We were talking about the
paradox
of the hostility that some have mis-directed at Werner Erhard in recent
years. Given the recognition of Werner as The Humanitarian Of The Year
for 2003, and given the millions and millions and millions of people
from all walks of life, from all countries, from all creeds and
religions, and from all paths who have participated in, directly or
indirectly gained value from, and who have directly or indirectly
contributed value to Werner's programs, we were wondering how such
diametrically opposed points of view could exist about the same man.
There are some things of interest here in my assessment.
Many schools of thought, paths, religions, and disciplines are focused
on the mind and managing the tyranny of the mind. Victory (or becoming
"clear", as some of them call it) really pertains to a state in which
the mind is managed, one way or the other. That, in and of itself, is
not a bad goal to have. But for me, there is a big problem with that:
since the purpose of the mind is to ensure the survival of the being,
victory over survival is just more survival, and that's the trap right
there.
Where many schools of thought take issue with Werner is that his work
renders victory over the mind as far less significant than those
schools of thought would have us believe that it is. Werner's work is
not about victory over the mind. Essentially, Werner's work is about
completion and living completion and - standing in completion -
inventing new possibilities for the future, all the while taking into
account the mind which is really little more than organic material for
us human beings. And when you play for survival - as many schools of
thought seem to do in my opinion - you are threatened by (so in turn,
you threaten) those who appear to you to be inconsistent with your
purpose.
If, indeed, you really get who Werner is and what his work is and what
it makes available, you simply have to entertain the possibility of
having space for those who are hostile to him and to his work, and of
letting them be as they are. I am not saying that you have to like them
or that you have to condone what they have said and done. I am,
however, suggesting, that you do not empower them further by falling
into their trap of becoming polarized ie they "versus" Werner, or vice
versa (which is even worse).
When all is said and done (and this is really the heart of it for me),
when I look at what I have gotten in relationship with Werner since he
has been away traveling, what I notice is that I am richer, fuller, and
more intimate with the possibility that his life is. This is because I
have had to question it deeper and generate it independently for mySelf
without him.
We humans beings (being what we are) have a tendancy to make gurus out
of our teachers, and the moment you do that with Werner, you are sunk.
Thank God that Werner (and the circumstances of his life) is more
slippery than that.