Conversations For Transformation: Essays Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

Conversations For Transformation

Essays By Laurence Platt

Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

And More

Werner As Source

Trefethen Family Vineyards, Oak Knoll Appellation, Napa Valley, California, USA

October 13, 2015

This essay, Werner As Source, is the companion piece to

in that order.

It is also is the twenty seventh in the complete group of Experiences Of A Friend (click here for the open group Experiences Of A Friend II):

so far, in that order.

It is also the seventh in an open group on Source:

It was conceived at the same time as

In certain circles there's an ongoing denial, a skepticism, a challenge to the idea of Werner as source. Some of it's mean-spirited. Most of it's benign. Some of it says the idea of "Werner as source" is promoted by zealots (that's what they call me) and gets in the way of ie distracts from the idea of each of us ie all of us as source.

<aside>

That's actually a great distinction to make. And no, it doesn't distract from the idea of each of us ie all of us as source. Rather it complements it. It supports it.

But that's a subject for another conversation for another occasion.

<un-aside>

And some of it says ie some of us say "What's the big deal? The idea of Werner as source is as obvious as ie it's as much a given as the nose on your face, which only a fool denies.". Over all, it's a healthy conversation. It promotes debate and inquiry. Personally I've never had an issue with the idea of "Werner as source (of the conversation transformation)" any more than I've ever had an issue with the idea of "Sir Isaac Newton as source (of the conversation gravity)" or with the idea of "Professor Albert Einstein as source (of the conversation relativity)". Like that.

When I listen to others' points of view of Werner as source, and I hear them making valid assertions which I realize I haven't considered myself, one of the ways I resolve them for myself is by assuming they're true, then looking to see if they fit my experience. That way, I get to examine them, rather than blindly accepting them. And then I assume they're false, and I look again to see if they fit my experience. The outcome of this debate ie the outcome of this inquiry is no big deal for me: it'll turn out that he isn't source, or it'll turn out that he is source, yes? There's no in between. It's black or white. There's no gray. Consider the sources of gravity and relativity: there's no gray with them either. They aren't, or they are. Black or white. No gray.

I'm quite OK with talking with people who come up with challenges to Werner not being who I say he is. More than that ie much more than that, I'm quite OK with talking with people who come up with challenges to Werner not being who he says he is. The fact is this is something we human beings are very, very good at: we're very, very good at discrediting people, even better than we are at seeing their greatness - waaay better. And it's not just Werner we try to discredit. It's the gal next door. It's the guy at the office. It's everyone everywhere in between all the time. It's rampant and it's rife and it's pernicious.

In this debate about ie in this inquiry into source, I find it useful to consider what source is and / or what source currently looks like for me - in other words, it's useful for me to look at the state of my already always listening for source. That, after all, reveals my blinders ie it reveals my predisposition for determining whatever and whomever I consider source to be. Listen: it takes a big person to examine their already always listening for something, then discard it if it's no longer applicable - especially with regard to controversial, opinionated, and heartfelt ideas. And the idea of anyone being source, be it Isaac or be it Albert or be it Werner or be it you or be it me or be it the cop in front of you in line at the supermarket checkout, can be all of controversial, opinionated, and heartfelt all at once.

Part of the trouble for me ie part of the difficulty for me with having a conversation about source (which is to say part of the difficulty for me with having the "source" conversation) is this: when I say "source", people hear it as if I said "God". And immediately, all the reactivations and significance associated with and inherent in the "God" conversation come up and get in the way of us having the "source" conversation. Interestingly enough, the "God" conversation (all associated reactivations and significance aside) is actually a lot easier to have than the "source" conversation. It's really very, very simple: who God is, is you. That's it. To quote Werner: "You're God in your universe. You caused it. You pretended not to cause it so that you could play in it, and you can remember you caused it any time you want to.".

Who source is, on the other hand, is someone who starts a particular conversation and brings forth its related distinctions. Said another way, who source is, is someone who brings forth a new conversational domain ie someone who brings forth a new linguistic domain. Just as (source) Isaac brought forth a new linguistic domain gravity, and just as (source) Albert brought forth a new linguistic domain relativity, so (source) Werner brought forth a new linguistic domain transformation.

That's what happened, and I don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with Werner as source, and I don't have a problem with Isaac or Albert or you as source either.

Communication Promise

E-Mail | Home

Permission