Wading in Confusion Necessary Step before Clarity?
I just left an amazingly nourishing conversation with my friend (and kindly blog commentor) Anthony.
Among the many streams we navigated was the concept of learning how to stand, be patient with, etc, the seemingly necessary murky/fuzzy/unclear waters that come before clarity is hit …
and how to starve off the perceived need to opt for the first solution that comes to mind in order to remove ourselves out of that confusing situation as quickly as possible. *
Call it swimming in the sea of confusion if you will but I think a huge challenge for myself, and the world, is learning practices that allow us to be comfortable here.
Indeed, in my mind the world at present is very murky AND we are choosing to see it less so because we have created models and physical structures eg gigantic office buildings, to suggest that these things exist in the form they do…we are still searching for, and beginning to define, the new models of organisational forms and knowledge that will take us to our next point. (Something touched on in an article I co-authored recently)
It is my belief (following this conversation) that in wading in these waters sometimes we need to hit a necessary low from which to propell us further forward. And in sticking with the process, we are able to find far more innovative and illuminating answers…(or should that be questions? See my more recent posts on this)
A poem that came to mind as I began to type this is one I saw in a book on The Conversational Model (an approach to Psychotherapy - a framework by Australian Robert Meares and others).
"Midway this life we’re bound upon,
I woke to find myself in a dark wood,
where the right road was wholly lost and gone.
Ay me! How hard to speak of it - that rude
And rough and stubborn forest! The mere breath
Of memory stirs the old fear in the blood.
It is so bitter, it goes nigh to death;
Yet there I gained such good, that, to convey
The tale, I’ll write what else I found therewith."
From Dante’s Divine Comedy - Hell**
Disclaimer:
I need to add that in my world Dialogue and Conversation is action AND also, that dialogue, according to Bohm, is a stream of meaning. Ah the mysteries and elegance of language! This perspective appears to be my default though I work hard at being well rounded in my thinking.
* This is the one sentence my friend, Thomer, who is reading over my shoulder, likes and understands. Oh, and he blames me entirely for the fact he can’t understand the rest. Personally I think he should enjoy the swim.
** The Dante poem provides a similar theme though with a different analogy - instead of water it uses the forest eg you can’t see the forest from the trees; (can’t see the picture from the pixels for the computer scientists among you…)
Subscribe to think talk walk
November 14th, 2005 at 10:46 am
I should add that I believe that the outcomes after this process are far richer, powerful and meaningful…though there is an element of pain/difficult/hard/confusing…N
November 14th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Every time I paint, I have noticed these stages of dialogue I have with the work:
1. Blank canvas. Umm… Hello… How shall we negotiate a beginning…
2. Broad “topic”. Large patches of colour. Loose forms. Agony. Confusion. Murky. Underdefined. Oh dear where ARE we going with this? This is consistently by far the longest period. The work lies around the apartment, at different angles, upside down, sideways, back to front…
3. Then, at some magical moment, the structure falls into place. The hooks appear. Connectors. Recpetors. This is the most fun, but shortlived, part of the work. Everything works. Puzzle pieces snap into place effortlessly.
I don’t consciously design or plan each piece. I try and let each piece happen organically. Having said this, I do usually have a vague visual impression when I start. And the end result is never the same as this initial impression.
Contrast this when I am working in designer mode: A lot of the time, as I speak to the client, pieces will start to fall into place in my head. It usually does not take that long to get onto the right track. There is minimal period of confusion before the clarity. The period of confusion is still there - this is the bit where I let things stew in my head as I sleep, read, swim…
Perhaps as design work for me is relatively structured and logical/analytical, this keeps the period of confusion under control.
November 14th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
My point is - the period of confusion, the stewing of loose ideas, is essential to any creative process. Perhaps the longer the period of stewing, the more options synthesized. Applying analysis and logic can quikly filter out the truly outlandish concepts, and therefore reducing the variables in the pot…
How much filtering do we do before we start negatively impacting the outcome? What does this say about me as a designer? :P
November 15th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
The temptation to build without a foundation - the urge for a quick result - has to be resisted. While I was in New York I visited the Ground Zero site and saw the comments about exposing the bedrock on which New York is built. The uncertain stage following any idea is the search for the bedrock on which to build. It bears no resemblance to the visible structure - initially there is no structure - just digging, mud, water, sand, obstruction and finally bedrock. Of course if no rock exists then footings have to be put in to bear the weight of the new building. In this way the house will stand - otherwise it will sink, crack and colllapse.
(Sorry - no swimmming in this analogy)
November 15th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Can there ever be clarity without retrospect?
November 16th, 2005 at 5:12 am
I recently read an article that discussed the roots of the modern scientific era. While many believe that the modern era corresponds to the start of a large number of scientific discoveries (from the time of Newton and on), the author argued that the era could be described by paradigm shifts rather than by its achievements. That is, the paradigm shifts in the scientific community resulted in the large number of discoveries. Prior to the modern era, science was primarily concerned with the study of rare events and of the supernatural. As a result, science could explain specific complex phenomena, but was very poor at explaining everyday life. However, once scientists began to modify their experimental methods to analyze common every day events, to isolate variables and determine their effects on the system, they were able to provide relevant theories that apply to a wider range of phenomena. With the relationship of each variable to the system known, scientists could make better predictions, speed up the design process, and achieve practical results.
That Zern is able to overcome the period of confusion in designer mode rather than artist mode likely shows:
1) He has a greater understanding of the effects of the individual variables on the end product in designer mode
2) He is able to break down the end product into its individual variables more easily in designer mode
Without the ability to break down a problem into smaller and smaller pieces, it can become more very difficult to come up with a quick solution. You’re effectively working on one large problem, rather than several small ones. Unfortunately, we often don’t take the time to experiment and determine the role of each variable on a problem or its solution. We don’t draw a map, and when it comes time again to solve a similar problem, we often start from scratch and we’re forced to tread through the same “murky/fuzzy/unclear waters” that we traveled before.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:39 am
I think that the main problem here is that pre-clarity only has significance with respect to clarity. Everybody aknowledges that it is a process, the real question to me is: does the state of pre-clarity itself create clarity as an endpoint, or is a desire for clarity nescesary for pre-clarity to yield its fruits?
Sometimes we are uncomfortable being in a certain place because we are foolishly afraid, and sometimes, our natural/social apprehensions are there for a reason. Still… more questions than answers- is this pre clarity?
November 17th, 2005 at 2:55 am
As I read through these comments I am thinking perhaps there is no real clarity, just a percieved one that helps us moved to the next phase. Perhaps we simply need to be comfortable with ‘unknowing’ and having deeper dialogues that help us move forward, onward and upward to new ‘places’/’spaces’
(I am holding off from using the overused word ‘paradigm’ (oops just did)
November 17th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
“Conceiving a corporate change is like being on top of a mountain: The air is clear, the path is certain. But to execute that change, you have to leap into a foggy, ambiguous terrain. That’s why the truly courageous, audacious part of change isn’t the initial decision. It’s the willingness to stay on course.”
- Art Kleiner, Editor-in-Chief Strategy + Business magazine
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:52 am
Wow!
Natalie, I think at that point in the conversation I mentioned a lyric from Neutral Milk Hotel: I will float until I learn how to swim. Of course, you could also get out of the pool. I repeat this lyric to myself on a regular basis.
There was another quote, from Camus, floating around. Well I don’t have the book handy, so I’ll paraphrase. From the essay The Rebel. Camus says that the ends might justify the means, but asks what justifies the ends. He answers that the means do. In other words, it’s not about doing whatever it takes to get ‘there.’ It’s about navigating well; then, wherever you do get is bound to be good. It’s intriguing to me that Camus advocates free conversation (and in particular, freedom of speech) as a critical component of ‘the means.’
Today I was reading old research journals of mine. Again and again I’m struck by the same experience. I have some muddled idea which for whatever reason (still can’t explain this) I think merits more attention. Often, I don’t get anywhere with the idea and consider throwing it away, but I keep it around and stew on it. After some amount of time, something pops and I see very clearly what was good about the idea. Today I found some notes from two years ago (!) describing what at the time seemed to me to be a silly idea, but recently turrned out to be extraordinarily fruitful. Not that I was wracking my brain on it for two years straight; rather, I’d revisit the idea once in awhile, think about it some, then table it again.
I understand clarity in this context, because a clear idea will connect with many other ideas in an obvious and easy-to-state way (the elevator pitch; and I don’t think the clarity comes in retrospect because the short description allows the idea to be communicated to someone who doesn’t have the same background I do). I don’t understand ‘pre-clarity’ nor its dynamic. I don’t know why some ideas seem worthy of more attention while others are obviously bad. I can only give the unhelpful explanation that I have some intuition about it. I can say that my own experience suggests throwing away ideas which aren’t immediately fruitful is not useful. Most of the contributions in my dissertation arose that way and would have been discarded. So I’ve become a big fan of maintaining a measure of ambiguity in my day-to-day work.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:07 am
thank you to everyone on this! I think that we have a lot to learn from artists and thinkes who LOVE this wading / consider this ‘between’ space as the fun part of the process. I also thought I would take the time to update you on a on dialogue - I had always thought it meant ‘through the word’ or through langauge. A friend, Muriel, just let me know that in greek it also means ‘through reason’. ie Language and reason are the same word / the same thing. Will muse more on this but felt the need to share…
January 5th, 2006 at 4:13 am
[...] Day: Water From Clarts to Clarity In an earlier post I discussed wading through the sea of confusion as a ne [...]