I am indebted to James "Jim" Tsutsui who contributed material for this
conversation.
Werner's
work isn't designed to make
people
better. It's not
intended
for
people
who aspire to get better. It's for those
people
who are already better, for
people
who are actively
considering
what's possible when you are already better. It won't make you
successful. It's for
people
who are already successful ie for
people
who are exploring / inquiring into what's possible when you are already
successful. And
Werner's work
doesn't make
peopleOK. It's designed for
people
who are already OK. So if the
reason
for
participating
in
Werner's work
isn't to get better or successful or OK, then what is it? It's to
distinguish and look
unflinchingly
at the
context
(the
contexts
plural, actually) in which we live life - sometimes knowingly /
sometimes unknowingly / mostly unknowingly.
It's the
contexts
in which we live our lives that determine what's possible for us. It's
the
contexts
in which we live our lives that determine the quality of our lives (or
scarcity of it). It's not always apparent that we have the power to
generate new
contexts
at will which gives us the ability to determine the quality of our
lives. Yet when you get that, it's totally
transformative,
after which nothing will ever be quite the same again. This is the
leverage of
Werner's work.
We're thrown to aspire to get better, to succeed, to be
OK. Intrinsic to our thrown-ness is the conviction, the
certainty that however we are, we could and indeed we
should do whatever it takes to get better (given / thrown
that we're not better), that we could and indeed should succeed (given
/ thrown that we're unsuccessful), and that we could and indeed should
work on ourselves until we're OK (given / thrown that we're not OK the
way we are). Look: there is no need to get better. Yes we
could get better ... but it's actually redundant. And
simply by virtue of being born, we're already successful. And although
we're convinced otherwise, we are OK the way we are ie
exactly the way we are. Really. And somehow, all of these
realizations appear to be out of reach, unrealistic,
mystical
even, when in fact there's nothing that could be simpler and less
complicated than "You're already better, successful, and
OK.". Really.
Werner's
work starts with "You're already better, successful, and
OK.". Whereas other programs, paths, doctrines etc regard being better,
successful, and OK as their goal, their result, their endgame, in
Werner's work
they're the starting point. They're where
the gamebegins
/ where
the game
gets
interesting.
So when exactly did
the game
become
un-interesting
in the first place?
The game
became
un-interesting
when we prioritized what we want, what we like, what we think about it,
what we covet, what we feel etc over
what's so,
over the way it is, over reality. And
what's so,
is it's OK the way it is, regardless of what we want, what we like,
what we think about it, what we covet, what we feel etc. It's a most
pernicious
trap
to not allow the way it is to be IT, without striving to make it better
(it's already better), without striving to make it successful (it's
already successful), without striving to make it OK (it's already OK).
The trap
isn't that we aspire to make it better, successful, and OK per
se. All of the above is what
humans
do, none of which is problematic by itself. What is
problematic is that our unexamined
human
aspirations are thrown to denounce that it's all already better and
successful, that it's OK the way it is. It's this fundamental
distinction that
Werner's work
reveals, in the wake of which all our
human
aspirations are suddenly and vividly seen in a totally new light.
One final critical point to close with: when things are
already better, successful, and OK, it doesn't stop us
becoming better, successful, and OK. It simply
recontextualizes
(I
love
that
word)
the actions
we take to become better, successful, and OK, an anomaly which requires
a certain
Zen
to appreciate fully.