Getting going on any framework is difficult. What is so obvious at the end of the inquiry is almost wholly obscure at the outset. I feel like a person who is blindfolded in a multi-dimensional maze. Insight seems absent.
My experience and knowledge give me the courage to start. But they never take me very far. I find that I have to move forward using two methods in intense discussions. These are: successive approximation and structural checking.
Successive approximation means that I make a stab at knowing—a name for something, or a formulation, or a property—and see how it works. Usually not very well. So I think about how to improve it … and then make another stab. That will probably work OK from the perspective I brought into play, but it is then a horrible fit from another equally essential perspective: e.g. it works in the Bay Area of SF, but not in ancient Rome, or it suits an individual, but not an organization. So I try to keep the gains of any insight and readjust for the new perspective. And so on and so on. I read that Beethoven would sometimes run through 60 or 70 drafts of a phrase before settling on a final one. I can say what he said: "I make many changes, and reject and try again, until I am satisfied. Only then do I begin working out …" how to explain it all to others.
Structural checking compares my stab in the dark to other findings. It particularly looks at structures that have stronger validation. It also applies THEE inquiring principles developed over the years and referred to often in the website. Remember that every word is potentially a term with a specific location in the Taxonomy—with all that entails. So words are 'identity structures' and they can't just be thrown about or massaged for personal convenience. So, with this in mind, I might check the oscillating duality that distinguishes odd and even levels, or aspects of the Tree, Spiral or Structural hierarchy that either came earlier or have yet to emerge.
Between these two methods, slowly and step by step, the inaccuracies, imprecision, errors and sheer foolishness get squeezed out. Eventually the pattern lies clear before me. What insight! What magnificence! Or is it? Friends applaud and want a copy of this latest framework, but I refuse—just to be on the safe side.
Such moments of insight are dangerous. The level of plausibility is tempting and hard to resist. The only solution that I know is to put the framework aside and turn my thoughts elsewhere.
Then I come back six months later. And horror! It looks absolutely awful. What could I have been thinking? What a mess! Just shocking. Thank heavens I kept it private.
So I start again. Recreating an illusion.
Rinse and repeat.
Finally, I get less tense and feel more comfortable. The whole THEE enterprise has not collapsed around me after all.
So right now, I am focusing on something that may be so approximate that I think it is not just a bit wrong but actively misleading. It is in the Personal Endeavour framework. Being of recent vintage, rough edges are to be expected, but these are more embarrassing when posted and public. I was provoked here by an email from Tom making a fair comment about Change-L3, which he realized was not quite firing on all cylinders.
BTW If you have not yet visited Tom's blogs, you should. He is picking up ideas on the TOP Website that catch his eye, getting involved with them and blogging in a highly approachable way. I wish I had his writing talents.
Anyway, Endeavour depends on properly appreciating its Root Level constituents. Of these, Change-L3 has proved to be the hardest thing to grasp. I'm depending on work in other areas to provide more clues. As you will see, I want to use this strategy here because I am actually unhappy about what I formulated for Willingness-L7.
Visit Actualization of Potential to see the diagram that is causing me sleepless nights.
Next blog in a couple of days, I will fill you in on the details and ask for ideas and views.
Till then …
WK
About
Warren Kinston