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


What Part Of "I Love You" Don't You Get?

Napa Valley, California, USA

St Valentine's Day, February 14, 2012



This essay, What Part Of "I Love You" Don't You Get?, is the seventh in a group of seventeen on Love: It is also the fourth in a group of seven written on St Valentine's Day: I am indebted to Cassandra Schafhausen who inspired this conversation.


Werner Erhard shared this pivotal, seminal idea with the world in a straight, direct, getable  way. At first, what I got was its awful  ramification. I didn't try to avoid its awful ramification, mind you. I got what I got, and the truth of what I got was awful ... at first. Later as I looked at it again when I reconsidered  what Werner shared, that's when I noticed its awe-some  ramification. Here's me recreating what he shared:

It's empty and meaningless. And it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless. Making it mean something that it's empty and meaningless is just more arrogance. It's an arrogance which caters to the righteousness  of ego. It's an arrogance which furthers the tyranny of the mind.

Watch: it's arrogant and righteous to make that it's empty and meaningless mean anything.

As I mature, as I grow in this conversation, I notice how getting it's empty and meaningless, makes an inordinate menu of choices available, choices which now reliably on the tangible radar, weren't even possible before. As I mature, as I grow in this conversation, I notice there's a certain great communication which over and above all else, becomes transformed on getting it's empty and meaningless. This great communication isn't new. It's been spoken many, many, many  times over before. But when it's spoken standing in empty and meaningless, it transforms from being merely great, and becomes something truly magnificent.

This communication is "I Love You". Just "I Love You". Not "I love you because  ..." that. Not "I love you because  ..." this. Just "I Love You" because  "I Love You".

Now there's nothing wrong  with "I love you because ...". There's nothing wrong with "I love you because I need you". Nor is there anything wrong with "I love you because I want you". However, what I'm distinguishing in this conversation isn't that. What I'm distinguishing in this conversation is something you and I already know: "I Love You" when it's simply "I Love You" and not "I love / need / want You", is the straight, direct, getable expression of real love.

When I, not standing in empty and meaningless, tell someone "I Love You", I may get how lovely they are. But more strongly, I get my own underpinnings of "I need / want you". Where this gets interesting for me, where the gradient steepens  for me is when I, standing in empty and meaningless  telling someone "I Love You", really  experience how lovely I am  - which is to say I get how lovely the Self they really are  is, and I also get how lovely the Self I really am is ... and  ... I also get how lovely the same Self we  really are is.

So when I tell you "I Love You", I'm telling you that the Self I really am, loves the Self you really are. And because the Self I really am is the same Self you really are, there's nothing you have to do  for me to love you. Neither is there (if I were to speak for you, which I can't, but I'm doing it anyway) anything I have to do for you to love me ... nothing, that is, if, standing in empty and meaningless, you're being the Self you really are telling the Self I really am "I Love You".

I Love You. It doesn't have to look a certain way. I Love You. It doesn't have to be accompanied by any particular gifts, cards, flowers, chocolates, or diamonds. I Love You. You don't have to fulfill my needs (and you might), and I don't have to fulfill your needs (and I might). I Love You. You don't have to give me what I want (and you might), and I don't have to give you what you want (and I might). I Love You.

Do you get that I love you? If not, what part of "I Love You" don't you get?



Communication Promise E-Mail | Home

© Laurence Platt - 2012 through 2017 Permission