing, I have to confront and interact with "What am I?"
as well, simultaneously - kind of like a two for one
freebie (it just doesn't seem to
work
as well the other way around).
"Who am I?"
is a question of a different order, of another class than most
ordinary
questions. An
ordinary
question calls for an answer. When its answer is forthcoming, the
ordinary
question has outlived its usefulness.
"Who am I?"
on the other hand, is an
extraordinary
question. It calls for an answer ... and then it calls for another
answer ... and then for another answer - on and on and on.
The question
"Who am I?"
is eminently useful because it ongoingly calls for more and more and
more answers, maintaining its potency long after many, many answers
come forth.
Ultimately even though by itself it's the cornerstone of humanity's
great philosophical inquiries, I propose
"Who am I?"
is best looked at through a lens, a
prism
if you will, which
trains
us to focus on and get something really useful from the
"Who am I?"
inquiry like a by-product, like something pragmatic, something
with leverage and power - for example, "What do I have control
over in my life?" (there's so much beyond my control) "What
do I have say in, in my life?" (there's so much I have no say
in) or "What am I (and only I) in charge of in my life?"
(there's so much I'm not in charge of, even though I want to be) or
"What am I (and only I) responsible for in my life?".
Interacting with questions of this order not only goes a long way
toward fleshing out many possible answers in the
"Who am I?"
inquiry (and in passing, in the "What am I?" inquiry as well), but it
also generates powerful accessories, powerful tools, powerful
implements,
powerful leverages for our lives, over and way beyond merely new
defendable
points of view
of, and / or righteous debates about
who and what we really are
or could be.
The truth is (which is to say, when I speak truthfully about it) I
really don't have much control over anything in my life.
Yes I do seem to be good at
reacting
to things. History has proved I'm great at responding to
things. In fact, if I've had any success at all, it's because I've
learned by trial and error to respond well to whatever Life throws at
me. But as for being in control of what Life throws at me?
I'm really not in control of anything much ... really I'm
not. No kidding! If it's Laurence against the universe, the universe
always wins. Every time. Hands down.
But there's one thing I do have control over. There's one
thing I do have say in. There's one thing only I'm in charge of, one
thing clearly only I am responsible for. What it is, is what comes
out of my mouth. It's what I speak. It's my
words
and my
language.
Is it that ie could it be possible that
who I really amis my
word?
Is it possible that
who we really are
is what we speak? Listen: I'm not saying that's "the truth". If
I said it's "the truth"
who we really are
is what we speak, I'd be doing you a great disservice. What I'm
inquiring into is, is it possible
who I really am
is what I speak? If so, it's an intriguing possibility, one worth
trying on for size.
Once I've fully entertained this idea, once I'm totally willing to
step into the possibility that
who I am
is nothing more and nothing less than my
word,
once I'm willing to
stand for
this possibility, then whatever I speak iswho I am
and
who I am
is whatever I speak.
Now, there's a fundamental differentiation here, one which is critical
to embed if this distinction is going to have any real, lasting power.
It's this: