We were talking about the
paradox
of the hostility that some have mis-directed at
Werner Erhard
in recent years. Given the recognition of
Werner
as
The Humanitarian Of The Year
for 2003,
and given the millions and millions and millions of people from all
walks of life, from all countries, from all creeds and religions, and
from all paths who have participated in, directly or indirectly gained
value from, and who have directly or indirectly contributed value to
Werner's programs,
we were wondering how such diametrically opposed points of view could
exist about the same man.
There are some things of interest here in my assessment.
Many schools of thought, paths, religions, and disciplines are focused
on
the mind
and managing the tyranny of
the mind.
Victory
(or becoming "clear", as some of them call it) really pertains to a
state
in which
the mind
is managed, one way or the other. That, in and of itself, is not a bad
goal to have. But for me, there is a big problem with that: since the
purpose of
the mind
is to ensure the survival of the being,
victory
over survival is just more survival, and that's the trap right there.
Where many schools of thought take issue with
Werner
is that
his work
renders
victory
over
the mind
as far less significant than those schools of thought would have us
believe that it is.
Werner's work
isn't about
victory
over
the mind.
Essentially,
Werner's work
is about completion and living completion and - standing in completion
- inventing new possibilities for the future, all the while taking into
account
the mind
which is really little more than organic material for us human beings.
And when you play for survival - as many schools of thought seem to do
in my opinion - you are threatened by (so in turn, you threaten) those
who appear to you to be inconsistent with your purpose.
If, indeed, you really get who
Werner
is and what
his work
is and what it makes available, you simply have to entertain the
possibility of having space for those who are hostile to him and to
his work,
and of letting them be as they are. I am not saying that you have to
like them or that you have to condone what they have said and done. I
am, however, suggesting, that you do not empower them further by
falling into their trap of becoming polarized ie they "versus"
Werner,
or vice versa (which is even worse).
When all is said and done (and this is really the heart of it for me),
when I look at what I have gotten in relationship with
Werner
since he has been away traveling, what I notice is that I am richer,
fuller, and more intimate with the possibility that his life is. This
is because I have had to question it deeper and generate it
independently for mySelf without him.
We humans beings (being what we are) have a tendency to make gurus out
of our teachers, and the moment you do that with
Werner,
you're sunk. Thank
God
that
Werner
(and the circumstances of his life) is more
slippery
than that.