"I don't believe in what I'm
doing
at all.
I have absolutely no belief
in what I'm doing.
I already know how it's going to turn out. The way it turns out is
fait accompli. I mean there's nothing I can do about the way it
turns out. I know exactly how it's going to turn out. You know, it's
going to turn out exactly like it turns out. It's been doing that for
eons. So you say 'But then
Werner:
what's your motive? What are you working all those hours for?'. I'm
not motivated. There isn't any motive. There's no damn
vision motivating me. You know, if I stopped doing it
tomorrow, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. And if I keep
doing it right to the end, it won't make any difference. The only
thing that's going to happen is what happens. But that doesn't fit
into our
structure.
That doesn't fit into our
categories."
...
responding to an assertion that he believes in what he's
doing because he's motivated by a vision
"Something's happening because everything is moving."
...
"There's what happens ... and then there's what I make what happens
mean. If I get stuck (translation: when I'm not
free to be and free to
act)
I notice it's in what I make what happens mean, not in what happens."
Here are two distinctions: there's what happens ... and then there's
what I make what happens mean. And mostly (if
my own experience
is a statistically meaningful sample) the difference is neither obvious
nor intuitive for us. In the absence of any
rigorous
inquiry, we blur the line between them. We glom the two together as
one.
It took me
decades
to consider a difference between the two. And when I do get it, it's
arguably the difference that gives the essential bastion
of living transformed. I wasn't
born
with it - that's for sure. My life went in a certain direction (all by
itself - or so it seemed) until at some point, that difference began
appearing, popping up, raising its voice again and again, more urgently
each time, more
inexorably
each time until I had to admit the truth of it: the two are different
ie "What happens" and "What I make what happens mean" are
distinct. And that's nothing more (and nothing less) than a flat-footed
observation
of how I
experience
life as a human being. It has hardly any value
as my opinion.
It's even less useful
as my interpretation.
And if I start to believe it I notice it destroys any
clear view of it quickly and entirely.
What happens, happens. That's
Self-evident.
It's
drop-dead
obvious. Now I may not like what happens - oftentimes I
don't. And I may have a better idea of what ought to
happen instead - and I often do. And I certainly have my
own preferences for what I want to have happen. So watch: what happens,
happens anyway. I can accept it,
surrender
to it, or allow for it as that which happens regardless of
whatever I may want to the contrary. There's never been and there'll
never be an instance in the unfolding of life on Earth, not once
ever, when what happens, doesn't happen. So the take-away for me
is: it's not what happens that gets (or keeps) me stuck.
If I get stuck (translation: when I'm not
free to be and free to
act)
I notice it's in what I make what happens mean, not in what
happens. Those two "spaces" (if you will) are ontological
domains. They're places to be,
platforms
on which to stand and
experience
life. You don't do anything with them. You can't trade
with them. You can't use them to manipulate or to justify
anything. And it does no good to be right about them - any more than
being right about "The sky is blue" does any good.
Before that became apparent to me (which is to say before I opened
myself up to the possibility of it, and let it in) I didn't
differentiate between the two. And now, even when I am differentiating
between the two, I notice there's a rubber band reflex ie
a hair-spring trigger that keeps them glomming back together again,
leaving me bound in a
pea soup
fog, blinded by the tenacious belief that what happens is for all
intents and purposes, the same domain as what I make what happens mean.
Now this conversation isn't about not making what happens
be the same as what I make what happens mean. It's not about correcting
or
fixing
anything. Neither is it about making what happens, mean something
better, or more palatable, or more acceptable, or more righteous
than what I make it mean. It's about standing in both domains, first
the one and then the other, and
observing
the qualities of life which show up when we stand in each. If
children
master this,
the world
will transform.
So finally, here's
my thesis:
standing in what happens, whatever it is, no matter what it is, no
matter what happens, allows a certain
freedom to be and freedom to
act
which, standing in what I make what happens mean, doesn't. That's not a
statement of my preference. This isn't about liking the one and not
liking the other. This is simply about where (if you will)
being stuck occurs. Being stuck can only occur in what I
make what happens mean. It can't occur in what happens. What happens
is just what happens. It's patently obvious we have very little
say over what happens. On the other hand we have a lot of
say over what we make what happens mean.
