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

GoFundMe

Preferred Conversations

Active Wellness Center, Napa, California, USA

September 25, 2026

"Transformation shows up in my mouth."


...

"Transformation is being in a conversation for transformation. When you are no longer in a conversation for transformation, you are no longer transformed."


...

This essay, Preferred Conversations, is the companion piece to Wordsmith.

Werner distinguishes two possible relationships language has with the world:

1)	When my language (ie the words I speak) fits the world in which I live (description, commentary, narration, opinion, gossip etc), it's a "word-to-world" fit. When my language is a word-to-world fit ie when my language fits the world in which I live, then I'm simply reacting to what's going on out there.
2)	When the world in which I live, shows up to fit my language (ie the words I speak) (assertion, bringing forth, promising, standing with, linguistic acts etc), it's a "world-to-word" fit. When my language is a world-to-word fit ie when the world shows up to fit my language, then I'm source ie then I'm god in my universe.

Here's another example which differentiates between deploying language with a word-to-world fit, and deploying language with a world-to-word fit: "speaking about love" (word-to-world) in contradistinction with "speaking love" (world-to-word), and (as it's colloquially deployed) "talking about love" (word-to-world) and "speaking love" (world-to-word) (the subtle difference between "talking" and "speaking", is covered elsewhere in these conversations). "Speaking about love" is one order of business (the commentary, the narration, even the romantic novel - if you will) whereas "speaking love" is another order of business entirely (the bringing forth, the experience of). And speaking (saying) "I love you" is a prime example of a linguistic act.

So what makes it worth taking time exploring these two distinctions? (look: it takes a certain concentration ie a certain focus just to say "a word-to-world fit" and "a world-to-word fit", doesn't it?). The value in exploring these two distinctions is more than it sheds light on and distinguishes and makes transformation real in my speaking. The value is that it points to where transformation lives. To be specific, it points to where transformation shows up: it shows up in my world-to-word speaking. To be even more specific, it shows up in my mouth. You're not as likely to get my love if I talk to you about love (word-to-world), as if I tell you "I love you" (world-to-word), a linguistic act. For that matter, you're not as likely to get transformation if I talk to you about transformation (word-to-world), as if we generate and speak these distinctions together (world-to-word). It's vintage Erhard: "Transformation is being in a conversation for transformation. When you are no longer in a conversation for transformation, you are no longer transformed.".

Invariably someone, a language purist perhaps, will contest this. "Are you sure it's 'speaking transformation' and not 'speaking about transformation'?. When you speak, don't you have to speak about something?". Again, that's word-to-world speaking, in contradistinction with world-to-word speaking. World-to-word speaking isn't better than word-to-world speaking. But for forwarding the action, world-to-word conversations are preferred conversations.

Communication Promise

E-Mail | Home

Permission