When I was a young boy, they asked me "What are you going to be when
you grow up?". When they asked me "What are you going to
be when you grow up?", the "what" seemed to refer to a
thing which did something. Like a train
driver. Like a truck driver. Like a
fireman.
Like a policeman or a traffic cop. Or a doctor or a lawyer or a
scientist.
But they never asked me "Who are you going to be when you
grow up?". And even if they had, I would have thought they were kidding
me. "What do you mean 'who' am I going to be when I grow
up? Why, I'll be Laurence when I grow up, you silly, just
like I am now!" I would have replied.
All of us it seems, both them and me, were unclear on the concept. They
mistook
who I am
for a thing which does something, like a truck driver, a
fireman,
a policeman, a traffic cop, a doctor, a lawyer, or a scientist. And I
mistook
who I am
for my identity ie for that with which I identify myself
ie my name.
Eventually I did get clear (my intention is eventually they'll get
clear too). "Who are you going to be?" is a far more powerful question
to grow up into than "What are you going to be?". The latter makes you
a thing which does something. In other words, it dictates your
activities. The former invents your possibility. In other words, it
declares the context for your life.
But in a world defined along the dynamic survival and it's
antithesis success, the question "Who are you going to be?" is
only heard like a challenge to succeed. The so-called "Who's
Who" listings actually catalog very little of who people
really are. Instead they catalog what people do and have
become successful at doing.
Now, if you're hearing this as disparaging success or as disparaging
the "Who's Who" listings, that's not what's being
distinguished here. Rather, what's being distinguished here is in a
world defined along the dynamic survival and it's
antithesis success, the question "Who are you going to be?" is
only heard like a challenge to succeed, and isn't heard as a call to
invent possibility. It's only in a world given by transformation ie in
a world given by the genesis of a new realm of possibility
(as a
Landmark Forum Leader
may have said) in which the question "Who are you going to be?" can be
heard as a call to invent possibility.
Here's what I find interesting: in a world defined along the dynamic
survival and its antithesis success, the question
"Who are you going to be?" is only heard like a challenge
to succeed, and isn't heard as a call to invent possibility. However,
in a world given by transformation, the question "Who are you going to
be?" can be heard as both a call to invent possibility
as well as a challenge to succeed.
In the ordinary course of events, we're not practiced in this
distinction. If you ask people
"Who are you?",
some of them will respond, just as I did when I was a young boy, with
their name. That's not really answering the question
"Who are you?".
A question to which your name is an appropriate answer, may be "Who do
you identify yourself as?" or, simply, "What's your
name?". But until the distinction
"Who are you?"
is made like an invented possibility, like a context for your
life, people responding to question
"Who are you?"
usually aren't hearing the question at all, and are responding instead
to the unasked question "Who do you identify yourself as?".
If you ask other people
"Who are you?",
some of them will respond "I'm a train driver", "I'm a truck driver",
or "I'm a
fireman.".
That, too, isn't really answering the question
"Who are you?".
A question to which
your job is an appropriate answer, may be "What do you do for a
living?" or, simply, "What's your job?". But until the distinction
"Who are you?"
is made like an invented possibility, like a context for your life,
people responding to question
"Who are you?"
usually aren't hearing the question at all, and are responding instead
to the unasked question "What do you do for a living?".
There are already answers to the questions "Who do you
identify yourself as?" and "What do you do for a living?". However,
there are no already answers to the question
"Who are you?".
To answer the question, to really answer the question
"Who are you?",
you have to share the possibility for your life as it is today, you
have to declare the context for your life as it is today. But to answer
the question, to really answer the question "Who are you
going to be?", you have to invent a possibility for
the future ie you have to declare a context for your life
for the future.
Who I'm going to belike a context for my life for the future is the
possibility of communication, transformation, and freedom.
Inventing a possibility for the future ie declaring a context for your
life for the future is, simply put, the act of inventing
future as
possibility.
The ability to invent
future as possibility
is arguably the most human of all human
endowments. It's arguably the single act which, in and of itself,
distinguishes human beings from any and all other sentient beings. The
ability to invent
future as possibility,
in other words the ability to invent an answer to the question "Who are
you going to be?" is, I assert quite literally, the possibility of
being for human beings.