Showing posts with label Erhard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erhard. Show all posts
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Notes - Erhard, The Heart of the Matter
Everyday concerns
What kind of being is a human being?
What is the possibility for being for human beings?
—> Questions aren’t about looking good
What is the practical value, what is the impact that these issues have for us?
What is the correlation with these issues and our Everyday way of being and concerns in life?
Erhard’s method: Transformation
The Domain: Being
An inquiry in being in the domain of being
Not designed to produce answers or solutions, or a prescription for living.
In the process of this inquiry insights show up that dramatically impact the quality of our lives.
Insights don’t show up as answers, but as actual openings, or a space for being, a sense of freedom, or a being empowered in your everyday being in the world and your everyday concerns
Thinking that’s gotten us to where we are is insufficient to solving the problems of where we are. - Einstein
Working on what you don’t know: Ask questions to get answers to expand what you know
This is not about what you know, your opinion …
It’s about what you don’t know that you don’t know. Very few people know anything about what they don’t know that they don’t know.
What Werner Knows:
The kind of question, relationship with what we don’t know. Finding out is not much of value, when you begin to deal with what you don’t know that you don’t know. Asking questions, doesn’t work. Asking questions to get the answer isn’t powerful in dealing with what you don’t know that you don’t know.
There is a way to question or be with the question which is appropriate for getting at what you don’t know that you don’t know.
You don’t pose the question to get an answer, but to stand inside of as in a space and look out from to the whatever is the world to look out to.
Uncharted waters that may not be like water or act like water.
From which to stand, looking inside out, an moving from space to space still in the question.
To get to this stand, one needs to be willing to do violence to what we identify with and what we know.
We’re trained to listen for answers. This is about freedom and power, not about getting better, reducing the risk that life is by getting answers or solutions or prescriptions.
We’re here rather to conduct a special inquiry.
We are a psychological interpretation, a set of assessments … This is not about that.
The domain is being, not psychology, or history, or biology.
Authenticity: We abhor the thought, we’re committed to looking good.
We showed up in the commitment to looking good.
We are inauthentic about being inauthentic. We are a cover up for our own inauthenticity
Thus—> The need for violence.
Getting permission to be with one’s own inauthenticity, be in the clearing of the question, and get beyond what we think or believe and be in the question, looking out to see what you can see.
Superstitions are only powerful when they’re not superstitions, when they’re an *IS*, are so …
Superstitions determine the options in which people live. Recognizing a superstition neutralizes the *IS* and gives a person more and more freedom to be and live.
The you that you are is a superstition. The *I* you speak when you say *I* think, is a superstition.
We are that we are the *I* that is pointed to in I think or I feel.
Human being was here before we showed up, already had a scope of possibility. Maybe human being is using us. We showed up in human being, and it is using us, it already was, a thrust, a scope, a definition, a certain set of options. And those options are using us.
There are thoughts, there is thinking, consider the possibility that it isn’t you thinking.
*IT* thinks and you have the thoughts.
“One of things it thought up is YOU.”
What is it that the stars will move for? That’s missing, that we don’t know that we don’t know about this issue.
Our concerns are for our own identity. Our appetites have us. Our concerns have us. Our appetites and concerns are *IT*s concerns, not my own.
The possibility of being a human being is an already set of options we showed up in. There are no possibilities, just a set of options.
There only OPTIONS in the possibility that we showed up in as Human Being.
One possibility of options.
Begin to see why problems have not changed since beginning of time
Options on the board we showed up in.
Our lives not determined by the circumstances but the box in which circumstances showed up in.
The box has more power than the circumstances themselves
Not much power in what you think.
Tell your opinion to the stars and see if they care or not
The box determines what you think
Some people who are about to die, have lives richer than people who can pass physical
Intelligent people less effective than less intelligent people due to the box
We give no thought to the box, far more to the circumstances.
We’re unaware that we’re unaware
We live in a structure of interpretation
We only think what’s allowed in that set of options.
What are we being used for? By this box that we showed up in?
Being of Human Being is survival, that is what we’re being used for, a possibility.
When you are that you are *IT* … The I in the phrase I think, I want, I
What it’s up to is making you right and everything else wrong
Using me to Win, justify it, invalidate anything else
If you cover up being used, you are resigned to being used
only coming to confront our inauthenticity that *IT* thinks and we that have the thoughts
It’s a trap, resistance and avoidance is more of the trap
Lots of options, no choice. We’re thrown to a particular set of options
MOOD of RESIGNATION
that environment of being which you wake up to in the morning
Observe … is their any possibility, are they thinking
or are they really speaking out of the resignation to the options that own us.
Addiction to looking good holds the resignation in place. Our unwillingness to confront our own
inauthenticity, making ourselves right and others wrong
Most complaints are a racket to not show up at whatever opportunity is there
complaints help us to avoid domination
we don’t give everything we got in relationship
let’s us off the hook for being responsible for relationship as an opportunity.
The rackets payoff is that you get to be right
people would rather be right than be loved or love
The Acceptance of the inauthenticity will lead to a breaking up of the Resignation that you are
The environment of being that you wake up in the morning
Looking good, we don’t mean it, and we know we don’t mean it
afraid to express our own doubts for fear of not looking good
Best place to look are those places that you complain in life.
Erhard: I promise you will never get happy in life. The pursuit is an absolute guarantee against happiness.
Life has no meaning or purpose, same as a thunderstorm
not going anywhere like a purpose, wonderfully unpredictable
adding meaning, we cover up inauthenticity of the being of human being
fundamentally inauthentic, a being used by being
The being of human being is a mechanism the design which is of survival
we can’t hear this because we think its going to work out
it’s not going to work out, because this is it, this is the way it worked out
if you don’t like it, too bad
The whole story in which you are a player in the script called your life, is fundamentally inauthentic
like a thunderstorm, doesn’t mean anything
we kick in our windshield when we have a flat, our complaining
doesn’t mean anything that it doesn’t mean anything
The Box in which options come determines the quality of life
the box we showed up in has no being
no choice
can’t use the fact that its meaningless and empty, it’s empty that it’s empty
Erhard: I say it’s a possibility to stand and look out at life.
Domains of Showing Up
what opportunities for showing up is there?
structure of concept limits and shapes our experience which reinforces the concept - viscous circle
Collapse of 2 Domains
no distinction between what is and my representation
between the presence and concepts in our lives
Restore the distinction between experience and concept
I forgot lives in a different domain of showing up than being late.
There is no difference if your late and you forgot and your late and you remembered
our culture doesn’t make the distinction either
it wants to know why your late
A question arises when we confront our inauthenticity
what is the possibility of being for human beings
asked in the environment called resignation gives more inauthenticity, survival answers
None of the answers makes any difference
the questioning generates a breaking open from the resignation, a sense of freedom
instead of a given set of options, there will be a freedom to be with something constraining before.
The risk of being alive
First answer … there isn’t possibility of being for human beings.
What we showed up in did not include being
*IT* is only concerned with survival
If you can be with the emptiness and meaningless of life
a thunderstorm about which we tell a story
if you can be with the inauthenticity it becomes a clearing
Changing is something from something, we would change the situation
except there is no possibility of being for human beings, so change won’t work
change only alters circumstances, becomes another form of survival
Creation is something from nothing
our whole lives is a derivative, a predicate
were always living into the options
to create is to act without predicate
First you have to restore the emptiness and meaningless that you are
Being honest about being inauthentic OPENS the possibility
Being cannot be evidence, there is no predicate, the possibility
of being as itself, the stand that I am the stand that I take
not a change
the possibility of possibility,
is a product of taking a stand as a clearing for that for which you stand
maybe your not the kind of meaningless which is i like, i want, i think
a clearing for life to show up in like a possibility, like something from nothing
Erhard: inviting you to take a stand that the stand that you take is a possibility or clearing for the stand you take
live in the question, what is the possibility for being for human beings?
not possibility of options, but being authentic about our inauthenticity
instead of living our lives into our past and the resignation of the options using us
a question like an opening is not to live into the resignation in which we wake up looking for an answer.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Talking about Leadership as spoken about by Erhard ...
I quoted him as saying, "Leaders do not act from a plan, but plan from their action. The planning is really a conversation which gives other people access to the possibility to which you are committed." The following is my latest post to a circle of interested systemic thinkers which as a conversation is based on this quote by Erhard:
Apologies for not responding sooner, I was otherwise occupied with a severe health issue which seems to be ebbing with a proper recovery now better each day. So many divergent angles and interpretations, exciting; and all very good observations. I've become accustomed to Erhard speaking with about as rigorous a commitment to revealing the exact distinction desired that I ever recall or know of. However, this one as some have pointed out seem to be taken out of context and in the act some damage has done to what ordinarily one always finds in Werner's work and that is an equal attention given to context. I'm going to take some liberty here to extend some substance for the purposes of this conversation directly into seeing the context for now as a model for leading others. I recall years ago when he firsts began the est training his rather unsophisticated statement on leadership took the form of: A leader is the guy at the front of the line. So, if you want to be a leader in life, go to the front of the line.
Hard to argue with then but within the context of systems thinking, with such magnificient ideas and notions such as attractors for instance, but otherwise founded on principles we have forged over the years and now come to depend on as matter of fact as part of the quiver of anyone who is seen as a true modern leader of in life. For instance innovation ... going to the front of the line is the act of a bully not an innovator.
The quote for me is a comment about the paradigm of leadership which is possible and emergent today. The first context which appears for me in his quote is that leadership is an ontological reality one must come to terms with first in order to understand the possibilities or as Werner would put it the possibility of possibilities within leadership as it shows up for us in our experience moment to moment and not as collection of notions with correlating data and "science" organized for someone's new attempt at a doctorate. So, it is with Werner that his work and his expression of that work while providing for mastery in the world of phenomena really is focused in the world of ontology.
Peeling away a layer now to say a little about what he seems to be saying ... leadership opens possibilities actively by contextualizing their views of possibiiliteis relative to job at hand by engaging with what is not being listened to in their conversations about what by default gets to be effective prescriptions but stale and static compositions. Keeping this awareness for its own sake produces an opening in conversation for the SYSTEM (all those involved or desired to be involved) access and be accessed together as a conversation which is an evolution over the notion of someone pointing with everyone else following that given mandate. He's transformed the ACT of leading into a conversation in which everyone's lead is accessible and lightening can strike at any point or moment in time.
Time to take a breath and ponder how much resistance may show up over the suggestion that in the paradigm being presented on leadership, the old sructure of following another is no longer relevant or operational. For myself, I see it as master stroke, resolving so much of the noise and clangor that went along with the real time missions aimed at making systemic change, through managerial input. All that is tranformed in the individual's perception with his being recognized as the real attractor, one that together with the rest ontologically speaking is the systemic underpinning accerssible to leadership and the only one really that counts when thinking about this sytemically.
yes? no? maybe?
I quoted him as saying, "Leaders do not act from a plan, but plan from their action. The planning is really a conversation which gives other people access to the possibility to which you are committed." The following is my latest post to a circle of interested systemic thinkers which as a conversation is based on this quote by Erhard:
Apologies for not responding sooner, I was otherwise occupied with a severe health issue which seems to be ebbing with a proper recovery now better each day. So many divergent angles and interpretations, exciting; and all very good observations. I've become accustomed to Erhard speaking with about as rigorous a commitment to revealing the exact distinction desired that I ever recall or know of. However, this one as some have pointed out seem to be taken out of context and in the act some damage has done to what ordinarily one always finds in Werner's work and that is an equal attention given to context. I'm going to take some liberty here to extend some substance for the purposes of this conversation directly into seeing the context for now as a model for leading others. I recall years ago when he firsts began the est training his rather unsophisticated statement on leadership took the form of: A leader is the guy at the front of the line. So, if you want to be a leader in life, go to the front of the line.
Hard to argue with then but within the context of systems thinking, with such magnificient ideas and notions such as attractors for instance, but otherwise founded on principles we have forged over the years and now come to depend on as matter of fact as part of the quiver of anyone who is seen as a true modern leader of in life. For instance innovation ... going to the front of the line is the act of a bully not an innovator.
The quote for me is a comment about the paradigm of leadership which is possible and emergent today. The first context which appears for me in his quote is that leadership is an ontological reality one must come to terms with first in order to understand the possibilities or as Werner would put it the possibility of possibilities within leadership as it shows up for us in our experience moment to moment and not as collection of notions with correlating data and "science" organized for someone's new attempt at a doctorate. So, it is with Werner that his work and his expression of that work while providing for mastery in the world of phenomena really is focused in the world of ontology.
Peeling away a layer now to say a little about what he seems to be saying ... leadership opens possibilities actively by contextualizing their views of possibiiliteis relative to job at hand by engaging with what is not being listened to in their conversations about what by default gets to be effective prescriptions but stale and static compositions. Keeping this awareness for its own sake produces an opening in conversation for the SYSTEM (all those involved or desired to be involved) access and be accessed together as a conversation which is an evolution over the notion of someone pointing with everyone else following that given mandate. He's transformed the ACT of leading into a conversation in which everyone's lead is accessible and lightening can strike at any point or moment in time.
Time to take a breath and ponder how much resistance may show up over the suggestion that in the paradigm being presented on leadership, the old sructure of following another is no longer relevant or operational. For myself, I see it as master stroke, resolving so much of the noise and clangor that went along with the real time missions aimed at making systemic change, through managerial input. All that is tranformed in the individual's perception with his being recognized as the real attractor, one that together with the rest ontologically speaking is the systemic underpinning accerssible to leadership and the only one really that counts when thinking about this sytemically.
yes? no? maybe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
