A Kleenex tissue box

[Corrie van Wijk]

David used the Kleenex tissue box as a metaphor for the ABC and D space.

Corrie

[webmaven]

Corrie,

Could you please elaborate on how David used a kleenex tissue box as a metaphor for ABC and D space? I would like to understand the concept better.

Thank you!

webmaven

[deborahh]

The tissue box represented the 'known' world of the client. I'm using the word 'known' as a the best approximate here so that I can be brief. Their aperture of the box is oval. One end of the aperture represents A (current position/P1) and the other end represented B (the goal or issue).

For those familiar with this annotation, you will know that C represented the space between A and B. The C was the area A believed it needed to cross to get to B.
The D is the unknown world view encasing the ABC dynamic. As information emerged it came out of the ABC space. The tissues represent the emergent knowledge (E). The facilitator (F) is completely outside of the ABCDE space.

Hope that clarifies it. David and I worked on a very interesting piece where I interviewed him asking what A knew about B and B about C etc Not sure where it has go to now but much of it is flaoting around in my memory.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Thank you Deborah, for answering this question for me.

To add to this: the ABC space very often doesn't hold the solution: you can keep taking tissues out of the box, they will all be egg (hence the oval) solutions. To get a chicken solution you need to get outside the ABC space: D (the box which is rectangular) very often provides a meta-solution.

E emerges from the combination of the information in ABC within the perspective of D.

F is written in undercast (f), because David was modest about his role in all of this.

Corrie

[webmaven]

Thanks to you both, Deborah and Corrie. That also explains a little bit about the chicken and egg idea too. I wonder if there's anywhere in this forum where the chicken and the egg phenomenon is explained/defined and what role it played in David's recent work? I read some explanation on the Emergent Knowledge website, but that's all I've found so far.

[webmaven]

I hope I'm not boring all of you with my mundane questions, but I do greatly appreciate your help as I try to wrap my mind around all of this!

Just to clarify, using the tissue box metaphor:

I understand the ABC part, and how E is the tissues that emerge from the oval opening in the tissue box (egg solutions), but I had some questions about D.

So is the "known world of the client" the tissue box, or is D the tissue box? Does D emerge from the tissue box (a.k.a. the "known world of the client")? Or is D found somewhere outside the tissue box? Or maybe D is a different way of looking at the tissue box?

I understand that D is the new perspective, or a way of seeing things whole ("chicken solution"), but I'm a little confused about where and how it comes in the process. It seems like the emergent knowledge that is the goal of David's latest work is somehow contained within this "D" property. Am I right?

webmaven

[Corrie van Wijk]

I explained this earlier on the forum, probably in the clean space section.

ABC is the problem world, D is the out-of-the-box world from which a solution emerges (E).

E.g. you can pull out as much tissues as you like and cry, only if you look at the ABC world from outside, or from a metaperspective, a solution is possible.

I'll elaborate on this shorly.

Corrrie

[phil]

It helps me when thinking about D to remember the Perceiver and Perceived: who is doing the perceiving and whereabouts inside or outside the ABC system s/he is perceiving the system from.

Take an example of a cat stalking a bird. If I see this in my garden, my attention is momentarily on the cat and its stalking of the bird - in that moment, I might perceive the cat as A, the bird as B and the stalking and the relationship (both spatial and intentional) between the cat and the bird as C.

Milliseconds later, my attention might flip to the bird noticing the cat: in my perception, now the bird is A, the cat is B and the relationship (spatial and and now my label of 'noticing') is C.

So what is D?

I think of D as the label or D-scription of the gestalt, the system of 'the-bird-the cat-and-the-potential-relationship-between-them' as perceived by me an observer.


So in my introduction of an example: Take an example of a cat stalking a bird. ...'cat stalking a bird' is my D-scription for the ABC of a cat-bird-relationship. Although my D-scription refers to one particular configuration of ABC, to use a phrase of Caitlin Walker's, one can 'infer' the possibility of other relationships within the D-defined system. D temporarily defines boundaries of the system, allowing us to explore the relationships between elements of that system.

Other hypothetical musings

I wonder if D contains all possible ABC relationships.
D is a function of observing ABC system in action.
D of the bird/cat system is the B1 of another system where I am A1, perceiving it!
Perceived from the point of view of a fully engaged A, there is no D: only B and maybe C. The stalking cat is only aware of the bird and maybe the stalking. However A may occasionally become aware of the ABC-ness and thus the D. I remember thinking once, as a kid learning to ride: 'hey, I'm riding my bike!' I had become aware of D*. For me, it's as if I'm perceiving from somehwhere else (outside the ABC system?) when I do this.
E is what happens next in the system of ABC
F is what happens when as observer of D(ABC) I attempt to affect what I am observing. So with the bird/cat system, I might wave my hand to distract the cat.** I notice the result might not be the intended one: probably the bird flies away, now more scared of me than the cat!
f is what happens when I try to affect the D(ABC) system as cleanly as possible, perhaps by asking questions (Clean Language), facilitating movement (Clean Space) or promoting iteration (Emergent Knowledge). There will always be debate about how much/how little/how possible/how useful it is to be clean.
Words are too slow when trying to describe this the relationship between ABCDEF - I'm going to do a drawing or animation to try to clarify things further for myself via a different medium - watch this space [ ]*No, I didn't fall off - though I imagine if I'd carried on thinking like that for too long, that A might have had a bruised elbows, knees and ego shortly after!

**In doing this, I am treating D(ABC) as a B1 to my A1.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"The importance of being clean is the fact that in the case of our brain the map is identical to the territory, we make it up as we go along. Any new information will change it, as well as any new arrangement of it will.

If you give your map of your territory to your client to find his or her way, (s)he'll get lost.

Thinking about your problem usually gets you no further than logic reasoning, which is a linear approach that doesn't work with complex systems.
Clean facilitation means encouraging your clients to search the (back) alleys of their mind for some piece of (forgotten) information. Changing spaces triggers different feelings.

A meta-driver integrates the bits of information and pieces of feelings, as does spinning. The WWYLTHH-question then acts as a catalyst to form closed loops, from which a self-organized solution emerges, that moves the system into a new balance."

and

"Indeed, in systems thinking emergence has a specific meaning.

'In the early 1920s, the philosopher C.D. Broad coined the term 'emergent properties' for those properties that emerge at a certain level of complexity but do not exist at lower levels." (Quoted from Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life, 1996)
"According to the systems view, the essential properties of an organism, or living system, are properties of the whole, which none of the parts have. They arise from the 'organizing relations' of the parts, i.e. from a configuration of ordered relationships that is characteristic of that particular class of organisms or systems.
Throughout the living world, we find systems nesting within other systems, and by applying the same concepts to different systems levels, we can often gain important insights. On the other hand, we also have to recognize that, in general, different systems levels represent levels of differing complexity. At each level the observed phenomena exhibit properties that do not exist at lower levels. The systemic properties of a particular level are called 'emergent' properties, since they emerge at that particular level. Nature is seen as an interconnected web of relationships, in which the identification of specific patterns as 'objects' depends on the human observer and the process of knowing. This web of relationships is described in terms of a corresponding network of concepts and models, none of which is any more fundamental than the others.
Therefore, scientists can never deal with truth, in the sense of a precise correspondence between the description and the described phenomena. Science advances through tentative answers to a series of more and more subtle questions which reach deeper and deeper into the essence of natural phenomena.' (Capra, 1996)"

[webmaven]

Phil,

What a fantastic way to represent the interactions of ABCDEF! I hadn't caught the distinction between F and f from any of the earlier discussions, but that's good to know, as well.

I think your description of a more dynamic system (than a tissue box) is actually a little easier to understand because it makes the inter-relationships of the various letters more salient and also represents the shifting issue of the perceiver and what is perceived. Intriguing and illuminating.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also, I look forward to seeing you represent these examples in another form. Could be quite challenging. ;-)

P.S. I'm glad you didn't fall off your bike, though that can certainly happen when one is viewing things from D.

Corrie,

I appreciated your submission of the philosophical underpinnings of what Phil was saying, though I have to say I "got" the meaning a lot quicker with the simplicity of his examples.

Thank you to both of you. ;-)

I am really enjoying our dialogue.

webmaven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Dear Web,

"I appreciated your submission of the philosophical underpinnings.":The first part is my understanding of what's going on, and like David, I'm not sure what kind of clean question would do the job best.

The second part is Capra's. It's not a philosophy, it's systems theory. I'm sorry it's a bit abstract, I'm still searching this site for David's chicken-and-egg story, which is quite dynamic too and involves eggs in trees, in caves etc. Carol has it recorded.

I'm wondering about Phil's description of the ABC system. Labelling D as an observer's point of view is not enough.

The difference between F and f is new to me: it was just David being modest that he put in f for facilitator instead of F. (Originally we had D for David, because Kent pointed out that you cannot have a system and not involve the facilitator.)

[phil]

Yes, you're right, Corrie, D isn't observer's viewpoint - it's not quite what I meant, if I made seem that way.

I'm still trying to get my head around the labels and what's being perceived. To my mind, D could represent the environment or context that ABC is taking place within so the context of the ABC system.

James pointed out to me on the phone yesterday that one might think of it as D as the Ground in the Figure-Ground metaphor.

Another description might be the symbolic landscape around a sysmbol. In the cat and bird metaphor, D might be the clump of grass that the cat is hiding behind AND/OR the garden around the cat-bird system. Lots of parallels between C and D, depending how one looks at it.

For, say, the cat, awareness of D may alter from moment to moment: total focus on B? Ignore the D - then maybe some peripheral awareness (deciding before attacking whether to go over or through the grass).

And if F comes in waving his arms, a sufficiently energetic intrusion of context can wrest the attention away, in the cat's case from the bird to the foolish, unclean human who likes birds more than cats.

It's worth reminding ourselves that these ABCDEF labels keep changing what they are assigned to, depending on who is doing the perceiving and where their attention is.

When the context suddenly or powerfully intrudes, if you're the Figure, that's when the Ground comes up to meet you.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"At each level the observed phenomena exhibit properties that do not exist at lower levels. The systemic properties of a particular level are called 'emergent' properties, since they emerge at that particular level." (Capra)

Getting from A (the person right here and right now) to B (What would you like to have happen?) is often problematic because if it was easy you'd already be there (and you wouldn't need a therapist). So the ABC space 'holds' the problem, because that system 'needs' to keep it in place. Thinking outside the ABC space gets you into another system. From D a creative solution, an AHA-Erlebnis (E), becomes possible.

Your job as a facilitator is not to influence the system, but to get A thinking outside his or her ABC space. "What's outside?" etc. Going inside might be just as useful, as would going back or forth in time. The problem with iteration is that it should not alter the perception of the ABC space, but just by running through the system itself you get variation, which alters the system spontaneously. My question is: what would be the right clean question to keep the system in place. David's latest try was: "And what is there now?", but you can't avoid time moving in this one. The spin is intriguing as well: it doesn't change the order of things, but like John explained, you never quite return to the same space.

[phil]

Curious, isn't it, that we even imagine we could stay the same or that we might want to. Watzlawick et al in Change and Persistance describe persistence as dynamic rather than static, like running on the spot or running to stand still (my metaphor, I'm afraid - I can't look it up where I am now - any one help?).

Eternal youthfulness (a popular, if hopeless quest) is a good example I think of changing to try to stay the same. More and more energy and more and more drastic change is required to maintain an apparent sameness. What clean question might we ask of someone playing King Canute with the years?

Eventually the impossibility of the task overwhelms the most entrenched self-delusion - and the Ground comes up to meet us yet again.

[Corrie van Wijk]

I'm having trouble to explain this to you, Phil, but we'll get there. Let me try to give an example:

Telling a story over and over again tends to change a little aspect of it every time you tell it, so in the end it becomes a legend:

"We agreed to meet at Starbucks at seven and then find a restaurant. As it was already a bit past seven and the shop was about to close, John sat outside at the terrace. Somehow he forgot his wallet when he got up, but discovered that a few minutes later. He looked around and asked if anyone had seen his wallet and somebody stated that he had seen a person walking away. So John went after him, addressed him and said firmly: "You have my wallet!" The guy handed it over to him, and John gave him twenty dollar. Then the guy started to kiss him."

So far the story. However, when Marcia told the story again in the restaurant, she said John gave him another twenty dollars to stop kissing him ...

So, what would be the next telling of the story?

[webmaven]

Corrie,

What I meant to say was the "theoretical underpinnings." I don't type and think as clearly at the end of the day as at the beginning of the day. ;-)

I would love to hear the chicken-and-egg story of David's--sounds like it could be very informative.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the whole ABCD inter-action. I hope it helps others as it helps me to understand this very dynamic system. Besides understanding D, I think the most difficult part for me to represent/make sense of is the recursive aspect you alluded to in your last posting and how it aids emergence, where there is a subtle variation upon each recurrence of the story. Sort of reminds me of throwing clay on a potter's wheel and then watching the pot/bowl/cup/whatever emerge. . .

webmaven


Dear Web,

"I appreciated your submission of the philosophical underpinnings.":The first part is my understanding of what's going on, and like David, I'm not sure what kind of clean question would do the job best.

The second part is Capra's. It's not a philosophy, it's systems theory. I'm sorry it's a bit abstract, I'm still searching this site for David's chicken-and-egg story, which is quite dynamic too and involves eggs in trees, in caves etc. Carol has it recorded.

I'm wondering about Phil's description of the ABC system. Labelling D as an observer's point of view is not enough.

The difference between F and f is new to me: it was just David being modest that he put in f for facilitator instead of F. (Originally we had D for David, because Kent pointed out that you cannot have a system and not involve the facilitator.)

[Corrie van Wijk]

Dear Web,

I'll find the chicken-and-egg story, it's somewhere in my notes, probably in a suitcase on the third floor (just above sea-level, so it wouldn't drown).

If you want to get some intuition about systems, Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline is a good start. Stephen Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science' gives you some idea about iteration, don't be discoraged by it's size, it's all pictures. Steven could explain it to you.

A way of understanding emergence is that it is some kind of energy that is trying to find a way out. By questioning the person at A, getting him involved in B, exploring C and beyond (D) you sort of shake up the brain, so that parts that were stuck before can move a bit. Through their associations with other memories they can make new connections (Eureka!=E). If an inner loop is created, the system becomes selforganizing.

Corrie

[webmaven]

Dear Corrie,

Thanks for your excellent precis of the process of emergence. I will check out the two books you mentioned, but what you described in your last posting here helps me immensely to understand the process and also how it is related to what David was doing in Grovian Metaphor and Clean Space.

I think I'm beginning to get it. ;-)

webmaven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Oh, djee, I forgot to tell:

Late that night we walked back to the hotel. We took the back entrance, but when we were about to get in, John apparently saw something at the parking lot that drew his attention, because he turned and walked to a corner. His wife and I followed him at a little distance, curious what he was after. He leaned over and we heard him say: "I told you not to buy beer from it!" When we came a little closer we saw a man with a dozen empty beercans scattered around him and a six-pack beside him. He raised his beercan to John, cheering him and mumbling something. John got up again and walked away.
We followed him, but as I looked back I asked the guy: "What does that can know?" He turned his head to the can and looked curiously.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Oh, didn't I mention that?

Next morning I checked out and walked into town to look for a flower shop. I found one and saw a beautiful flower arrangement in the window. I sat across from the shop in a coffee corner and waited until the shop would open. When it did I went in, chatted with the women about flowers, and bought the piece.

When I came out, the same man that was at the parking lot the night before, sat there with a cup of coffee. When I walked by, I asked him: "And what does that cup know?" He looked puzzled.

[Corrie van Wijk]

About a week later I returned to Tauranga and set at the swimming pool of the hotel. I just had put in this thread, asking Phil not to pursue this subject yet (I deleted that part later.)

So now I would like to call on those who met with David recently to share their experience what his latest views were about.