Contexts shape and define the perception of sensory traces, memories of episodes past, the content of

thought, the meaning of words and the goals of purposive behaviour. Contexts are routinely encoded
without awareness1

A context is broadly defined as the set of circumstances around an event.

To attain mastery, you must penetrate to the source

of the trouble—to the commands themselves. You must observe them,
and transcend them."

"Resistance and the need to dominate and be right destroy your

ability to allow things to be. When you have no ability to allow things
to be, you have no ability to be responsible for them as they are. When
you cannot be responsible for the way things are, you have no space.
When you have no space, you have no ability to create. It is in creating
that you establish true independence.

Well, it is a law of the Mind that you become what you resist.

"Only much later, when I became aware of the unconscious

patterns and identifications that were at the source of my behavior,
only then did they lose their power over me."

The fact is, until people are transformed, until they

transcend their minds, they are simply puppets—perhaps anguished,
hurting, strongly feeling puppets, but ones nonetheless limited to a
fixed repertoire of responses. And that is what karma is all about.
There really is no mystery about karma. In retrospect—only in
retrospect—it is . . . obvious."

Braid reinterpreted hypnotism as a trance state

induced by concentration of attention.

One problem that such a

unified account of trance states East and West will have to confront is
the whole matter of "suggestion." Thus far, Eastern meditative
disciplines have barely discussed suggestion, whereas in the West
hypnosis is frequently reduced to manipulative suggestion. In trance
states the subject is indeed highly suggestible, as is illustrated by
hypnotic stunts.

In his conversations with me, Werner deplored the usual

connection between trance and suggestion. "Just as you can be in
trance without being under the influence of suggestion," he said,
"similarly you can be under the influence of suggestion without a
formal hypnotic trance. In fact, the so-called normal state of
consciousness is something very much like a state of posthypnotic
suggestion. This means that you don't need a formal preparation—
what hypnotists call 'induction'—in order to be hypnotized. For most
people are already prepared. All that is needed is for you to use the
circumstances of the trance that is already present in order to deepen
that trance. Thus you can hypnotize people with a single word or
action.
"So-called normal consciousness is, in any case, not where
matters are for me. This just tends to be self-definition by Westerners
of what is normal for Westerners. People are already, normally, in
trance. A good example of this is the very rigid, fixated person. It is
hard to hypnotize such a person only because you can hardly get his
attention. He is already fully hypnotic.
"Almost any belief, whether an idea uncritically accepted from
another, or an idea that one has, through repetition, convinced oneself
is true, will have a hypnotic effect on one. Many people lead their lives
in servitude to such beliefs and suggestions—and live as if entranced.
A young woman, for example, may in a moment of stress say to
herself, 'I'll never love anyone again,' or a child may say, 'I'll hate soand-
so forever.' Such a declaration can gain as much unconscious
command value as any posthypnotic suggestion made by a
professional hypnotist. It can run, and ruin, the life of the person who
has made it.
"Those patterns that I described to you earlier—the ones
controlling my relationship with my mother and with Pat—are of this
type. They had as much power as if they had been formally implanted
by a hypnotist. I was definitely entranced by them."
Werner remarked that there are two quite distinct uses of
hypnosis and other trance states. "Hypnosis and trance states," he said,
"can be used to transcend the Mind, to go beyond it to what I was later
to call the Self. They can also be used—as they very often are—to
operate simply on Mind.
"In itself, a trance state of Mind is a state of Mind, and must not
be confused with a state beyond Mind.

Since everything in life is but an experience perfect in being what it is;

having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one
may well burst out in laughter.
—Long Chen Pa

Werner reached for another book, Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of

Zen, containing Yasutani-roshi's introductory lectures.5 He began to
read aloud. "Through the practice of bompu Zen," Yasutani had said,
"you learn to concentrate and control your mind. It never occurs to
most people to try to control their minds, and unfortunately this basic
training is left out of contemporary education, not being part of what is
called the acquisition of knowledge. Yet without it what we learn is
difficult to retain because we learn it improperly, wasting much energy
in the process. Indeed, we are virtually crippled unless we know how
to restrain our thoughts and concentrate our minds. Furthermore, by
practicing this very excellent mode of mind training you will find
yourself increasingly able to resist temptations to which you had
previously succumbed, and to sever attachments which had long held
you in bondage."
This mind is run by its
memory bank: by mental "pictures" from the past, including
"engrams," which are records of experiences containing pain,
unconsciousness, and real or imagined threats to survival—"traumas"
in more conventional psychological language.

"I don't think that anyone ought to believe the ideas that we use in
est. The est philosophy is not a belief system and most certainly ought
not to be believed. In any case, even the truth, when believed, is a lie.
You must experience the truth, not believe it.

It
was so stupidly, blindingly simple that I could not believe it. I saw that
there were no hidden meanings, that everything was just the way that it
is, and that I was already all right. All that knowledge that I had
amassed just obscured the simplicity, the truth, the suchness, the
thusness of it all.

"I saw that everything was going to be all right. It was all right; it
always had been all right; it always would be all right—no matter what
happened. I didn't just think this: suddenly I knew it. Not only was I no
longer concerned about success; I was no longer even concerned about
achieving satisfaction. I was satisfied. I was no longer concerned with
my reputation; I was concerned only with the truth.
"I realized that I was not my emotions or thoughts. I was not my
ideas, my intellect, my perceptions, my beliefs. I was not what I did or
accomplished or achieved. Or hadn't achieved. I was not what I had
done right—or what I had done wrong. I was not what I had been
labeled—by myself or others. All these identifications cut me off from
experience, from living. I was none of these.
"I was simply the space, the creator, the source of all that stuff. I
experienced Self as Self in a direct and unmediated way. I didn't just
experience Self; I became Self. Suddenly I held all the information, the
content, in my life in a new way, from a new mode, a new context. I
knew it from my experience and not from having learned it. It was an
unmistakable recognition that I was, am, and always will be the source
of my experience.
"Experience," Werner said, "is simply evidence that I am here. It
is not who I am. I am I am. It is as if the Self is the projector, and
everything else is the movie. Before the transformation, I could only
recognize myself by seeing the movie. Now I saw that I am prior to or
transcendent to all that.
"I no longer thought of myself as the person named Werner
Erhard, the person who did all that stuff. I was no longer the one who
had all the experiences I had as a child. I was not identified by my
'false identity' any more than by my 'true identity.' All identities were
false.
"I suddenly saw myself on a level that had nothing to do with
either Jack Rosenberg or Werner Erhard. I saw that everything is just
the way it is—and the way it isn't. There was no longer any need to try
to be Werner Erhard and try not to be Jack Rosenberg. Werner Erhard
was a concept—just like Jack Rosenberg.
"Nor was I my Mind, patterned unconsciously, as it was, on
identities taken over from my mother and father. I was whole and
complete as I was, and I now could accept the whole truth about
myself. For I was its source. I found enlightenment, truth, and true self
all at once.
"I had reached the end. It was all over for Werner Erhard."

"The truth,
believed, is a lie."3

No longer identifying
oneself as this or that, one no longer comes into life as a personality,
ego, or mind. Rather than having an identity, one is the space of
identities. One is now complete—and from that state, natural
creativity, vitality, happiness, true self-expression, all arise
spontaneously.

Thus one is the context in which content is crystallized and

process occurs, and is not any individual content or process, not any
individual form.

When you submit to something, or resist

something, or hate something, or identify with something, you are
attached to it."

"That is the whole story about self-discipline. If you are, say,

afraid, the point is not to rub your nose in it, to inure yourself to it, to
get used to it, or even to overcome it. The point is not to jam it down
or suppress it. Rather, the point is to choose to be uncomfortable in
order to allow being uncomfortable to be. When you let something be,
it lets you be. That way, you attain mastery.
"What stands in the way of this is only your point of view. Your
point of view is the point from which you view—which you therefore
do not see. Your point of view is positional, and to get off it, to leave it
behind, is always uncomfortable and frequently terrifying."

Perpetuating one's
position, however it may manifest itself—as self-image, ideology,
fantasy, whatever—is the essence of the Mind state and the source of
all dissatisfaction in life. The danger of the Mind state lies in its
furthering precisely that which denies the state of Self. Whereas the
Self detaches from and transcends any particular position, it is in the
nature of the Mind state to be attached. The Mind fastens on to
particular positions and attempts to perpetuate them. Whereas, in the
state of Self, one knows naturally and acts appropriately; knowing and
acting originating in the Mind—while always "reasonable"—are
nonetheless irrational.
By the same token, one cannot be free in the Mind state. One is at
the mercy of the attachments that control and define Mind. In
particular, one is the prisoner of one's past. The past has no power save
through the Mind: there is no past—i.e., there are no accumulated
attachments, convictions, commitments, beliefs, images of self,
unconscious pictures of what has, will, or is supposed to happen—save
through the Mind.
Unaware of Mind's effect in patterning and enslaving their lives,
people live in a state of waking sleep, in a state of enchantment, of
mesmerism, most of the time. Every day, in every way, they become
more and more the way they have always been. The normal Mind state
of consciousness is thus of an exceedingly low level. Far from acting
freely, people in this state "just go off." They ego.

What the training does promise is that after such an experience—

after the encounter with the Self—life is transformed in the sense that
it becomes the process of freeing oneself from the past, rather than
enmeshing oneself more deeply in it. Patterns and problems continue
to appear; but instead of acting them out, dramatizing them, one begins
to experience them—and eventually to "experience, them out."

Werner's own life story provides

an example of this process. And his story about sailing with his son
also illustrates what happens. Prior to experiencing, and thereby
transcending, his fear, St. John was imprisoned within it: he had no
alternative but to express it mechanically. By noticing, and thereby
stepping outside it, he could begin to watch it. come up, and play itself
out, from a. vantage point beyond it. This is what is involved in what
Werner calls "experiencing" a pattern. It is one thing to be the prisoner
or captive of an ordinary automatic fear-reaction pattern; it is quite
another thing to watch fear arise from a context in which the fear
pattern itself has been transcended.

How our lives, families,

organisations..turn out: the context is
decisive – always, no exceptions!
“The context is decisive”  Werner Erhard

What does Werner Erhard mean when he says that “The context is decisive”?  Let me
ask that question in another more concrete way.  What is Werner pointing us towards?  I
do not know exactly and given that is so I understand it in the following way.  Let’s think
of context as ‘playing field’ rather like a soccer pitch (complete with all that goes with it
including the goals, line markings etc), a rugby pitch, an ice hockey rink.  Yet ‘playing
field’ is more it can also be the chessboard, the monopoly board.  There is still more
‘playing field’ includes stuff like centre court with the completion of the semi-finals
during the annual June tournament.  Get the idea behind ‘context’ as ‘playing field’?
 Exploring what Werner is pointing towards and making available to us
when he says “The context is decisive”

Saying “The context is decisive” Werner is pointing us towards the fact that a soccer
pitch calls ‘a game of soccer’ into being.  A rugby pitch calls ‘a game of rugby’ into being. 
A chessboard calls a ‘game of chess into being’.  Get the idea?  I hope so and lets
continue our exploration.

Now imagine centre-court at Wimbledon during the annual June championships.  The
semi-finals are complete, there are only two players left in the tournament and it is the
afternoon of the final – to decide who become champion.  On the day of the final there is
a particular context (‘playing field’ ) that is in play – it both calls some stuff into being
automatically AND at the same time this context rules out a whole bunch of stuff.  For
example, given the context which gives rise to the final we can say:

 The context calls the finalists to prepare thoroughly to be worth players on centre
court and co-create a great match;
 The spectators (sitting in the stands) have high expectations regarding the match
they expect to see – they expect a thrilling battle between two masters of the game of
Tennis, they expect twists and turn, they expect to be thoroughly engagement in an
enthralling drama;
 Amongst the spectators are members of royalty, heads of states, captains of
commerce, celebrities of many kinds and past champions – the context has called them
to be present another context (an ordinary tennis match) would not bring these people
to be present and watch the match;
 The umpire, the linesman and the ball boys and girls are carefully selected to
ensure only the best end up on the court – anything less is simply not appropriate, it
lacks Integrity as regards the context that is giving rise to the play;
 The context rules out all kind of stuff like replacing one or both of the two
remaining contests. It excludes the possibility that there will not be a reserve umpire,
reserve linesmen, reserve ball boys and ball girls.  It also excludes the possibility that all
the equipment (needed for the match to take part in a way that works) will not be
checked and probably double checked. It also rules out the possibility that the sports
media elite will not turn up to record and make commentary on the final.  And so forth.

What the heck does that mean for our lives, our families, our organisations,
our society, our world?

When it comes  to ‘that which shows up’ and our ‘experience’ of living context is the
most determining force.  To leave the context intact and get busy on changing ourselves,
changing other people, change processes, changing technology – the stuff that is readily
at hand and visible to us – is a fools errand, it is a futile endeavour.  The key leverage
point is the context:
 transform the context that gives being to our living and we transform our living
including our experience of living and the results that we co-create and show up in our
lives;
 transform the context underlying and giving being to our organisations and the
experience of leading, working in, being a customer of these organisations is
transformed.   Yes, changes may need to happen when it comes to People, Process,
Technology, Strategy etc.  Yet these changes will flow effortlessly from the appropriate
context.  This is what the Chinese mean by ‘wu wei’ – natural action, effortless effort,
that which happens without doing;
 transform the underlying context that determines that which does and does not
show up in our society and our society will be transformed;
 want to ‘Play BIG’ at the level of our world – ‘a world that works – nobody
excluded’ – then lets work, collectively, on transforming the context that currently
underpins and drives what does and does not show up in our world.

The Erhard Insights: The Power of Language, Context,

and Possibility
For over thirty years, Werner Erhard has created thinking and learning experiences that have affected millions of
people’s lives. Many of the ideas he has worked with derive from the work of others, but Werner has named and
integrated them into something more powerful than where the thinking began. His work lives through the Landmark
Corporation and other licensees. What I select from his work here is a small part of his legacy, but these are the
ideas that have changed my life and practice.
The power of language. Werner understands the primal creative nature of language. Many of us have focused for
years on improving conversations. We have known that dialogue and communication are important tools for
improvement. Werner takes it to a whole new realm by asserting that all transformation is linguistic.
He believes that a shift in speaking and listening is the essence of transformation. If we have any desire to create an
alternative future, it is only going to happen through a shift in our language. If we want a change in culture, for
example, the work is to change the conversation—or, more precisely, to have a conversation that we have not had
before, one that has the power to create something new in the world. This insight forces us to question the value of
our stories, the positions we take, our love of the past, and our way of being in the world.
The power of context. Another insight is in the statement, “The context is decisive.” This means that the way we
function is powerfully impacted by our worldview, or the way, in his language, that “the world shows up for us.”
Nothing in our doing or the way we go through life will shift until we can question, and then choose once again, the
basic set of beliefs—some call it mental models; we’re calling it context here—that lie behind our actions. Quoting
Werner, “Contexts are constituted in language, so we do have something to say about the contexts that limit and
shape our actions.”
Implied in this insight is that we have a choice over the context within which we live. Plus, as an added bargain, we
can choose a context that better suits who we are now without the usual requirements of years of inner work, a life-
threatening crisis, finding a new relationship, or going back to school (the most common transformational
technologies of choice).
The way this happens (made too simple here) is by changing our relationship with our past. We do this by realizing,
through a process of reflection and rethinking, how we have not completed our past and unintentionally keep
bringing it into the future. The shift happens when we pay close attention to the constraints of our listening and
accept that our stories are our limitation. This ultimately creates an opening for a new future to occur.
The power of possibility. Changing our relationship with our past leads to another aspect of language that Werner
has carefully developed. This is an understanding of the potential in the concept and use of possibility. Possibility as
used here is distinguished from other words like vision, goals, purpose, and destiny. Each of those has its own
profound meaning, but all are different from the way Werner uses the word possibility. Possibility, here, is a
declaration: a declaration of what we create in the world each time we show up. It is a condition, or value, that we
want to occur in the world, such as peace, inclusion, relatedness, or reconciliation. A possibility is brought into
being in the act of declaring it.
For example: if you declare that you are the possibility of peace in the world, though peace may not reign at this
moment, the possibility of peace enters the room just because you have walked in the door. Peace here is a future not
dependent on achievement; it is a possibility. The possibility is created by our declaration, and then, thankfully, it
begins to work on us. The breakthrough is that we become that possibility, and this is what is transforming. The
catch is that possibility can work on us only when we have come to terms with our story. Whatever we hold as our
story, which is our version of the past, and from which we take our identity, becomes the limitation to living into a
new possibility.
Werner has described this with more precision in personal correspondence:
I suggest that you consider making it clear that it is the future that one lives into that shapes one’s being and action
in the present. And, the reason that it appears that it is the past that shapes one’s being and action in the present is
that for most people the past lives in (shapes) their view of the future. . . .
[I]t’s only by completing the past (being complete with the past) such that it no longer shapes one’s being and action
in the present that there is room to create a new future (one not shaped by the past—a future that wasn’t going to
happen anyhow). Futures not shaped by the past (i.e., a future that wasn’t going to happen anyhow) are constituted
in language.
In summary, (1) one gets complete with the past, which takes it out of the future (being complete with the past is not
to forget the past); (2) in the room that is now available in the future when one’s being and action are no longer
shaped by the past, one creates a future (a future that moves, touches, and inspires one); (3) that future starts to
shape one’s being and actions in the present so that they are consistent with realizing that future.
Werner Erhard’s way of thinking about language, context, and possibility are key elements in any thinking about
authentic transformation. As with the other insights here, they are about a way of being in the world first, and then
they can be embodied in concrete actions.

My broader point is best expressed by Werner Erhard’s “The context is decisive, always”. Which is
to say that what really matters is the ‘surface’ upon which the game of customer service is placed.
Think about the game of tennis. The content for a game of singles is two players, rackets, tennis
balls, umpire, serving, strokes, volleying etc. Yet, a game of tennis played on grass is very different
to game of tennis played on clay to a game of tennis played on an indoor court. The surface makes
a huge difference. The guy that plays great on grass does not necessarily play great on a clay court.
The same applies to the game of customer service.

Some organisations show up and play the game of customer service from a context of ‘lets take
great care of our customers so that they remember us, come back and bring their friends with them’.
Others don’t. And that makes a huge difference.

context is decisive
Customer Experience:
what you need to get to
make a success of your
CX initiatives
What Forrester has to say on CX in 2012

I have been reading  Forrester’s 2012 Customer Experience predictions.  Forrester is making

three predictions: C-level execs will officially name customer experience as a top strategic
priority; companies will focus on delivering unified customer experiences; and consultants of
every shape and size will develop educational programs.  Does that sound great?  Well it could
be great for CX professionals and for the army of consultants, service designers and training
providers.

What I say about what Forrester says

I predict that the bulk of the money and effort spent on Customer Experience will be ‘wasted’. 
What do I mean by ‘wasted’?  I mean that it will not generate the kind of customer advocacy and
loyalty that the Tops are looking for.  Why is that?  Because many companies will fail to create
the kind of value that customers are looking for.  Why is that?  Because the people in these
organisations will go about Customer Experience in a way which has failure already built in. 
Before I explain the trap and point towards the door that lets you escape from the trap I need to
share a couple of concepts with you.

Distinguishing between context and content

Context shapes content (phenomena including thoughts, feelings, behaviours) and yet it is
invisible to us most of the time.  We only tend to see the hidden context when things break down
dramatically – think of the financial crisis (before, after).   One of the best visual illustrations of
context and how it ‘shapes’ content is this advert aired by the Guardian newspaper. Did you
watch this 30 second ad?  No, then please do watch it as it is central to the rest of this post.  I
remember that this ad made a huge impact on me when I was growing up.  Why?  Because when
I saw the skinhead I jumped to an unkind interpretation – most people did because at the time
there was a certain kind of context around skinheads.  The beauty of the ad was that it destroyed
that context and through deploying a radically different context the content of the ad (what the
skinhead does) showed up, occurred, in a very different manner.
“Who you are speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying”  Emerson

A product company doing Customer Experience is still a product company.  A short term
financials focussed company doing Customer Experience is still a short-term financial focussed
company.  An internally riven company doing Customer Experience is still internally riven.  A
company that does not genuinely care for nor connect with customers doing Customer
Experience is still a company that does not genuinely care for nor connect with customers.  A
value extractor doing Customer Experience is still a value extractor.

“The context is decisive” Werner Erhard

What does Werner Erhard mean when he says that “The context is decisive”?  One way (and it is
only one way) of thinking about context is to think of it as ‘playing field’ rather like a soccer
pitch (complete with all that goes with it including the goals, line markings etc), a rugby pitch, an
ice hockey rink…..   By saying “The context is decisive” Werner is pointing us towards the fact
that a soccer pitch calls ‘a game of soccer’ into being.  A rugby pitch calls ‘a game of rugby’ into
being.  A chessboard calls a ‘game of chess into being’.  Yet he is saying more than that and to
convey that I need to dive into a real life example so please bear with me.

Imagine centre-court at Wimbledon during the annual June championships.  The semi-finals are
complete, there are only two players left in the tournament and it is the afternoon of the final – to
decide who become champion.  On the day of the final there is a particular context (‘playing
field’ ) that is in play – it both calls some stuff into being automatically AND at the same time
this context rules out a whole bunch of stuff.  For example, given the context which gives rise to
the final we can say:

 The context calls the finalists to prepare thoroughly to be worth players on centre court
and co-create a great match;
 The spectators (sitting in the stands) have high expectations regarding the match they
expect to see – they expect a thrilling battle between two masters of the game of Tennis,
they expect twists and turn, they expect to be thoroughly engagement in an enthralling
drama;
 Amongst the spectators are members of royalty, heads of states, captains of commerce,
celebrities of many kinds and past champions – the context has called them to be present
another context (an ordinary tennis match) would not bring these people to be present and
watch the match;
 The umpire, the linesman and the ball boys and girls are carefully selected to ensure only
the best end up on the court – anything less is simply not appropriate, it lacks Integrity as
regards the context that is giving rise to the play;
 The context rules out all kind of stuff like replacing one or both of the two remaining
contestants. It excludes the possibility that there will not be a reserve umpire, reserve
linesmen, reserve ball boys and ball girls.  It also excludes the possibility that all the
equipment (needed for the match to take part in a way that works) will not be checked
and probably double checked. It also rules out the possibility that the sports media elite
will not turn up to record and make commentary on the final.  And so forth.
I hope that you now have a good enough grasp of context and content and in particular the
relationship between context and content.  If you have not then allow me to make one last effort
to convey what I wish to convey. Imagine that two men go to battle – they are on opposite sides
and both are equally capable.  Yet one man is absolutely convinced that he is going into battle to
safeguard the future of his wife, children, community – their lives, their future is at stake.  The
other man is going to battle because he has been conscripted against his well and he is totally
convinced that the other side is ‘good’ and his side is ‘bad’.  Do you get that these two men will
behave differently as the contexts which give them being and shape their thoughts, feelings and
actions are so radically different. If your life was at stake on betting on the right man which man
would you bet on?

Let’s back to my assertion that the bulk of CX efforts will fail because they will fall into a trap.  I
also stated that I’d share the way out of the trap with you.

Making a success of your Customer Experience efforts: context is everything!

The trap is simple and even though I am going to share it with you most of the people who
matter (in companies) will ignore what I have to say.  Which is kind of great for those of you
who are in a place to get what I have to share and then act on it.  What is the trap?   The
following from a recent post on Zappos points in the direction of the trap:

“One definite challenge is that we are still seen as a shoe retailer when in fact we sell much
more than that! Our product catalog spans from clothing to footwear to house wares to beauty
to accessories and even sporting goods! Perceptions are not easy to change overnight unless
you’re willing to be bold. The one constant is that we are a service company that happens to
sell __________ (fill in the blank). Our biggest efforts revolve around building likeability
around our brand so that consumers turn to a brand that they trust, find reliable, and have an
emotional connection with. That’s where service comes in!“

Do you see the trap? The trap is to come from the context of ‘business as usual’ and do Customer
Experience – that is to say that Customer Experience occurs as another technique for winning the
game of ‘business as usual’.  If we use the analogy of a game of chess then Customer Experience
is simply either a chess piece or it is a move or combination of moves in the game of chess.   If
that is abstract then think of it this way.  Within the context of a desert pine trees do not grow no
matter how much effort you make to grow pine trees. And even if they do grow they will be a
feeble version of the real thing!

What is the way out of the trap?  Put in place the context that calls for Customer Experience,
welcomes it and actively helps it to flower in abundance and yield the fruits.  Then whatever you
do as regards Customer Experience will occur and take hold through effortless effort.  Look
carefully and you will see that the context underpinning Zappos is “Delivering Happiness” and
“The one constant is that we are a service company that happens to sell __________ (fill in the
blank). Our biggest efforts revolve around building likeability around our brand so that
consumers turn to a brand that they trust, find reliable, and have an emotional connection with.
That’s where service comes in!”  How did Howard Schultz turn around Starbucks?  By changing
the context from “breakneck growth no matter what it takes” to “the customer experience one
cup at a time”.  Look at Amazon and the context is “the earth’s most customer-centric
company”.  And if you turn towards Apple (and Steve Jobs) the context was a combination of
“making a dent in the universe”, “humanizing technology” and the “customer experience”.

Summing it all up

If you want to make a success of your Customer Experience efforts then start with the context
not the content.  If you have round hole (in a wooden board) then no matter which shapes you try
the one that will fit with the least effort and with the best fit is a round block. You can try fitting
the other shapes (squares, rectangles, triangles, star…)- it is likely to occur as hard work, the
result will not look great and when the board is shaken hard enough the other shapes will fall
out.  Ever wondered why organisational change does not last?  Now you have your answer.

What do you think?  Have I missed something?  Do you have a different experience (notice I did
not say point of view)?

My Context uses me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 Votes

“For me context is the key- from that comes the understanding of everything.”
– Kenneth Noland, American contemporary artist.

Interestingly, my first acquaintance with ‘Context’ was from an experience with

something which is opposite, that is ‘Out of Context’. I was in junior school when one
of the girls in my class came running to the teacher and exclaimed loudly, “Miss!
Miss! Dilip is saying he will kill someone!” When Dilip was called in for his
explanation, it transpired that during lunch, he had remarked, “It is so hot. I feel like
killing that person and sitting in his place in the air-conditioned school office.” Here
was a case of a young mind taking some words out of context. The listener, listening
to the specific set of words without the benefit of the context in which they were
spoken, however derived a different meaning altogether.

As I go through life, the power of context continues to be revealed to me. I am witness

to myriad claims and counterclaims in the realms of politics, media and entertainment
in which politicians and celebrities, when confronted with some of their past
utterances, resort to saying, “I never said that, I was quoted out of context”. Stating
this, the individual is quick to articulate a context which completely shifts the
meaning of what he /she had said.

The dictionary meaning of Context is ‘the circumstances that form the setting for an
event, statement and idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and
assessed’. Said another way, Context is something which interweaves into a situation
to provide meaning. While we may not be conscious when we look at a situation,
there is always a context that we hold that generates for us the sense that we make of
what we see. A situation in a vacuum is apt to lose much of what it might mean or
imply for us.

How a context can shape the way of being and actions of people is wonderfully
portrayed in “The Life of Brian”, the 1979 British Comedy film. Tired of
masquerading as a phony messiah, Brian tries to run away from the crowds following
him and loses one of his shoes in the process. To the crowd however, the context is
one of ‘every word and action of Brian is a point of doctrine’. The accidentally lost
shoe of ‘Messiah’ Brian is held up as such. This is humour and satire at its best!

***

As I start distinguishing the contexts in my own life, I see a particular situation

playing out repeatedly.

Whenever I notice someone, be it a family member, relative, office colleague etc. not
doing it ‘my way’ or voicing disagreement about my way or style of functioning, I
feel that the person is actually trying to prove me wrong , undermine me, not giving
me the respect which I deserve etc.

I thus see all such situations from a context of ‘Disagreeing with me implies proving
me wrong, undermining me, disrespecting me etc’.
As I hold this context, the situations occur for me negatively. This negative occurring
impacts my mental state, emotions and thoughts as also the actions I contemplate. So
how do I react? I tend to lose sight of the big picture. I justify myself by knit picking
on the right or wrong ways of doing things from my perspective. I get down to
micromanaging and in my anxiety to enforce, end up in confrontation, acrimony,
blame game and what have you. So even though I started trying to get something
done, I have really ended up fanning dissent, demotivation and unworkability.

I can see now how my context has been using me. How, time and again, it puts me on
rails and makes me react in a predictable, disempowering manner. How my reaction
gets based on how the situation, shaped and coloured by my context, shows up for me.

So if my context uses me thus, can I shift away from it to avoid my disempowerment

and failure to get the job done?

I am left wondering about what kind of practices I need to adopt to shift away from
disempowering contexts to empowering ones for myself……to be continued…….

In learning……… Shakti Ghosal

How can I use my Context?

 
 
 
 
 
 
Rate This

In my last post ‘My Context uses me’, I had dwelled on how my Context, that
omnipresent meaning making machine in all my situations, uses me. How my context
wields the power to put me on rails and makes me react in predictable failing ways. I
was left wondering whether I could do something about shifting away from such
almost certain failures.

The “Being a Leader” course, attended by me recently, revealed a pathway.

As we saw in the last post, our context does function as a cognitive lens, a filter so to
speak, through which we view the world, others and interestingly, even our own
selves. As we look at a situation, our context highlights some aspects, dims a few and
even blanks out yet other aspects. So what makes up our context? It’s our Worldview
and frame of reference for the situation at hand. It is our beliefs, biases, prejudices and
assumptions which play a part in the context’s meaning making and filtering process.

Now let’s consider what constitutes our beliefs, biases, prejudices and assumptions. In
a nutshell, it is our past experiences. Our brains are adept at using this past to create a
default context which comes automatically with the situation at hand. This default
context, coloured as it is by our past concerns and fears, restricts us and our actions.
As the context is decisive, one can see the wisdom of the old French proverb, “The
more things change, the more they stay the same”.

The “Being a Leader” course went on to show that a critical part of our effectiveness
in leadership and life arises from our ability to replace the default context by a created
context for the same situation. This created context, unencumbered by anything from
the past, allows us to see possibilities which were not being allowed so long by our
past.

So how does the above work? To understand that let us revisit the situation which we
had talked about in the earlier post, ‘My Context uses me’.

“Whenever I notice someone, be it a family member, relative, office colleague etc. not
doing it ‘my way’ or voicing disagreement about my way or style of functioning, I feel
that the person is actually trying to prove me wrong , undermine me, not giving me
the respect which I deserve etc.”

.My default context was, ‘Disagreeing with me implies proving me wrong,

undermining me, disrespecting me etc’. This context led to situations occurring for me
negatively and made me react in negative, hurtful ways.

As I review the above situation, I realise that I do hold the power to create a new
context for myself. A context which says, ‘Getting the job done is what counts and it
really doesn’t matter if the way adopted by others is different to mine so long as the
job is done’.

As I think of this created context, I can see that it allows me to hold the big picture of
getting the job done and get people to align their focus and actions to that. I also begin
to see that with this context, I am no longer getting undermined, proved wrong and
getting disrespected.
I now see that I hold the power to use my context to my advantage.

Context is Decisive

I was on a trip, surrounded by water. I slept in a room that was one sixth the size of my room at the
Hampton. There was not even room for storage so my suitcase and I shared my bed. From our
sleeping quarters, we had to go up ladders and then down ladders and that just got us to the dining
room for meals! I also had to share a very, very small bathroom shower with no sink with seven
other people. For all of this we paid several hundred dollars a day – sounds horrible – right? 
Well horribleness depends on the context because context is critical. Context is the background
conversation which surrounds circumstances and gives the circumstances meaning.

What was the context here? I took a cruise in the Caribbean with my 87 year old dad. We did
something that he loves, sailing. I had the best time ever; it was a great experience. My dad and I
went on an adventure together – and given his age – that was so very precious. 

What is the context of your day’s activities? Are you surviving and going through the day or are you
up to something? What is the meaning your work activities? The down side of being a human is that
we create meaning automatically, without any conscious thought, just through reaction. However,
the magic of being human is that we CAN create meaning consciously for the activities in our lives.
Our activities can have meaning that lights us up and excites us. We do not have to settle for our
automatic ways. We can ascribe meaning to circumstances.

Victor Frankl made being in concentration camps meaningful. In his book Man’s Search of Meaning.
Frankl described his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp and seeing his wife and relatives
killed. During a grueling and cruel march Frankl realized that love was the ultimate human
expression. After he was liberated Frankl dedicated the rest of his life to establishing a
psychotherapy school and working with people to find true supportive meaning out of disparate
circumstances. 
Nelson Mandela used his time in jail to support bringing down the South African Apartheid. While
there, he established a university in prison that helped train leaders in the freedom movement. After
eighteen years in prison he was offered his Freedom if he left South Africa and renounced the
movement. He refused to leave because his imprisonment was making a difference both nationally.

While these examples are about extraordinary people, their ability to bring meaning to circumstances
is something all of us can do. We do not call ourselves “beings” for nothing.

With these as examples imagine what you can do with your everyday circumstances and actions.
What meaning for your work and your organization can you create? Then take action consistent with
the meaning you create. Let us know what meaning you are bringing to your work life and
organization. We look forward to hearing about it.

Roughly half of whatever is rolling around in your head got there by

accident and probably isn’t doing you much good.

The fundamental life principle

Werner Erhard reported that one of the most important discoveries that had come out of his research over the last 18
months was the recognition of the existence within each of us of a fundamental life principle. Each of our lives, he
said, is shaped by a basic principle which we adopt when we are young, and which thereafter determines the scope
and boundaries of our lives. This fundamental principle is not what we  think or feel; rather, it sets the limits of our
thinking and feeling. It shapes our personality, our reactions, and our expression of ourselves. It is the lens through
which we unwittingly look at every aspect of our lives, it is the box we live in.

This basic decision, probably formed out of an incident in our childhood, may be something as simple as “you must
get the approval of others,” whereupon our entire life is shaped by, seen through the lens of, lived in the box of trying
to get other people to approve of us at all costs. It doesn’t matter that the price we pay is our own integrity and
selfhood.

Other examples of the basic principle that Werner discussed include “be careful,” “you’ve got to win,” “always play it
safe,” “you’ve got to be right,” “be nice,” “don’t make a fool of yourself,” “you’ve got to make it on your own,” or “don’t
let anyone think you’ve been conned.”

Until we become aware of our fundamental life principle, recognize that we are at the effect of it, and take respon-
sibility for it, we cannot transcend it and determine for ourselves, consciously and intentionally, a new direction and
purpose for our lives. If we merely extend ourselves from the past, from what we already understand, there is no
transformation, only more of the same. Thus, life continues in this “petty pace.”

For a transformation to take place, we must break out of our old paradigm and create an entirely new one. We must
think in a new way, using what Werner called “the highest function of our intellect”—the ability to create a context.

The power of context

Ideas are themselves substantive entities with the power to influence and even transform life. In effect, ideas are not
unlike food, vitamins, or vaccines. They invoke inherent potential for growth and development and can affect the
course of evolution.

Dr. Jonas Salk

Having identified the condition in which we live, and having been made painfully aware of the futility of trying to
manipulate our circumstances in an environment in which we are at the effect of forces outside ourselves as well as
unexamined assumptions within ourselves, we had arrived at the beginning.

Now Werner Erhard spoke with passion about the power of context to transform life. “Context is the freedom
to be.  Context is space. It has no form, no place in time; it allows form and time. In the absence of a consciously-
created context, our lives are controlled by the content—the  forces and circumstances of the condition in which we
live. Once you create a context, that context then generates a process in which the content—the forces and circum-
stances_ re-order and align themselves with the context. For example, if you choose to shift the context of your life
from ‘I don’t matter’ to ‘l make a difference,’ the circumstances in your life, while they may not have changed, take on
an entirely new meaning. This new meaning, then, begins to change the circumstances themselves. Soon the
situations in your life begin to reflect that you do make a difference.”

Consciously creating a context allows us to determine intentionally a new fundamental principle for our lives. The
fundamental life principle we adopted in childhood is reactive, unconscious, defensive, immature, and boxes us in to
predetermined patterns of behavior. Principles, by their nature, suggest shapes for things, and are one step down
from context. The contrast between principle and context is the contrast between shaping and freedom. Context gives
no shape; it merely allows shape. The creation of a context allows us to create an intentional life purpose, one that
gives us freedom and true power.

The source of context is the Self. It comes into being when an individual creates it within herself or himself. It comes
alive when each of us says so  be it.
“A context is literally created by creating it. You just need to recognize that you have the power of context, and then
you simply need to be willing to be responsible for creating it yourself, without reason, without the props of evidence
—to simply say ‘this shall be.’ I have the power of my word in my own universe. I have the power to determine the
context of my own life. I give meaning to my life. The meaning doesn’t come from outside. In my universe, it shall be
that life can work for everyone.

“That you make a difference, that the rules for living successfully are now these based on you and  me, that we can
live in a context of the world working for everyone, is literally unthinkable. It is beyond our present paradigm, outside
the scope and limits of the condition in which we have lived. You have to dare to think the unthinkable, dare to do
more than merely dream, dare to be responsible for—to be the creator of—your own world.”

Creating a context

The context which Werner is proposing is utterly new, not evolved from the process which preceded it. It is not “more,
different, or better” than what went before. It is not merely a rearranging of the circumstances; it is a transformation,
an entirely new way of living.

Can life be transformed? Can the world actually support and nurture everyone? Clearly, our history will give us little, if
any, agreement for such a notion. Our history reflects the old paradigm of you or  me. In such a condition, to think that
the world can work is considered idealistic, to say the least; to think it can work for all of us is completely naive; to
consider that individuals make any difference is to be deluded.

It is obvious, then, that to create this new context, one must, as Werner Erhard said, “be a radical being, willing to
stand on your own, willing to think for yourself. You can’t prove that the world can work or that you make a difference.
There is no proof; there are only results. It takes great courage to be committed to producing results without proof,
without credit.”

This new context, then, represents something much more radical than a revolution. The nature of revolution has been
to destroy and dismantle. It is directed against something which it is attempting to replace. Transformation, however,
does not negate what has gone before it; rather, it fulfills it. Creating the context of a world that works for everyone is
not just another step forward in human history; it is the step which will allow humanity and history to be fulfilled. It is
the context out of which our history will begin to make sense. The transformation reaches back into the apparent
senselessness and cacophony of history and gives it meaning and dignity which then guides and directs us in the
future.

 It takes a lot of heart— openness to your own magnanimity, compassion for yourself, for your own pettiness when it
shows itself. Even in the face of failure, Werner noted, “you need to be willing to accept yourself as an evolving
master in the issue of making the world work for everyone, and to hold the failures, doubts, fears, and uncertainties
within the context that you are evolving in mastery.”

A key to mastery, Werner Erhard emphasized throughout the day, lies in the willingness to risk failure. In a you and
me world, every failure, every obstacle, is the opportunity for a breakthrough. Transforming failure into breakthrough
is perhaps the basic principle in a new set of principles, for it enlivens failure and inadequacy so that they contribute
to the whole.
Respect the other person’s point of view, whether or not you agree with it. Recognize that if you had their history,
their circumstances, and the forces that play on them, you would likely have their point of view.

“Step out! Swing out! Take a chance! Get on with it!”

WERNER: First of all , no calling people anything

doesn't necessarily make any statement
about their state of enlightenment. If I call
you an asshole in the context of your being
enlightened , it e nlightens you. If I call you an
asshole to get you enlightened because you
aren't enlightened, it endarkens you.
None of us understands very much about
the power of context. It's useful to distinguish
between believing that something is so and its
actually being so, because the belief in that
thing which is so is totally different from its
so-ness. As a matter of fact , the belief that
something is so keeps you from experiencing
its being so. It actually ceases to be so, because
you've got a barrier between you and
it; and the barrier is your belief that it's so. A
belief in the truth is not the truth ; yet the
same thing, without the belief. is the truth .

 If we  look through the lens of “I make a difference,” we  see a whole world of difference to be made.

This opportunity is a context —a particular space or paradigm, a way of being —which unexpectedly creates
the possibility for a person’s life to truly make a difference.

Context Is Decisive
When we create context as a distinction, we refer to the space in which
something shows up, or the space which makes it possible for something to
show up. In the matter of our own lives, who we really are is the context for
the events of our lives. I am the space in which the events of my life occur. 

In the matter of creating leverage in life, when you look you see the obvious
which at first isn't obvious: that the only facility we have to create leverage in
life is language. In the matter of communicating the space in which the
events of our lives occur, who we really are is who we say we are. That
doesn't mean you are whatever you say you are. It means that who you really
are is the context for your word. Language renders your context authentic to
others. Languaging it makes context real and sanctifies it. 

Arguably it isn't effective to explain what a context for living is. Understanding
is the booby prize. Rather, when you create it, when you be it, I get it. When
I be it, you get it. When you get it, you know it as who you really are, as the
context for the events of our lives, as the space in which the events of our
lives occur. When you get it, you also notice that its essence is that it is
shareable. 

Actually it's more than that. It's not merely that it can be shared ie that
shareability is one of its properties. It's that if it doesn't call you to share it or
if it's still present when you don't share it, then that ain't it! 

Language which leverages and brings forth context isn't the talk referred to in
the phrase "talk is cheap". In fact, the phrase "talk is cheap" is the hallmark
of a misconception of who we human beings really are. Language which
leverages and brings forth context generates a stand and a new possibility for
human beings. The new possibility for human beings is really a powerful
shareable context for living. 

For example, there's a certain power and leverage in saying "I think wars
don't solve our problems.". There's another order of power and leverage in
saying "Who I'm being is wars don't solve our problems.". Say it. Try it on for
size. Say "I think wars don't solve our problems.". Then try on for size "Who
I'm being is wars don't solve our problems.". Say them both. Something
distinct is called forth saying each one. As you say each one, look and see
how they land in the listening of others. 

There's dither in the former. There's daring and decisiveness in the latter. The
sense of distinction between where you come from saying one then the other
is palpable. If you say "That's just semantics - we're playing with words",
you're right. Language is all we have to create and leverage context and
distinction in life. In that regard there is nothing else. 

Werner Erhard says context is decisive. This has two implications. 

The first is the bigger picture for an action. For example, if you drive two
hundred miles an hour around Times Square, New York, you get a prison
uniform; if you drive two hundred miles an hour around Sears Point Raceway,
California, you get a laurel wreath. Context decides implications for actions.
That's powerful. 
The second implication is even more powerful. Who you really are is the
context for your life. Acting from the context for your life rather than from
your fears, concerns, interpretations judgements etc gives being decisive. 

"Context is decisive" is vintage Erhard. Sitting with it in your lap like a

hot brick gives who you really are. 

TRIBUTE TO EST
Est made history and the following is a history of est. It is a tribute to transformation and Werner
Erhard. Follow the lineage of people places and things that enlightened a generation and made an
impact on the world.

This Is It – An Interview With Werner Erhard

New Sun Magazine
By Eliezer Sobel, December 1978

The truth is not found in a different set of circumstances. The truth is always and only found in the
circumstances you’ve got.
Werner’s life and work is the subject of William Bartley’s recently released book, Werner Erhard: The
Transformation of a Man, the Founding of est, published by Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. The book is
unusual in that it is not so much a story, but an experience. On the surface, it is the history of Werner
Erhard; one step in, and it’s a biography of the Self, the story of each of our own inner unfoldment.

New Sun: I’d like to know what you feel is the single most important thing a human being can learn
in life?
Werner Erhard: The problem with the answer to that question is that it depends on where the person
is. I think that until you know that life does not work you’re unprepared to know anything else. And
yet that’s not the most important thing to know. But it might be the first thing to know.
NS: That it’s not all right the way it is?
Werner: No. I didn’t say that. I said that life doesn’t work. What I mean by that is whatever it is that
you think is going to make life work, it isn’t going to make life work. People think that when they get
educated that that’s going to solve all their problems and handle things; or when they get married, or
when they get divorced, and so on. People think there is something that is going to make things work,
and nothing makes things work. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t anything that’s going to
make anybody happy.
NS: Okay … and with that realization begins the search? Or ends the search? What comes next after
that realization?
Werner: Well, it is the entree into getting back to the source of it. It’s the way you get into the
system to get back to the source of it. Without that you are kept from getting into the system. You
play with the system, but you’re not in the system. Or the system plays with you.
NS: Which system?
Werner: The system in which the answer to your question lies. The distinction between toying with
the truth and seeking for the truth … a large part of what determines which of those two things you
are doing is your willingness to confront that nothing will make you happy. That there isn’t anything
that is going to make you happy. Or there isn’t anything that’s going to make you enlightened, if
that’s what you’re seeking for. Until you know that life doesn’t work in the sense that nothing’s going
to do it for you, and until you know that there isn’t any secret, then what you are doing is toying with
that in which the truth is, rather than dealing with that in which the truth is. If you’re attempting to
get the truth to relieve yourself of the domination of life, then the truth isn’t available to you inside
that system.
NS: So you need to be looking for the truth from the point of view that it’s not necessarily going to
solve anything. Is that what you’re saying.
Werner: That’s more like it, but what it really is, is that you have to see the truth in this, rather than
looking for where the truth is.
NS: The truth in this, meaning now?
Werner: Yes, right now. And I don’t mean right now in the hip sense of that word. I mean right now
in the simple sense of that word: given what you’ve got right now, if you can’t see the truth in that
then you can’t see the truth. The truth is not found in a different set of circumstances. The truth is
always and only found in the circumstances you’ve got. And a lot of us think the truth is found in a
different set of circumstances, and the problem is that if that’s true, then you can’t find the truth.
Because when you get to the next set of circumstances it won’t be that set, it will be a different set.
The fact of the matter is that the truth, or the secrets of life, or those things which allow life to be
whole and complete and which provide for you some determination of the quality of your own life and
a way to contribute to the quality of all life—those things are found in this: whatever circumstances
you describe will be sufficient.
NS: Including your current mental state, your current emotional state, including your ideas about life,
including everything?
Werner: Yes. In other words, you don’t have to get someplace to get to the truth. You’re at where
the truth is.
NS: Okay. So what is it in people that prevents them from knowing this?
Werner: Mostly the idea that something is going to make them happy or that some day life will work
or something could make life world or somebody could make life work—the whole notion of trying to
make life work. The whole notion of trying to beat the way it is, the whole notion of trying to get out
of it, the whole notion of trying to get beyond it, the whole notion of transcending it. All of that stuff is
what keeps people from seeing the truth in this. It could be said that it keeps them from seeing this.
So in my experience the first thing one has to give up, … no, the last thing one has to give up is hope.
It’s interesting that the physicians I talk to say that the biggest single problem in this country is
depression. And hopelessness or depression or despair is really a function of hope. When you hope,
then you must hopeless, or despair. It is the concomitant of hope. So when you give up hope, when
you stop waiting or putting yourself out in the future—and hope is like that, it projects you into the
future—then you can be with this.
NS: Is that giving up of hope an action that can be taken by a human being? Or is it something that
occurs magically at some point?
Werner: No, I think that one can recognize that one has been fooling oneself about what’s going to
come along to make it all work. You know it’s so deeply ingrained into our models of the universe, or
our models of life, that it’s very difficult, but I think you can kind of systematically begin to reduce
your fantasies about what’s going to come along to make life work for you. It’s like people who think
that if they do the est training it will solve their problems, or this fantasy people have that if you
meditate long enough, that will solve your problems. All those fantasies, all those “if only” fantasies,
or “when” fantasies…
NS: Is the condition of no suffering available to human beings?
Werner: That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I’m talking about accepting the condition of suffering.
I’m talking about confronting the condition of suffering and allowing it and accepting it. In allowing it
and accepting it and embracing it, one transcends it, but you can’t do that in order to transcend it.
You have to deal with it honestly and as it is—you accept that this is the way life is. It’s interesting
because the source of suffering is the notion that this is not the way life is. Suffering is a function of
the notion that “this is not it.” And when you accept that life cannot work out of the notion that this is
not it, you begin to create the space for yourself that this is it, and when you realize that this is it,
there is no suffering. Not that there is no suffering, it’s that suffering has been transformed. It’s no
longer operating you. The suffering is a function of the notion that this isn’t it. Suffering is
transformed, or transmuted, out of the realization that this is it.
NS: And it seems as if the general daily condition for many people is the notion that this isn’t it and
the motivation for continuing is to find out.
Werner: Yes. That’s very good. Exactly.
NS: So what becomes the motivation for daily living once one accepts that this is it?
Werner: There isn’t any motivation for notion that one needs for daily living. The notion that needs a
motivation for daily living is only a notion.
It is possible to live – to simply live. You don’t need to be motivated, in fact, motivation is added to
life anyhow.
NS: In other words, living is happening anyway.
Werner: Yes. Living does happen, and when you live out of the fact that it’s happening—that sounds
redundant, but it’s also the Tao, or “this is it” or whatever you like—when you live out of the fact that
you are living, and you live life out of the fact that “life is,” that of necessity says that you will be
entirely consistent with what is. Now, the problem is that when you
when you try to understand that in the time stream, it brings in all kinds of difficulties and mischief, so
you have to understand that the experience of “this is it” is not in the time stream. It’s not, “this is it
and that wasn’t it,” or “this is it and that won’t be it.” “This is it” is an experience beyond the time
stream.
NS: This is it and always was it and always will be it.
Werner: Precisely. There’s an aspect about this that’s pretty important. A lot of people think that
“now” is the moment between the past and the future. That is a lie. It is not. “Now” is that moment
out of time, out of which the past, present and future occur. The past, present and future are an
illusion, or a formulation, or a structural¬ization, of the truth of “now,” which is not the moment
between the past and the future, but the context for all time. No matter where you are, it is now. You
have never been any place but now. In your own experience you’ve only had now; therefore, for you
the past and the future is a concept. And they are conceptual. And so is the present. The present is
the moment between the past and the future. Where the present is now, not related to the past and
future, then that is where you’ve always been.
NS: The truth then is not consistent with our mind’s normal way of viewing things or living life. I seem
to live in past, present and future, even if at some level I have intuited that’s not actually what’s going
on.
Werner: Nothing could be more important than acknowledging that, because only by acknowledging
that could you possibly transcend it. Now all you need to do is surrender to that. See, if you’re trying
to beat the game…
NS: Well, what I’ve never been clear about is whether that point of view in life’ ever goes away, or do
you just stop paying attention to it?
Werner: Oh, yeah. The past, present, and future doesn’t go away. It gets allowed to be, and when
you allow it to be, it allows you to be. While you’re screwing around with it–or to put it in the Catholic
term – while you are entertaining it – while you are resisting it, or trying to transcend it, or submitting
to it or stuck in it then you are not letting it be and its not letting you be. So it could be said that
transcendence or transformation is the ability to allow things to be. And that’s distinct from submitting
to it or resisting it. When I say “allow it to be” I do not in any way mean to submit to it.
NS: That is my next question, because the standard response to that is “well what about all the
problems with what is, what about all the terrible things that are going on? How does transformation
become applicable to social reform?” Or is that irrelevant in the context of this conversation?
Werner: No, It’s not irrelevant. It is totally relevant. I would say that nothing is irrelevant in the
context of this conversation…. If the chair you are sitting in breaks and you begin to fix it as if it was
your tape recorder, it won’t work. You have to surrender to the chair in order to fix it. That is to say,
you’ve got to get that that chair is that chair, that it is no other chair, that it isn’t the way you want it
to be, it isn’t the way you’d like it to be, it isn’t the way it should be, it isn’t the way that everybody
knows that it is. It is the way it is and it is only that way, and to the degree that you interact with the
chair as it is, to that degree you can be effective and work with the chair. The intervention of anything
between you and that chair that keeps you from knowing the chair as it is – including your desire to
change it, including your resistance to it, your repulsion to it – anything that intervenes between you
and the chair makes you ineffective with the chair. So the true resolution of anything has to begin
with a surrender to the thing that you are going to resolve. That is to say, you have to take it for
exactly what it is without the addition of anything, or the subtraction of anything. At that point you
can produce what are for most people miracles because the thing is very complex to them. It is not
itself. Its mediated by their desires and repulsions and what they want and don’t want and all that
stuff.
So this thing about getting that “this is it” has a great deal to do with correcting what is unworkable. If
you’re coming to the chair as it is, you’re going to be very effective in repairing the chair. But if you
come to the chair from your desire to change it, if you come to the chair from your repulsion, from
your evaluation that it’s bad, then that’s between you and the chair. So the secret in any kind of
transfor¬mation, whether it be individual, social or universal, is to come from it as it is, which is what
surrender is, as distinct from submission. You can submit to the broken chair: the chair’s broken and
that has primacy and you’re less than that, and so you just have to put up with it. Putting up with it is
totally different than surrendering to it. I don’t like the word surrender a lot just because it’s a
problem in our culture. I’d rather say “as it is,” or this, or thus, or whatever you like.
NS: I want to change tracks … Is it possible to celebrate life in the midst of suffering and not feel
guilty about it?
Werner: First off, guilt is a compensation for ineffectiveness. That about which I can do nothing, I can
at least feel guilty; or that about which I am unwilling to be responsible, I can at least be guilty. When
you are responsible there is no such thing as guilt. Guilt simply isn’t a function. To be useful with, to
be effective with, to be able to complete with—that is an expression of the experience of
responsibility. Whereas guilt makes you ineffective. It demeans you. If you’ve made a mistake and are
guilty about it, then you are smaller than your mistake. Besides which, what bad boy is going to be
able to correct things? If you’ve made a mistake and you are responsible for it, you’re bigger than the
mistake. You have the power to correct the mistake. Now let’s get on to the other thing about
celebration. You have to watch with a word like celebration because it’s a word like God, in that people
have a lot of pictures about it. I mean “whoopee” is the normal notion of celebration. That may not be
the only way to celebrate.
NS: I guess I’m thinking of celebration as some alternative to “life stinks.”
Werner: Yes, I know you are. And it’s important to recognize that people who are really hard at work
at something which they experience makes a difference in the world, are absolutely celebrating. You
can look at them and see it. It’s on that basis that I would say that unless we’re allowed to celebrate
we’re going to remain ineffective. To not see the opportunity that cleaning up the mess is, and
therefore not seeing that cleaning up the mess is really a celebration, makes you ineffective at
cleaning up the mess.
You see, if you take a look at the problems in the world, I promise you that most of them will have
been former solutions, Most of the problems in the world started out as solutions, and the kind of
solutions that turn out as problems are the solutions that don’t come from celebration.
Celebration is a quality of effectiveness, it’s a quality of workability, it’s a quality which is consistent
with being complete. You see, it’s kind of like this: let’s assume you’re going to graduate and you
think that graduating is going to make you happy. That’s entirely ineffective. But if you are now happy
and you are going to bring the happiness which you now are to your graduation, that’s effective. The
same thing is true about handling problems. If you’re coming out of the “problem as solved”—which is
different than trying to solve it–if you’re coming out of the problem as solved, I mean what is more
appropriate to the problem solved than celebration? So if you’re coming out of the “problem as solved”
then you’re bringing solution to the problem. If you’re coming out of the “problem needs to be solved”
then you’re bringing problem to the problem.
NS: You brought up the word God… what does that word mean to you these days?
Werner: First I have to tell you what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean all the things you know it
doesn’t mean, like it’s not a white guy with white hair and white robes sitting on a white throne. Nor is
it any thing but it’s not not any thing. By that I mean that you can’t say that God is not the chair. You
can’t say God is there and the chair’s over here. But you can’t say that God is the chair, because that
would imply that God’s here and not over there. So what I would say about God is first of all that
anything I say about God has got to be inaccurate because you’ve asked me to say something about
the infinite and all sayings, are finite. But I think it’s possible for me to talk, about it in a way that a
person is left with an apprehension of God for him or herself, not from what I’ve said, but perhaps
standing on what I’ve said. So, God is the context of contexts; that would mean that God is
contextuality. You have a content. You have a process which devolves to the content. You have a
context in which the process devolving to the content occurs. And then there are many contexts and
the context for contexts is contextuality. Just as you’re an individual, and I’m an individual, but you
wouldn’t be an individual and I wouldn’t be an individual without the context of individuality. There
wouldn’t be any word individual without individuality; there wouldn’t be any such thing as an
individual without the context of individuality.
When you show a primitive tribesman a photograph he sees black and white splotches because he has
no context of picture. Once he gets the notion that he can be represented on a flat plane, he instantly
sees his picture. You and I have had experiences like that, where you don’t know what you’re looking
for and you can’t see it, and somebody tells you what you’re looking for and suddenly you see it. And
now you can’t not see it. So, you and I would not notice that we were individuals if it were not for the
context of individ¬uality. You would have no individual expressions if it were not for the context of
individuality. Individuality is the context, you are the process, the content is you as an individual.
Then there is a context of contexts. It’s like a set and elements. What is the set of all sets? God could
be said to be the set of all sets. The problem with that is that it gets into an infinite regression for
most people.
NS: Because then you need the set of the set of all sets.
Werner: Yes. Precisely. Except that the resolution to that is not an infinite regression…
NS: The context contains the infinite regression?
Werner: Yeah, that’s good, but it’s not complete if you say it that way. I can give you another way of
looking at it. All of these things are approximations because we’re trying to say everything, so
anything you say has to be an approximation. So this is just another approximation and that is that
the second dimension is contained within the third dimension and if you’ve got three dimensions
you’ve got to have four dimensions because the three dimensions have got to be contained in
something. So that’s the fourth dimension Which means there has to be a fifth dimen¬sion, and so on,
except that it isn’t necessary to have an infinite regression. What you can have is a shift from
dimen¬sion to dimensionality, and that which can contain any number of dimensions is
dimensionality, and it would not require an infinite regression.
So the way I would talk about God that I thought was useful—that is to say, something on which
people could stand and see for themselves—was a conversation that would involve the things we’ve
just talked about. I would talk about God as wholeness, or completeness. I would talk about God as
everything/ nothing. I would talk about God as the context of all contexts. I would talk about God as
contextuality itself. But that would certainly not exclude anything, but, also not be anything to the
exclusion of anything else.
If what I just told you isn’t mind-boggling, it isn’t accurate, because anything you say about God that
will fit into your mental system you can be sure is illusionary. That’s a nice word for bullshit. And we
all want something that will fit in our mind when in fact what is useful to us is something which will
not fit in our mind. The description of God that won’t fit in our mind isn’t mindboggling just for the
sake of being mindboggling–that would be gibberish or jargon—it’s mindboggling because it is that
way in nature. The mind is not big enough to contain God, because the mind deals in symbols and
God, when represented, is no longer God. It isn’t even accurately represented; any representation of
everything is a thing and everything and a thing are two different orders of thing. Therefore, God
doesn’t fit into our system of things because God is not a thing. In the Hebrew tradition they don’t let
people use the word God, which is not a bad idea actually, because then you don’t bullshit yourself
about it. I mean you’re stuck with your apprehension of it rather than your symbols of it.
NS: In the Hindu tradition there seems to be a personal devotional relationship to God. I understand
that to simply be a vehicle for the mind to relate with that which is bigger than it…
Werner: Almost all religions have attempted to bring God into the scope of “the people.” I have a
sense that that’s, a little demeaning to people. I have a sense that it is possible to relate to people in
such a way that they will expand to be able to know God. I’ve got to be a little poetic here, but for me
it is clear that the Self is the only vessel which can hold God. That’s a little too poetic for me, so
maybe I want to say that the Self is that which has the ability to know God, because it is God. My
personal preference, and that which I see as workable, is rather than to reduce the thing to something
palatable, I’d rather ask people to increase their capacity, and I find that people are better served by
that. But I think that comparisons are bullshit, and I don’t want to get into a comparison about the
way Hinduism approaches the notion of God. Hinduism is perfect for Hindus and all those people who
are Hindus should practice Hinduism as long as they do. That is to say, while they’re Hindus they
should practice Hinduism.
NS: Thank you.
Werner: Yes, thank you. Thank you for your interest.

"I had to separate the bull ---- from the gunsmoke."

“Context is Decisive.” —Werner Erhard

The single most powerful and universally applicable tool for creating the kind of
relationships, connections, and experiences you want to have with others is Setting
Context. Doing this effectively is crucial—from creating more rewarding moments, to
having greater influence, to being a more effective leader. It is also a skill that can be
learned and improved over time. Read on and I’ll tell you how.

What’s Your Context?

Consider the context you are in right now. You’re reading, which means you’ve learned
to read English from some background that made this possible for you. Are you reading
this on paper? Or on a screen? Either way, some technological infrastructure makes
this possible. What country are you in? What city? Are you alone, or are others in your
immediate space right now? Standing? Sitting? Day? Night?

Are you reading this on the IntegralCenter.org website? If so, what led you to this page?
Perhaps a social media link, a web search, or an email link. Maybe you’re in a training
that includes this as its curriculum.
Notice what it is like to simply put your attention on all the layers and aspects of the
context you are in right now. Is this hard or easy? Do you feel intrigued or bored? Do
you feel more free or more limited? Do you sense more options or fewer? Do you like or
dislike noticing all this?

What is Context?

All things in time and space exist within a context. This includes our thoughts, words,
actions, and relationships. Context is ever-present and multi-layered. Context is made
of many components— environment, history, causes, conditions, decisions,
agreements, as well as many other forces and factors. These components are what
give shape and structure to context. Context influences our focus and attention. Context
brings some things to the foreground while others things to the background. Some
possibilities become more likely, while others, less likely.

The context of any situation is often implicit—unspoken, in the background. Or it can be

explicit—spoken out in the open. Either way, it’s always there. Within our human
experience, we experience many overlapping contexts—gender, race, culture, identity,
language, educational background, geographical location, income level, place of
employment, profession, a TV show we like, a game we like to play, a hobby or interest
we share, and so on. When these contexts remain implicit, they shape our experience in
the background, mostly unconsciously. As you develop more awareness of context,
you’ll sense more possibilities, and become increasingly adept at engaging it to create
more of what you want, more often.

How do you Set Context?

There are two ways to actively engage with the contexts that are shaping our relational
experiences. Each one is significant and essential. And, they are both interconnected
and support each other.

The first way is to notice and identify one or more aspects of any implicit, unstated
context and make it explicit by stating it openly. By stating something, we can create
more options for how to relate with it.

For example…

 “It seems like you’ve got some recommendations you’d like me to hear…”
 “I’m noticing we’re the +1’s at this company holiday party…”
 “I think I’ve been trying to impress you throughout this entire conversation so
far…”
 “Up until now, it seems we’ve been interacting only as teacher and student…”
The second way is to set an explicit context in order to create a new experience and
enroll others into it with you. This is something that you’ve probably already been doing,
and you just might know it yet. Essentially, setting context is creating an invitation to the
kind of interaction and experience you want to have with one or more other people.

Here are the ingredients—

 What are we going to do?

…a short descriptive headline
 Why are we going to do it?
…what’s in it for you and for them!
 How are we going to do it?
…a process, a plan, a structure, a script, or the “rules of the game”
 Who is going to do what?
…the roles each person would be taking on
 Where is this going to take place?
…right here or someplace else? Or limited to specific locations?
 When, and for how long, will this be taking place?
…start/end times, duration (e.g. minutes? hours? days? weeks? months? Years?)
…triggering conditions so that, when they happen, they invoke certain actions?
…conditions for completion—what does “done” look like? how will we know?
 Buy-in
…negotiating consent and agreement, discussing options when needed

When you’ve clarified these ingredients for yourself, conveyed them with clarity, and
gotten buy-in, you’ve succeeded at Setting Context! It’s as if we’ve sat down to play a
board game together, read and understood the rules printed on the inside of the box lid,
and now it’s game time! To illustrate, here’s a short and simple example—

“Hey gang! I’ve got something I’d like to do so we can all get to know each other a little
better. I’d like each of us to complete the sentence stem ‘One of my favorite childhood
experiences from this time of year is…’ You game?”
…“Yes!”
What If It’s Not Working?

Sometimes, a situation is unfolding differently in some way other than what you were
expecting, even at times when you’ve successfully set context. Perhaps tensions are
rising, conflict is breaking out, or maybe things just feel a little bit off track—flat, uneven,
weird, confusing, etc. In these cases, it can be very useful to consider which
components of context might be missing, unclear, misunderstood, or left implicit. Then
see if you can create a new one—more clearly, more precisely, or more intentionally
and mutually agreed upon.
Here are some key questions to ask when considering how to work with clarifying
context.

 “What might be a significant, relevant, implicit context that hasn’t been spoken
openly?”
 “Is there a component missing in this current context—what? why? how? who?
where? when?”
 “Does everyone here seem to understand the current context accurately,
including myself?”
 “Does everyone seem ‘bought-in’ to what is happening here? If not, what might
that take?”

Don’t worry too much about nailing context just right the first time or every time. It’s
unlikely you’ll get buy-in right off the bat on your first pass at making a proposal. Even
when you do, and you get into a context you’ve set up, things might go differently than
you thought they would anyway. You can revisit context at any time during an
interaction or ongoing relationship. Remember: Context is always present and you’re
already participating within it in some way and in determining, at least in part, the shape
and structure of it. So returning to it over and over again is just a natural and expected
part of the process.

“You aren’t going to get it right. We are infants at creating context, and infants don’t get
it right. You have it wrong to start with, and it’s only out of having it wrong that we come
to know it and to master it.” —Werner Erhard
How Will I Know I’m Getting the Hang of It?

You can think of Setting Context as both a relational art as well as a technology. With
time, you’ll hone your technique and develop your intuitions of how to do this with
greater skill, ease, and enjoyment. Two key signs you’re well on your way are (a) when
you notice the degree to which you are sensing and tracking multiple layers of context
present in any moment, and (b) the ease with which you can return to Setting Context at
any moment to negotiate adjustments and clarifications. These signs indicate your
progress towards mastering this vital skill.

Michael Porcelli is committed to people cultivating more realness in

their relationships both personally and professionally. He’s played a key role developing
a world-class team of facilitators and Course Leaders with The Integral Center and
AuthenticWorld. Whether it’s taking people into deep interpersonal encounters in the
moment, crafting a training curriculum, or facilitating a fast-paced business meeting,
you’ll find him friendly, down-to-earth, and probably ready geek-out at the drop of a hat.

Visualize Your Desired Process and Outcome

Our human “reality” is mostly “coded” visually.

We have phrases like “I’ll believe it when I see it” because that’s generally how we become convinced.
Cats on the other hand mostly navigate reality by smell, and so when I’m programming my cat, I have
him pull towards a smell he likes 🙂

In our human case, you want to give your brain a map, a movie, a way of seeing how what you’re about
to do is driving everything you want!

You stop pretending that there is some life out in front of you. You stop living inside the illusion of one
day how your life will be and how you will feel, and instead, you choose to feel this way now.

Our brains are hardwired to view an emerging situation through the lens of our past experiences. What
is merely needed is copy paste what worked in the past to find a solution in the future. We are thus
conditioned to believe that a person with a ten year sales experience would perform better than
someone with lesser experience. But what the above mindset assumes is some kind of continuity of the
environment and all that it represents. The competition and its response. The buyer and his decision
making behaviour. The technology and product gaps. And so on.

Context is Decisive

In plain English, context means framework. When I say Context, I mean the mental framework in your
head. It’s composed of things like beliefs, values, expectations, access to and variety of language, point
of view, past experiences, and so on.

Even your momentary blood sugar or hormone levels can shift your context. It colors how you interpret
every event both internal or external. Whether you see something as good/bad, happy/sad,
opportunity/threat, friend/foe, partner/competitor, worth it/not worth it, investment/expense,
nourishing/poisonous, etc., is all given by that mental framework.

So while “out there” the event is the same for all, your inside experience can be completely different
because it exists in a different context. From the point of the individual, context is decisive.
From the perspective of persuasion and influence, whether personal or in business, shifting someone’s
context can shift every single thing about their behavior. And lasting influence comes from your ability
to get someone’s context to change.

I’ll be writing more about this over the coming weeks. If you want to know more, sign up for my
newsletter. I’ll keep you posted.

– shift the paradigm, and the world moves.

Accepting what’s there free you (that this is what is it). You are able to focus on something else. What
you resist persist.

Your brain becomes what you focus on. Unfortunately, the focus that formed our brain was given to us
by our upbringing (our past experience).

The mind is directed attention. Dr Jeffrey M Schwartz 'You are not your brain' at Mind & Its Potential
2011

You are not who you are. You are who you train yourself to be.

You capable of what you train yourself to be. We can be whoever we wanna be.

Words are Magic: The Power of

Language Over Our Minds

Written by James Dowd  in Creative  

on March 28th, 2018
 
 SHARES

12




One day, as I pretended to take notes in a meeting, I watched my hand moving across my
notebook and noticed something odd. With slight, unconscious movement of my pen, magic was
happening. Symbols, shapes, ideas were coming to life, bleeding forth from my pen, and they
evoked further meaning, emotion, wonder in my mind. I wiggled my pen on the page and images
were born in my brain. Incredible! This was no small thing. This was something unbelievable
that I’d simply never paid any attention to.

I realized I wasn’t merely spelling words. I was doing something wonderful. I was casting spells.
It was magic.
And I’m a magician!

Crazy? Maybe, but only if you underestimate words themselves, the strength of them strung
together, or our ability to wield them. Words can make your heart beat faster, make you sweat,
make you cry, make you fall in love. So, instead, consider that words are of the supernatural sort,
other-worldly, yet not; gifted to us by some divine spirit, maybe; ever-changing, not ours, simply
floating in us and around us, shaping our world and each other, but still shaped by our own
innate, internal passions and energy — our Blood!

Skeptical? Well, you can explain words as well as you can explain magic, and it’d be just as fun
hearing you try. That’s because neither are driven by truth, but by belief. Our acceptance and
understanding are not bound by logic, but by emotion. We believe in words, we breathe life into
them, we toss them into the world and they thrive. But, when we stop, when we abandon them,
regardless of their linguistic evolution, regardless of their past, they die. They exist to
communicate, to express meaning and understanding, to serve as a symbol for something, and
then...poof, they’re gone. (Magic.)

In fact, the word ‘spell’ — to spell a word — actually influenced the idea of casting a spell — to
use magic to influence others. And, it had such magical power over me after observing my
notebook scribbles, I went so far as to learn more from my favorite wielder of words and Yale
professor, Dr. Mike Zimm (editor’s note: James and Zimm sit next to each other, so James
“magically” just looked over and asked).

Zimm said, “The root “spellam" originally meant "story, saying, tale, history, narrative, fable"
and then the term ‘spell’ started to take on the meaning of a charm or magical incantation in the
Middle Ages.”

“In the Indo-European tradition, words were always viewed as having magical abilities, or
possessing a dangerous magic,” Zimm rambled on. “For example, the daughter languages of
Proto Indo-European arrange the consonants in the root for the animal "wolf" in bizarre ways.
This is probably because the original speakers (before 3000 BC) feared that if they said the
actual word for ‘wolf’ it would magically cause the animal to appear. It’s the origin of ‘curse
words’ — the belief that the usage of particular words had powerful negative effects — the
ability to curse yourself or others.”

"Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of
both inflicting injury, and remedying it." – Albus Dumbledore
So what does all this magic talk really mean? Well, for writers, it means we’re magicians; we’re
powerful. We can cast spells over the world by spelling words into existence and we can change
the way people think, feel, and act. That’s our ability as writers, speakers, and storytellers, that’s
our gift — to influence others, to create the unexpected, to change the way people see and
understand the world, to put on a show.

Consider the power of one word alone. A single magical word can not only change something’s
meaning, it can convince someone to change how they think.

In 1974, an experiment was conducted in which people were asked to recall what they’d seen in
a car crash video. Some were asked if they’d seen “the” broken headlight and some if they’d
seen “a” broken headlight. Those who were asked if they’d seen “the” broken headlight were
three times as likely to have seen it than those in the other group. Truth was, there was never any
broken headlight in the video.

A single, small collection of letters created a memory people believed was true! They reported
on something that never even existed. Yeah, you got it, it was Magic.

Still don’t believe in the power of words? Finish this sentence:

“What if…”

Oh, the endless places those simple words, those six letters, can take you. The sparks of
imagination burning in your brain this very moment. Your imagination, like a child’s, explodes
with unrestrained possibility. What if you could use that very power of inspiration, creation, and
connection with everyone you meet? Answer: you can.

We wielders of words, we sorcerers, charmers, creative conjurers, magical beasts, we are free to
spell words into existence at will — writing that’s crafted to convince, to change, to instill a
sense, a feeling in someone beyond their control. There’s real power there. We are undoubtedly
unstoppable.

"Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can
nudge the world a little."  – Tom Stoppard
For non-writers, take note: that power is not held by writers alone. We’re ultimately talking
about the brain — our endless canvas, where words live and breathe — and it’s open to all.
Artists, designers, strategists, thinkers, and any sort of creator in this world: you’ve made it this
far, so I have a gift for you: you, as well, are magical. You too have the power to create thoughts,
feelings, and imagery in people’s minds in your own way. You speak, you write, you think, you
are unstoppable, as well.

How? By using your passions and craft to tell stories. You are human and therefore you are a
natural storyteller. It’s built into you. You can control minds. You do it for yourself without
realizing. Every night your stories give you an escape, letting you play in fantasy worlds. You go
to bed and your brain sits up telling itself wonderful stories, both memorable and mundane.

Never forget that you are here today because mankind has spent thousands upon thousands of
years developing the magic of communication and stories. How dare you not believe in it. How
dare you not believe in yourself. How dare you not open your soul and share your magic with
others!

Never forget that those who truly believed in their magic — who dedicated themselves to
wielding it in new, powerful, exciting ways — they will live forever. Tell me that’s not magic.

Never forget that you are a force of nature with all the power of the universe on the tip of your
tongue. Words are mankind’s greatest creation; capable of transcending time and space; capable
of controlling the human mind; capable of anything.

So, embrace words and their power. Read, write, tell stories, wield your magic. Be a magician.

Magic
by Bo Burnham

Read this to yourself. Read it silently.

Don’t move your lips. Don’t make a sound.
Listen to yourself. Listen without hearing anything.
What a wonderfully weird thing, huh?
NOW MAKE THIS PART LOUD!
SCREAM IT IN YOUR MIND!
DROWN EVERYTHING OUT.

Now, hear a whisper. A tiny whisper.

Now, read this next line with your best crotchety-old-man voice:
“Hello there, sonny. Does your town have a post office?”

Awesome! Who was that? Whose voice was that?

It sure wasn’t yours!
How do you do that?
How?!
Must be magic.

Get more insights right to your i

WERNER ERHARD'S "THE TRUTH PROCESS"
(EST)
The central intention of The Truth Process is to free one
from the grip of limiting beliefs:
to develop direct observation of experience
(including memory and imagination ) with sufficient
clarity that the sense of "barrier" dissolves and freedom
from limitation (sense of space) is restored, able to create
something new. It's an expanded sense of possibility (to
use a term that Werner used).

Change only comes when individuals do not resist events,

because "what you resist, you become."

Participants are encouraged to let their feelings "bubble

up"; they must look at how they resist, because what they
resist they are "stuck'' with. Surrender to the process. Let
go.
They are told (again) that the way to eliminate pain is to
fully experience it.

"There is nothing out there, but you, it's all your stuff. tour
experience of this person is just your experience, because
your stuff is coming out."

We experience about others is actually what is going on in

us. We really can’t see others, they are just a projection of
us. Therefore opinions and preferences are really
meaningless except in so far as they tell us more about
us.

Encouraged participants to talk about what they wanted

and how to get it, the trainer now attacks that viewpoint.
He argues that although most people think that what they
have determines what they do and who they are ("have,
do, be"), real security comes only from the "inside." The
trick is to start with what you are, develop skills, and you
will naturally -acquire the symbols you want ("be. do,
have").
First the trainer encouraged participants to talk about their
hopes and dreams, then he tells them their "frame of
reference" is all wrong, and finally he tells them what's
right. Subsequently, in the next exercise, he will develop
an experiential exercise that will give participants an
opportunity to (a) practice the trainer's frame of reference,
and (b) then "prove" it.)
In the lecture the trainer explains that "intention" is the
important concept. When you know who you are, you do
what is necessary. All of life, participants are told, begins
with "who you are" and is then distorted by a belief
system: "Living is perfection just the way it is . . . . Life is a
game." It is composed of setting goals ("going for it") and
then enjoying the process of it ("letting go of it").

"surrender to what is already there." "Let go of a problem

solving mentality. Don't demand change, just be there."

We are psychiatrists who treat fear and study its neurobiology. Our studies and clinical
interactions, as well as those of others, suggest that a major factor in how we experience
fear has to do with the context. When our “thinking” brain gives feedback to our
“emotional” brain and we perceive ourselves as being in a safe space, we can then
quickly shift the way we experience that high arousal state, going from one of fear to one
of enjoyment or excitement.

When you enter a haunted house during Halloween season, for example, anticipating a
ghoul jumping out at you and knowing it isn’t really a threat, you are able to quickly
relabel the experience. In contrast, if you were walking in a dark alley at night and a
stranger began chasing you, both your emotional and thinking areas of the brain would
be in agreement that the situation is dangerous, and it’s time to flee!
Similar to other animals, we very often learn fear through personal experiences, such as
being attacked by an aggressive dog, or observing other humans being attacked by an
aggressive dog.

However, an evolutionarily unique and fascinating way of learning in humans is through

instruction – we learn from the spoken words or written notes! If a sign says the dog is
dangerous, proximity to the dog will trigger a fear response.

We learn safety in a similar fashion: experiencing a domesticated dog, observing other

people safely interact with that dog or reading a sign that the dog is friendly.