CannonI once worked with a man I greatly respected. He was a hard worker and very productive. Over several years, he took an idea from the mind and moved it into reality. A new system was born, and now a lot of people use the system to balance their books, manage staff, schedule customers, analyze data, and report findings. Working with him was a joy, until one day there was a block.
I was tasked with designing a training and development plan for the organization, and was busy with needs analysis when I got an e-mail that more or less ordered me to focus. In fact, my customer/leader went to great pains to type up an ascii-art diagram with the word "FOCUS" as the negative space amongst many "X" characters. You've all seen this and I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that he wanted to get my attention.
We had just come to a fascinating place, where many of history's best battles are waged. I was thinking divergently, fishing in the nature of the company and its people, waiting for a good form to emerge. He wanted a plan: objectives, timelines, agenda, schedule, exact participants, expected outcomes, and the usual drivel. In my mind, as usual, I was thinking, "There is tyranny in agendas," and wanted to explain this difference in our thinking in a way he could understand. I had been in this position and posture often enough to have many bruises, but I wanted to stand my ground.
To bring us to a common point of reference, I brought up the microscope as a tool. (The hammer was perhaps appropriate, but I didn't think trefination would help ). The purpose of the microscope is to focus clearly on the objective. No problem here. But the first thing an experienced user does with a microscope is to twist it out of focus, because the whole process of focusing is plastic, not static. It's about limens and touch and eyesight, and it's more of an analog process than a digital one. The only way to get to good focus is to work the knob back and forth and pay attention. At some point, the objective emerges and even then it isn't "best focus" because the sample has depth. Even the microtome doesn't make a slice with zero depth, lest truth would vanish from our view (though it would still be there, no?).
My analogy didn't work because of the Eternal Death Dance of relativism and objectivism, where the dog chases his tail in a loop. I am the only one to see the form of the sine wave scratched into history as the poor dog's bloodied head goes around and around. We had reached an impasse that was in the domain of.....Theory Z.
Before his death, Maslow was working on this, but only a handful of people seem to have extended it. Distilling this theory down to the fundamental essences, what Maslow postulated was that there were two kinds of self-actualizers: transcendent and non-transcendent. There seemed to be no real crossing over, although the transcending SA's could easily understand the non-transcending SA's. The non-transcending SA's seemed to hit a wall. The magic here is that the transcending SA's had the characteristic of recognizing one another almost immediately, which is a form of sensitivity, but the non-transcenders don't have the nose for this particular Umwelt
. We always end up at odds, because the non-transcenders always end up in politics, and they just can't sit still long enough to see the real Truth,...the B-Truth,...and nothing but B-Truth! :-) There are many people searching for D-Truth, which is still Truth, and the stronger these people are, the more iterations they can do faster before they burn up. Those who search for B-Truth, on the other hand, unwind and sit on the beach so they can see the right answer. And the stronger they get, the more unwound they get, until they come around on the light at the other end of the tunnel. Then, they go back to work and report make notes that report it out as a peak experience of a certain duration and type...and, by the way, who else has them...and is there some pattern...} B-Truth and D-Truth are only initial avenues, and dichotomous. Transcending them involves boiling it all down to Truth, which is no B-Lie. And this must be B-humor, which means there's also B-LOL. Only a half a dozen people on the planet will get this, which means there's work to be done!
The Theory Z hypothesis says that there are two forms of "best" people. Think about that for a moment. If they are both best, then how can there be two? If there is a top of the heap or stack (if the interface actually extends into the hands, ho ho ho...), then it is still the top; they both can't be best; one must be better. But then we are reminded that breasts can be perfect, and there are two of them. And there is a perfect blastula. Back to Kekule. And so it goes. In the beginning, it can either be a spark when the energy needs release, or a click when the "right" ends of the magnet snap together. This is explained in B-physics. Maslow:psychology::Einstein:physics. Some can see it, others can't. Now why can't we catch up with the mathemeticians?
-------[Got tired. More later.
Huxley said, "We are all individual molecules of a great social gas." But Brownian Motion is sometimes interupted by a joining of attractions which obey a stoichiometry that we are yet to write down. This will have to wait until Web-3 and the Umgewebe, which is another story and has to do with Maslow's semi-permeable membrane story. Stay tuned.