View source for Part 1 - Chapter 2

= Stories, lenses and maps =

The chapter begins with a discussion of whether it is possible to ask the wrong questions? In retrospect, the authors answer 'yes' realising that the questions asked set thinking on a particular track and it may be some time before it is realised that another (better) question would have been preferable at the start.

Generative questions (echoes of critical appreciative inquiry here) are desirable as they prompt more questions (and answers). By way of an example, the authors cite Ernest Rutherford who prevented himself from seeing that an electron has no place by asking 'where is the electron?' Applied to business, 'wrong' questions might be 'how can we better regulate business?' or 'how can we fix the banks?' A question that takes its audience away from understanding the origins of a situation will be less good that one that can reveal them?

The issue is 'frame of reference' (every question has one). If the frame of reference has validity [validity is not explained], answers may be useful. But if not valid, all questions arising from it won't connect back to reality in helpful ways. The frame of reference behind and giving rise to questions is important - and a goal of the book is using 28 thoughts form to undercover your own frames of reference.

The questions we ask are created by the lens we use. This always limits the knowledge we create, and what we can know.

== Lenses ==

All lenses distort and clarify at the same time - they need to be chosen carefully by the wearer to reveal, rather than blur, what is being looked at.  Where 'standard lenses' are used, it is not possible to see trends that drive disruption and change. The authors (in a straightforward way) speak in favour of action learning and against 'transmitting the current canonical thinking in each discipline'. Moreover, when we remember, we remember the last time we remembered, so the past is constantly changed (in our minds). Our minds reshape earlier versions of our memories.

The distorting/clarifying effects of lenses are multiplied when we seek to communicate with others (who use different lenses to 'see' what we are communicating to them). However, shifting from either/or to 'and' questions can encourage the integration of apparent opposites into a higher level whole. Machines v Complex Adaptive Systems (you make what you see).

In adopting quantum physics, scientists abandoned 'the simplistic notion that particles, waves, and the forces between them were in any sense independent building blocks of reality' (p. 34).

Quantum mechanisms switch the primary and secondary status of 'particles' and 'interactions'. In classical physical, particles were primary. But in quantum mechanics, interactions are primary because they 'pull particles into existence' (p. 34). Applying this argument to organisations, the interactions between people (not just the people themselves) become primary. The nature of interactions between people bring those people into existence (it shapes their experience of 'being'). Viewing interactions as having more power to shape people, that people shaping interactions, is the first step to bringing about a new reality.

(This reminds me of Circle Partnership - they created hospitals without signs so that visitors would have to ask a person where to go, generating interactions deliberately and helping patients form relationships with staff).

An interesting table is presented suggesting 'particles' and 'interactions' in business (Investors - Votes/Dialogue; Staff / Dialogue, positional power, strikes, law etc.). Meeting (and meeting planning/protocols) shape the possible interactions, and the more creative the interactions, the more creative the meeting).  Interactions structured through hierarchies of power between staff affect both the interactions and the people themselves in terms of identities they feel they can adopt. Complementary pairs (recursively) shape each other's existence. 

== Maps ==

Using the analogy of the map of the London Underground system, the authors make the point that maps that reveal what is important and hide what is unimportant help you to get to the place you wish to go (p. 35). More accurate maps that hide or obscure what is relevant may be less helpful. In this way, maps supplement 'lenses' in help you see things in particular ways.

Seen as 'too radical' when first issued, the example of the underground map succeeded because of its practical utility and it became a global standard. Maps that are useful in periods of emergence are different to those in period of predictability because they should different pathways and aspects of the situation, but in the way that allow different to use the map to chart a course.

The first challenge in charting a new path is to see what maps and lenses are in use, and it compares to other maps and lenses in order to acquire multiple perspectives and better understand how to help 'to grasp what is happening' (p.37).

The trust of the argument here is the 'mine and refine this conflict' (the conflicts that arise out of comes to terms with multiple perspectives). 

== Meaning Making Stories ==

The authors introduce 'deep stories' that help you give meaning to the world about you. Most 'deep stories' are hidden, but we still use them to give meaning to our experience. Unlike the stories in most novels, "meaning-making stories are hidden templates you use to create the reality you experience, by giving meaning to the small part of actuality you are aware of." (p. 41).

Meaning-making stories can vary from pure fiction to grounded in actuality. The authors make the case for finding approaches to re-ground yourself in actuality, and adjusting the meaning-making stories accordingly.  To do this, it is not enough just to think - you have to "deliberately create experiences for yourself that trigger your stories to rewrite themselves" (p.42).

== Reality ==

The objective ontology and subjective reality of the authors is capture beautifully in the statement that "You never experience what is, only your inner story about what is." (p. 42). To support this point, the fact that we do not register what our eye sees for about 15% of the time we are looking is used to problematise how we see. The brain give us a "hypothesis image" and our eyes adjust it based on noticing difference between actuality and our 'inner image', and this is also about half a second behind when things occurs in actuality.

The limits of subjectivity are set out because we "do not have the freedom to experience any reality" (p. 43). Even in dreams, you can "only dream based on the possibilities that your brain is equipped for".  Inner reality is a product of our entire history of inner reality experiences. The section concludes with two mutually exclusive world views:

External: "that everything has intrinsic meaning, created by a divine plan or cosmic inevitability"
Nihilism: "nothing that is or happens has any intrinsic meaning, all meaning is created"

The authors see these as a 'complementary pair'.

== Your chimp, human and computer systems ==

The authors describe the limbic brain as our 'chimp' system. Our capacity for rationale (sense-making thought) is terms our 'human' system, and both create a library of stories and behaviours in our 'computer' system. The chimp and human systems interact (retrieve and replace) stories in our computer library, sometimes comparing them before deciding which to use.  Building a better, bigger library is an important task so we can prepare today for what we expect to happen tomorrow (such as the climate crisis we knew about in the 1980s).

== Cargo Cults ==

Using stories from WW2, the authors distinguish the rituals ('cargo cults') linked to hidden worldviews from the worldviews themselves (the drivers of the social actions that became ritualised).  This also distinguishes 'real science' from 'scientism'. They argue that the 'underlying engine that makes science work, is using intuition to imagine how the world might work and what you might be able to say about it, then try as hard as you can to rip your ideas and everybody else's ideas to pieces' (p. 46).

Using this argument, the authors distinguish useless 'self-help' books (about business/economics) that ape the rituals, from the 'real science' of modelling changes to the world based on ideas tested against actuality about how the world can be. To encourage the latter, three suggestions are put forward:

1) Letting go of what you believe to be true (so you can entertain other ideas)
2) Disconnect your self-worth from your meaning-making stories (so be more reflexive)
3) Look for evidence that proves something false, not true.

(This appears to be an evolution of Popperian critical thinking, of the humble scientist searching for breakthrough theories that confound current understanding, then putting oneself further at risk by seeking to prove one-self wrong. The result is a body of theory that survives, and which might be more truthful than theories rejected).  Distinguishing between the brutality of their battles over ideas, and the kindness of scientists to each other as people, the case is made for harnessing conflict. 

== Harnessing, not managing, conflict ==

Not unlike my own opening chapter in 'Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy', the authors charge us to harness, not seek to escape, conflict and apply this across six layers of hierarchy:


1) Inter-ecosystem

2) Inner-ecosystem

3) Inter-organisational

4) Inner-organisational

5) Inter-personal

6) Inner-personal


They set out their approach to harnessing conflict for each layer:

'''Inter-ecosystem:''' (everything else)
'''Inner-ecosystem''': The FairShares Commons at the ecosystem level (Part II and IV of the book)
'''Inter-organisational''': FairShares Commons incorporation for a wide range of entities, with possible exceptions for pure trusts and wholly-owned subsidiaries.
'''Inner-organisational''': Sociocracy, holacracy and other forms of dynamic organisation design and governance (Part IV)
'''Inter-personal''': Evolutesix's 'Adaptive Way' for teams (Part IV)
''Inner-personal'': Evolutesix's Adaptive Way' for individuals (Part III)

Using statistics on the failure of start-ups (65%) because of their inability to harness conflict, the case is made for harnessing conflict (particularly inter-disciplinary, and inter-organisational). 'Managing' and 'Avoiding' conflict limits our ability to grow.  The section closes with a challenge to 'escape Planck's Principle' whereby we fail to 'see the light' brought about by new scientific truths.

== Boundaries ==

The authors argue that clarity regarding boundaries are important (from planets and biological cells). Boundaries are not solid (cells exchange with their environments). Our self-identity is one such boundary (Chapter 8). Social group boundaries is another, and the boundaries between social groups can be made stronger or weaker by the legal forms we use to incorporate them. Similarly, there are boundaries within and between disciplines (economics, engineering etc.). 

Boundaries, whilst important, has a point where it holds back development if too rigid/impenetrable. Reframing boundaries to seek complimentary pairs enables more focus to be placed on the exchanges that take place (the dialogic relationship).

The FairShares Commons approaches boundaries in a more fluid way, breaking down boundaries between stakeholders whilst holding onto their sense of identity, and also making inter-organisational boundaries more permeable, whilst recognising their separate functions and identities too. 

== How did we get into this mess? ==

The authors take a generous view of human nature, and the 'collective competence' of well-meaning people to explain the current state of the world. They urge us to recognise work on not reproducing that which has failed, rather than blaming evil people.

-------

Return to the [[FairShares Commons]]