Birth (ie life at the onset) didn't come with an instruction manual
(which is what
Richard Buckminster
"Bucky" Fuller
actually said about "Spaceship
Earth").
What life came with when we were born was an empty space to be in.
That's what we got in which to be when we were born. And that's what's
profound about what life gave us. Arguably, it may be the
thing life gave us for us to be in ie it may be the main quality of
life for us to do being in (no, "do being" isn't a typo or
an error or a contradiction in terms). Yet it may not be the most
tangible thing life gave us to do being in. The most
tangible thing life gave us to do being in when we were born, would be
what developed into our drive to survive, our will to endure, our urge
to propagate
our egos
/ the species.
In addition, there's something less tangible life came with for us to
do being in (or which developed later) and that's our deep desire to be
entertained, our penchant to fill time, and (if you are telling the
truth
unflinchingly
about this) it's to soothe ourselves, to distract ourselves
when who we are isn't
enough.
Wait! Doesn't the latter suggest there's a possibility
that
life itself
may not be enough, and because it may not be enough, we need to
entertain ourselves, fill time, soothe ourselves, distract ourselves?
Could it be possible that simply being alive isn't enough? We build
strategies for survival, for enduring. Could we 'fess up to we also
build strategies for entertaining ourselves, for warding off boredom,
for distracting ourselves, for soothing ourselves when
life itself
isn't enough? Here's what strikes me about that: it may be a ridiculous
proposition
that
life itselfisn't enough ie that what it comes with isn't enough.
The proposition
suggests it's either
life itself
that's lacking (it's not enough) or it's our assessment of
life itself
that's lacking (we construe that it's not enough).
Transformation (or at least a
transformative
perspective) would suggest it's our assessment of
life itself
that's lacking. The mere suggestion that
life itself
is enough, calls forth the possibility of it being enough. But it could
be that the only people for whom
life itself
is ever enough, are those who have invented the
possibility of
life itself
being enough (jus' sayin' ...). That's
a proposition
which may be slow to catch on, yet which in retrospect accounts for so
much.
When who I am is enough, I don't know boredom, I need no distraction,
and I don't require soothing. Accepting whatever it is that's "boring"
from which I require distraction or soothing, is enough for it to
transform into what's so. Accepting what's so (whatever that may be)
and not ascribing
significance
to it, is a powerful stand for
life itself,
a powerful stand for
life itself
being enough, a powerful stand that who I am is enough
("Who I am isn't
enough"
is moot).
The prospect of who I am being enough, is daunting. In
a world
devoid of almost any possibility of transformation, it's more than
daunting: it's tantamount to impossible. The prospect of who I am being
enough, when realized, alters everything. And there's nothing to do to
be enough, no distraction's required, no soothing's called for. That's
almost unheard of, to such a degree that it's doubted and challenged
when it's introduced. But
this game
we're in,
this game of
transformation,
isn't for the faint-hearted. When who I am is enough, it's
Self-evident
/ it's an
easy
"get".
When who I am isn't
enough,
it's more elusive.
