More wonder please

I wonder what it would be like if the world had much more wonder occurring in it? We probably wouldn't know that something:

• had already been tried before
• wouldn't work like we expected from past experience
• would be opposed by extremists as always
• would cost too much or take too long like before

Instead we could do more than merely wonder:

• if something was possible --  to wonder how it could be possible
• if some problem always happened that way --  to wonder how to break the cycle
• why something has to be that way --  to wonder how to change it
• when things will turnaround --  to wonder how to be the change

With all this additional wonder, we could each wonder how to help out, make a difference and produce better results for those we care about. We could wonder how to be more creative, what innovations are called for and which approach will work the best. We could wonder how to work with instead of against others' interests. We could break stalemates and standoffs with wondering what we have yet to learn from and understand about others. We could wonder how to bring an end to something undesirable while launching something much better for al concerned.

We could wonder if we had a enough wonder in use right now and wonder how to get more (or less) when the amount was not quite right at the moment.  In wonder what the world would be like with all that wondering?

Sharing and separating spaciously

There's a big difference between sharing and separating what we have to give. Either we give it or we don't. When all we're considering is this big difference, we neglect how much to share, what kinds of sharing get valued and what comes about from all that sharing. We're poised to "unload the dump truck" rather than deal with more complex choices. Every facet of this possibility space seems already fixed like a bunch of persistent objects.

There's a more subtle difference between unbridled sharing and sharing done by divvying up all we have to share and appropriating select amounts to separate constituencies. When we're being selective about our sharing, we're being insightful about those on the receiving end. We're anticipating how our sharing will benefit others in particular. We're discerning how the total of what we have to share varies in how it benefits and obligates others; as well as costs us and earns us dividends to share it. We've opened up the space to wonder about more facets and explore more possibilities.

When we've complicated our sharing to include both costs and benefits for both sides, we'll enter into the paradoxical realm where it sometimes costs to receive and pays to give. Then we're in a position to separate what we share freely and share with strings attached. We can also sort between what we accept freely and receive with subsequent obligations. We may then appropriate what we share with more nuanced appreciation of contexts and consequences for particular sharing gestures. Sharing and separating go hand in hand or they exist as two sides of one coin. Sharing has been restored to be a mystery that defies any explanation that would confine it to something reified and misperceived.

Valuing others' expertise spaciously

Whenever others' expertise appears to us as a persistent object, we can make up our mind about it quickly. Their expertise will remain constant and the conclusion we jump to about its value to us will remain valid within our perspective. We may initially question the value of the expertise in terms of its use, timing, and/or accessibility. After that, we'll experience a clogged network with no further questions, mysteries or spaces to explore in this regard.

Whenever others' expertise appears to us as a changing process or a mystery, making up our mind about its value appears counter-productive. We've introduced spaciousness into our valuing of others' expertise. We've introduced processes like questioning, exploring, rethinking, relating, sharing and changing our minds. Some of those processes will seem recursive, iterative or spiraling. Others will seem straightforward like reliable procedures. Between those we'll experience processes which move forward with setbacks or make successful progress by failing often.

When viewing others' expertise spaciously, there are many ways to locate it. We can juxtapose it with our own expertise and notice the differences, commonalities and potential advantages. We can place it in a context of our immediate personal use for it as well as long term and vague alternative uses. We can relate to the expertise and consider possibilities of sharing it, enlarging it's "user group" or contributing to it's enhancement. We can contain the expertise in a place that gives rise to better questions to consider, more curiosity about it and additional discoveries to make by looking into it further.

There are also many places to go when we experience others' expertise spaciously. Virginia Yonkers explored many of these spaces on her blog recently.  We may go to a place of cognitive dissonance if the expertise disrupts our sense of confidence, composure and compatibility. We can enter common ground where it seems natural to take interest in others' interests and work with them at getting those interests served. We may combine others' expertise with our own and formulate a shared mental model.

With so much freedom in locating others' expertise and so many places for us to go with it, there's no way expertise can appear as a persistent object. We're free to make nothing of anything concrete and make something of our processing and wondering together.

Viewing expertise spaciously

When expertise is viewed as a persistent object, it appears to be located in credentialed experts and their expert conduct. There are no questions in use that could locate the expertise differently or view expertise more complexly. When expertise is viewed spaciously, there are many questions and processes that come into play. Here are four for your consideration.

1. If the expertise we're receiving comes at a bad time (in the context of each of us having a life to live), is that legitimate expertise? (Question of timing)
2. If the expert comes across as unapproachable and closed minded, is that an actual expert? (Question of relating)
3. If the expert's response to a need for expertise works against how our minds assimilate and utilize expertise, where is the effective expertise located? (Question of collaborating)
4. If the expert system assumes a problem created by that system can be fixed by more of the same expertise, how can that system be upgraded? (Question of diagnosing and changing systems)

These questions help us discern how expertise seen as a persistent object makes something out of nothing. A view of persistent objects disregards these questions (and many others) to maintain its entrenched power. The spaciousness of further questions, wonder and mysteries gets shut down. There's nothing to process while the routine procedures call for compliance. Decisions can be made fearfully, rather than comprehensively.

When we view expertise spaciously, its location is complex and constantly changing. There is often expertise in the lives which define good timing. There is expertise in being able to reach out, empathize and relate to those without credentialed expertise. There is always expertise in the ways our minds function which invite us to work with those dynamics effectively. There can be expertise to challenge and change expert systems which are creating problems and perpetuating misdiagnoses. With so many possible locations for expertise, it appears we are really moving around between conceptual and perceptual spaces which give rise to further questions to explore with a vast array of effective processes. Expertise is much better located in this spacious questioning than in credentials, stances or persistent objects.

Cynefin 2.0

When we're migrating from procedures to processes, we're becoming grounded. We're leaving those experiences of being on shaky ground where we will unsure of ourselves, our beliefs and our reputations among others. We're getting a sense of what we stand for and where to take a stand on solid ground. We're getting the confidence to stand up for our values, moral code and priorities. We're exuding self confidence and self-respect which earns the respect of others.

When I overlay this phase of "becoming grounded" on top of the Cynefin diagram, I discovered the problems I have with the Cynefin model disappear. It was then easy to build a layer of four circles which overlay the entire Cynefin diagram. Here's a brief look at the entire upgrade model.

Looking at the original Cynefin diagram, there's a big temptation to categorize situations with the framework of four quadrants. We can then know how to respond appropriately depending on whether the situation is Simple, Complicated, Complex or Chaotic.  We've put the world in a box, unlike Dave Snowden's original intentions to NOT categorize or compartmentalize the complexity of multifaceted situations.

Looking through my added layer, we can shift our attention from the four quadrants to the boundaries between the quadrants. We're always straddling two of the four places. We exploring the line that's been drawn between the two rather than one of the other side. This helps explain why so many are stuck in keeping things extremely Simple or merely Complicated when they are really Complex or Chaotic. It also gives us a sense of how Chaos can be a good thing when we're not trying to being in control. It adds another dimension of how we feel about ourselves and how that changes our ability to perceive differences.

1. Bottomless - When we straddle Simple and Chaotic, we're getting flooded with urges, emotions and delusions. We're facing situations that are equally tormenting and out of control. We're striving to become objective, face the facts and deal with what is. We need to be told what to think and given tons of structure. Getting bombarded with facts and figures provides a welcomed alternative to our bottomless appetites, insatiable urges and aching emotional emptiness.
2. Shaky Ground - When we straddle Simple and Complicated, we're getting trained in following procedures, executing methods and complying with sequential models. We're facing situations that are equally linear and straightforward. We're striving to handle persistent objects in ways that take control, make things happen and get the required results. Getting required to execute drills and complete tasks  provides a welcomed alternative to becoming a walking encyclopedia full of useless facts and figures. 
3. Grounding - When we straddle Complicated and Complex, we're getting experienced at recognizing patterns, making process observations and walking the elusive fine line. We're facing situations which appear to be evolving, in process and uncontrollably interdependent. We're striving to let go, trust the process and set up emergent outcomes. Getting challenged to see functionality differently and become more creative provides a welcomed alternative to using the same tool regardless of the complexities of the situation. 
4. Solid Ground - When we straddle Complex and Chaotic, we're immersed in the game of synchronous innovations for transforming situations. We're facing situations which defy logical reasoning while inviting our playful participation. We're striving to see everything as in process, to entertain evidence as mysteries and to approach the familiar with eyes of wonder, innocence and inquiry. Getting immersed in the fascinating moment provides a welcomed alternative to intense periods of reflective practice and after action reviews. 

Each of these ways to straddle two quadrants of the Cynefin diagram are self-reinforcing. They produce self confirming evidence which perpetuates taking that approach rather than taking a different stance over two other quadrants. They give us the feeling that we can always regress but cannot move beyond the striving set up by the condition of the ground of our experience. To move from one place to another on my overlay of the Cynefin diagram is as revolutionary as going from being an significant nobody to a notable somebody or a chronic loser to a significant winner. It amounts to a change in identity, self concept or the ground we're standing on.

Endless satisfaction in spacious networks

Satisfaction is a constant problem within clogged social networks. There's no way to get beyond the pseudo pleasures to the deep satisfaction that continually emerges in spacious networks. The cognitive strategies which clog up networks also undermine satisfaction without even trying to accomplish that result.

Clogged networks are comprised of persistent objects. There is no space wherever these unchanging objects define our experience. When we're participants in clogged networks, we get invited into and rewarded for thinking of ourselves as persistent objects. We then function as nodes with lots of connections while assuming this will bring us satisfaction. We make more connections to get more satisfaction whether than abandon the premise of being a persistent object. We make a thing out of nothing and wonder why we're not getting more pleasure from this actual nothing. We make a thing of a processing and despair at how empty, meaningless and dissatisfying the thing turns out to be.

When we think of ourselves as persistent objects, it's tempting to become a "sex object" for others. We think we're getting paid for being a tool that can be purchased and utilized. Our chronic problems with dissatisfaction gives us the urge to misuse and abuse others who seem to be things to us as well. When we're changing processes with a staggering complexity of unknowns, all these problems with satisfaction disappear.

In clogged networks, we cannot walk the elusive fine line that processes reward. In jobs, we will get overworked and underutilized in assignments which are mismatched for our neglected processes and driving questions. In relationships, neediness and insecurities will dominate the conversations that might otherwise turn to passions, projects, discoveries and better questions to be asking. In shopping for what we need, we over-consume things we don't need and chase after better things as if there is no spacious wonder and evolving processes to include in the purchasing.

When we get we are no-thing, satisfaction comes from everything non-thing we pursue. We dismantle of mistaken impression anything that seems objective, persistent and known by exploring the staggering complexity, hidden interdependencies, and unknowable dimensions of the actual non-thing. This gives us the feeling of being a lover of all we behold. This gives us a job of balancing how much we do with what we care about, wonder about and find we make a rewarding difference serving. This transforms relationships into spacious explorations and adventures. This finds pleasures in little things and non-things that money cannot buy. This is the experience of endless satisfaction in spacious networks.

Clogging up a social network

The natural world makes tons of sense as a spacious network. Organic processes maintain balance between excesses and deprivations without human intervention, big ideas or authoritative experts. Challenges to continued growth provoke adaptations and emergent changes by non-doing. Very little is known and very much is possible at any eternal moment. Everything is is in process rather than giving us the impression of a constant thing. Everything experiences vast connections without shutting down the space of delightful and fascinating not-knowing.

Humans seem to favor clogging up their social networks, rather than following nature's better example. There are numerous cognitive strategies that serve this dysfunctional pursuit:

1. Perceiving what we see with our eyes as empirically verified, persistent objects
2. Trusting procedures that stand on their own to deliver reliable results
3. Imagining social networks to be comprised of connections between objective nodes
4. Limiting our experiences of space to distance between persistent things
5. Simplifying the actual complexity with false constructs, models and explanations
6. Valuing what we know more than what we are questioning, exploring, rethinking and discovering
7. Enacting a life as a production system to deliver mechanized results reliably
8. Treasuring our accomplishments more than our ongoing adventures in an unfolding mystery

These cognitive strategies present themselves as our only option when our survival or safety are in danger. We think this way when we are afraid. The space for thinking differently gets shut down before we get into clogging up our social network.

To be spacious is to be clear of fear and full of wonder. What we know gives rise to what we don't know which leads to our next processes. We move from a space to a process to a space. We contain confining procedures within our exploratory processes rather than letting procedures dictate our experience. We learn a lot every day without making a thing of learning, knowledge or procedures for acquiring abilities. We see the world with fresh outlooks that invite us to watch for processes where we misperceived persistent objects before.

Comparing clogged and spacious networks

When a social network is clogged, participants experience the blockages as:

• I cannot go there or come from there
• There's no connection to where I'm at or trying to locate
• It's not making sense or seeming worthy of further investigation
• It's got to be accepted as is and not questioned

When a social network is spacious, the opposite experiences occur. Spacious networks support our curiosity, continual exploring and refining our open questions. It feels like we're continuing to discover new realizations, to solve the latest mystery posed by puzzling clues and to verify new theories to our own satisfaction.

As I've pondered why clogged networks don't fade away, I've realized they support lots of dysfunctional states of mind and ability. Clogged networks are good for:

• Propagandizing one right answer and telling others how to think with simplistic labels, categories and stereotypes
• Shooting the messengers who deliver unwanted news of changes, outcomes or feedback
• Making empty claims of competency while paralyzing numerous processes with costly incompetencies
• Feeding others anxieties and paranoia which preclude the emergence of trust, respect and fascination with other viewpoints

It's pointless to attack, resist or otherwise antagonize clogged networks. They're poised to escalate the conflicts and frustrate those who seek spaciousness. It's far wiser to simply begin living as if we are already in a spacious network. That means we will begin and end every process with not knowing. We will wonder what is working, how to proceed and which meaning to give the facts we've learned. It expects that we will move forward by our own irrational emotions, intrinsic motivations and personal pursuits. We will connect the dots as we see fit and allow for others to do the same. We'll experience how spacious our connections seem compared to our prior history of confinement in clogged networks.

Employee training within spacious networks

Individual trainees are really complex aggregations of interests, contexts, relationships and paths. To simplify a trainee into an isolated person with an identified need to know the content provided by a SME (subject matter expert) is to invite disaster. When the full complexity of a trainee's world gets considered, it becomes obvious that instructional designers cannot do their job adequately and trainers are the wrong people to deliver the training.

Imagine a trainee is on a track that runs through the online, onsite or offsite training space. That track comes from their past experiences, current challenges and unmet needs. The track takes them to a place where they will find answers to the questions, solutions to their problems and processes to work through their challenges. The training is merely a station on that track where many get derailed by envisioning them as sitting still receiving expert content in a disconnected training space.

Imagine the trainee is also a web of interrelationships. Each trainee belongs to tribes which provide safety in numbers, require collusion with biased outlooks and expect members to honor their predecessors. Each also demonstrates loyalty to an inventory of good habits, success routines and work procedures which give them the reputation as a reliable cog in the machine. Each trainee also extends his/her reach into other lives, changeable situations and evolving opportunity spaces with personal insights, cultivated empathy and practiced experience which sets them up to make a difference to the others involved.

When all this complexity get taken into consideration, there's no obvious way to train the trainee. It becomes a mystery how employee training could even occur effectively. The situation poses more questions than answers to instructional designers or trainers. This array of recognized patterns rewards innocence, wonder and not-knowing instead of the usual incentives to be knowledgeable, professional and confident. The trainees have been accurately located in the space at the end of a process which begins several other processes. The trainees are functioning within a spacious network.

Another thing happens when all this complexity gets taken into consideration, we're looking through a lens which reveals how extremely dysfunctional conventional training appears. All that typical delivery of content, practice exercises and discussion groups has the inadvertent effect of:

• dishonoring the tribes and appearing as the exact danger which their safety in numbers protects against
• blocking progress on the track from where the trainees are coming from which would otherwise provide them with intrinsic motivation to be fully engaged, to get their questions answered and to make maximum use of the educational opportunity
• providing the training at the wrong time, in the wrong place with the wrong people to co-create the understandings that could constitute "takeaway value"
• disrupting the trainees ongoing relating, caring for others and finding ways to make a difference

It then becomes evident that this mismatch between the delivery of training and the actual complexity of the trainees occurs from relying on training procedures instead of learning processes, or as Harold Jarche phrased it memorably this week: it occurs from listening to the cookie cutter salesman.  Looking through this lens reveals that the SME, instructional designer and trainer are equally complex aggregations of interests, contexts, relationships and paths. There's no end to the complications which undermine reliable, consistent procedures. There's only processes that begin and end in wonder about what to question next, explore further and reflect upon more deeply.

Opening closed minds

Sometimes we can create the space where closed minds open before us. When we speak someone's mind, it appears we respect, understand and relate to that mind. We must not be an enemy or pose a threat as was previously assumed. From our portrayal or their interests, concerns and accomplishments, the space shifts from feeling very adversarial to potentially collaborative. The tension level goes down and the trust level goes up.

To get to a place where we can speak someone's mind, we need a process of discovering what's on their mind and verifying the accuracy of our impressions. We rarely succeed when we assume what he or she is thinking because we're extremely prone to project our own mind onto others. In these situations, we've got a lot to learn that depends on the quality of questions we're using. When we face a mystery that defies our predictions and usual suspicions, we're in a good place to discover what's on others' minds.

It takes an open mind to open another mind. We cannot be shooting the messenger or clinging to one right answer when it's time to investigate what concerns occupy a closed mind. We need a process that begins and ends with wonder, as we find in every spacious network. We need a wide range of tolerable deviance that welcomes diversity and embraces differences. Our broad-minded outlook will appear inviting and reassuring to the others.

There are spaces which close our own minds and defeat our attempts to open others. These spaces pose threats, frighten us and put us on the defensive. They make it seem like we're in some kind of danger that naturally gives us the urge to put up walls, harden our categories and fortify our arguments. These spaces ready us for battle, confrontations and counter-accusations. We expect we will need to shift the blame, avoid attacks and watch our backs in these spaces.

Sometimes life happens to provide shattering experiences which force closed minds to open. We experience eating humble pie while falling off our high horse. We thought we were entirely right until we encounter the missing truth. Our delusions of grandeur fall apart as we realize what we were missing, dismissing or ruling out.  Our wake up call shows us new ways to see ourselves, the others and some opportunities to accommodate their interests.

When our own minds a closed, we want to give others one of those shattering experiences. We assume that they need is piece of our mind. We feel the urge to get what's on our mind told regardless of how it feels to hear it. Of course that kills the space that  where closed minds open up. We may even close previously opened mind with our urgent exhortations.

When our minds are open, we can say things like:

1. I see where you're coming from now that I've calmed down
2. I now realize what you've been trying to accomplish
3. I suspect you've been concerned about some issues I've neglected
4. I know you've tried to get my attention before this
5. I think a get what you've been saying that I couldn't hear before now
6. I believe you want to be careful and make a good decision about this
7. I've changed my mind about what's on your mind

Making these kinds of announcements creates the space here closed minds open before us. We may be doing the talking but it sounds like we've done a bunch of listening.

Picturing the learning

Choose your way of picturing those who are learning. Here's my top four ways to picture them:

1. As animals to be tamed who act irrationally until they've been sufficiently indoctrinated with rational thinking to control themselves without micro-managing supervision.
2. As cups to be filled with expert content, more logical ideas and tons of accurate information until they can put on a show of being well informed (without the ability to do as they say  or to avoid acting like a hypocrite).
3. As candles to be lit by intrinsically motivated guides on the side who walk their talk of self-directed learning, life long exploration of varied viewpoints and ongoing refinement  of their passionate pursuits
4. As inner conversations to be joined by outer conversations, contradictory arguments and challenging choices (like this list of four ways to see learning)

The third and fourth options are compatible with spacious networks. They translate learning into ongoing processes which end in spaces for formulating the next adventures. These options avoid the troublesome uses of persistent objects and routine procedures. They imagine the minds of the learners to be in flux rather than stuck, fixated and opinionated. They nurture the intrinsic processes of changing the lenses looked through, the meaning given and the patterns recognized.

Welcome to the foreground

Welcome to the foreground of life. It's very different here from the background of life. To help you get oriented here, I'll walk you through many of the differences between the foreground and background.

In the background, there is no concept of "foreground and background". The objective world remains all there is to experience. There is no objective evidence for a foreground that could possibly differ from all there obviously is to see, measure and control. In the foreground, it's obvious there is a foreground and background. There is much more to experience besides persistent objects and tangible evidence.

In the background, our human emotions prove to be problematic. They interfere with what we're forcing ourselves to do to make enough money, to seem reliable to others and to build our pretentious reputations. We're plagued there by unwanted feelings, moods and outbursts which we attempt to suppress by keeping busy, talking ourselves out of our emotions and manipulating our moods unwisely. In the foreground, our emotions provide the motive power to make a difference here. Our emotions are respected as our intrinsic motivation, personal passion and boundless energy. When we get emotional, we become more creative, responsive and effective.

In the background, space refers to distance to cover and the travel time to get to another physical location. There's a sense of having enough space to contain lots of physical objects and closer proximity of a location. In the foreground, there are many spaces to go to in our minds, outlooks and ways of seeing the world. We often discover we can be very helpful to others and to express ourselves in more valuable ways when the right kind of spaciousness appears subjectively. We encounter spaces in between the processes which engage us up to a stopping point.

In the background, there's no escaping being part of the problem. We inadvertently make problems worse by trying to solve them with the consensual, objective point of view. There's no basis for making a different diagnosis or getting a problem to vanish on its own. In the foreground, there are processes where problems had been observed. There are many ways to cooperate with what's going on to nurture its evolution into an even better solution, a different strategy or more inclusive approach.

In the background, everything seems pretty straightforward. We can make things happen and achieve intended results with enough effort, expense and dedication.  We can explain what happens with causal arrows and sequential procedures that lead to predictable outcomes. In the foreground, everything participates in cycles, recursion and iterative processes. There's a need to walk the elusive fine line rather than simply barge ahead with some single-minded conviction. There's much to be learned from what comes back around or gets no response as if feedback for our conduct abounds.

In the background, analysts rely on disconnected dashboards while thinking the precise metrics they're monitoring are reliably accurate. The disconnection with the foreground is nowhere to be found in the voluminous objective evidence. It's inconceivable there how measuring could either create the data or cause downturns in what is being measured. In the foreground, complex interdependencies undermine the concept of "objective data". Evidence seems more like fleeting impressions, welcomed clues and possible indicators of changing phenomena.

In the background, the abundance of persistent objects says it all. So much of life is comprised of things that remain the same, that they define what life is about. With so much that supports the illusion of real things, we're inclined to make something of nothing. In the background, we allow nothing to be nothing. We're no longer captivated by persistent objects amidst the amazing flux of processes and spaciousness available for our enjoyment and exploration.

Procedures or processes?

When we're in the state of mind of a control freak that I've explored here and here, we cannot tell the difference between a procedure and a process. We assume those are two words that mean the same thing, since thinking that way serves our controlling interests. We're incapable of really relating to others'  interests, points of view and personally differentiated experiences. We handle the diversity of others with labels, categories and profiles, not with insights, empathy or compassion. To do otherwise would seem "out of control" to our self interests.

When we're in the state of mind to really relate to others, there are big differences between a procedure and a process:

• A procedure calls for compliance and conformity where a process calls for permission to explore and experiment
• A procedure can be kept on track with feedback where a process needs to deviate to discover ways to move forward
• A procedure can be characterized by checklists where a process unfolds serendipitously
• A procedure converges on a consistent result in familiar territory where a process diverges into new territory where innovations occur
• A violation of a procedural requirement is explicit where violations of a process code can only be inferred

We cannot begin to assemble spacious networks when we conflate procedures and processes. Spatial networks are an outgrowth of processes and processing. They traffic in others' varied and exploratory interests rather than their common interest in doing what's required, what they've been told to do and what has been done before. Procedures shut down the space for being really helpful, for strong ties in the moment or for naturally synchronous innovations. Processes reopen the space for all those benefits to be realized. When those processes are in "full swing", spacious networks emerge.

Speaking of networks that happen

When we've been thinking conventionally about economics, politics, technological advances or countless other disciplines, we're not speaking of networks. It will amount to a big change in our thinking to speak of networks. As I've recently pondered the nature of this change, I've developed a model of transitions in our perceiving and thinking. Here's a brief look at how we may evolve in our speaking of networks:

1. When we've mostly been thinking of objective things in the world, we will perceive networks as assemblages of nodes. The predominate quality of networks will be the persistent objects at the convergence of connections. We'll notice how those nodes congregate and locate as if they determine how networks function and evolve.  We will speak of networks as nodes that happen to be connected.

2. When we've been thinking about causal mechanisms in the objective world, we will perceive networks as linkages between nodes. The chains of sequential linkages will standout as the most impressive quality of networks. We'll regard the sequences of linkages yielding effects and outcomes as more significant than the nodes between the connections. We will speak of networks as linkages that happen to connect nodes.

3. When we've been thinking about the subjective world of meaning, we will perceive networks as bounded by edges. The interfaces between a network and it's context will predominate our observations. We'll notice how networks open, filter and otherwise interpret whatever is crossing its boundaries. We will speak of networks as edges that happen to interact with surroundings by means of its nodes and linkages.

4. When we've been thinking about helpful accommodations in the design and natural worlds, we will perceive networks as spacious. The capability of networks to contain, serve and support processes will fill the foreground of our awareness. We'll regard how possibilities get explored and innovations emerge from the spaces within networks. We will speak of networks as spaces that happen to contain assemblages of processes which walk a fine line.

What I've written here can also be spoken of as a network that happens:

1. as concepts that happen to tie together coherently
2. as an argument that connects various observations
3. as an interface with all the talk about networks out there
4. as a space for exploring all the speaking of networks with new processes for transitioning to other ways of speaking of networks

Walking the elusive fine line

Legal codes lay down the law in no uncertain terms. Legal codes do not define dilemmas or tradeoffs that involve emergent criteria. Process codes require walking the undefined fine line between two extremes. Processes extract a toll for erring either way. Process codes cannot define compliance with rules. They define the parameters for balancing, combining and finding middle ground. Here are a number of examples to help you grasp this pattern of walking the fine line between two errors in process codes:

Formulating strategy between
1. losing sight of the mission, conflating tactics and strategy, dwelling only on the details, failing in plan
2. becoming too visionary, losing touch with the ground, handing down strategies from on high, failing in execution

Deciding on a purchase between
1. premature convergence, rush to judgment, jumping to conclusions
2. indecision, procrastination, considering too many options

Making sales calls between
1. pushing for the close, overcoming objections, becoming obnoxious
2. hoping for an order, waiting to be asked, avoiding any pressure

Changing methods between
1. throwing the baby out with the bathwater, changing everything, creating chaos
2. giving lip service to change, making excuses to preserve the status quo, creating stagnation

Designing an innovation between
1. creating something so new it seems useless, senseless and weird
2. creating something so familiar it seems boring, unimpressive and predictable

Enrolling candidates in a program between
1. serving their unique interests, providing customized accommodations
2. enforcing policy requirements, convincing candidates to comply with the rules

If we go to one extreme or the other, the process gets derailed. Our efforts do more harm than good. We lose our inclination to trust the process at time when we need to trust the process more. We cannot imagine what we're supposed to do to get back on track. There appears to be nothing we can do that falls between the two errors.

When we walk the fine line effectively, the process takes us where we want to go. The strategy achieves its objectives while getting lots of buy-in. The decision proves to make a wise selection at a nice price with good timing. The sales process appears to entice customers to sell themselves on the offer. The change in methods gets adopted without a loss of continuity and reliability. The innovation is new enough to seem intriguing while familiar enough to appear useful. The candidates welcome the enrollment into accommodating their needs without making a big deal out of it.

Processes reward those who comply with the codes and penalize those who err either way.

Conflating connections and helpfulness

We are currently going through a phase where an increasing quantity of connections is presumed to be helpful. The supportive narrative for this wanton increase in connections includes:

1. the strength of weak ties - good things come from a friend of a friend of a friend
2. the zero marginal cost for additional digital copies - adding more friends, followers, subscribers costs nothing and provides something
3. bigger is better - quantity is impressive when we're trying to impress others and overcome our own insecurities, inferiority or isolation convictions
4. it's the latest thing - never mind whether it's really good, it's good enough to be all the rage and the bandwagon to climb aboard

As I see all this occurring, it seems to me that social networks are a phenom of conflating connections and helpfulness. Because these huge networks are not really helpful, it becomes difficult to define what we mean by the term "network". It's an image thing rather than a functionality or dynamic system. It's going nowhere quickly rather than making significant differences.

When we make a thing of connecting, we've created an institution devoted to it's own self preservation. There's no end in sight to the monstrous machine which devours the  widespread contributions to its existence by those making a thing of connecting. The individual participants form a public mandate to continue rather than user contexts to observe closely, niches to understand and segments to serve.

When authentic helpfulness goes unquestioned, we've created a nightmare scenario. We've trapped ourselves in a seemingly inescapable obligation which overrides our intrinsic motivations and natural curiosity. We become addicted to the chronic deprivation. We lose sight of our seeking helpfulness, not quantities of connections,  in the first place.

The process of helping is different from the process of connecting. It's costly. It forms strong ties for the time being. When the result gets experienced as truly helpful to another, the connection is complete. It can be dropped as if the process of helping has ended up in wonder, spaciousness and mysteriousness. Helpfulness gets conflated with spaciousness, not with quantities of connections or with social networks.

I expect this conflating of connections and helpful is burning itself out. It's running its course and setting the stage for something better to come along. I'm foreseeing the emergence of authentic helpfulness in un-network spaces that rely on a paradoxical sense of connecting without connection.

Four codes in four spaces

We're all familiar with two codes that rule our lives: a code of honor and a code of law. There's another known intimately by designers, therapists and any other instigators of change: a code of process. I'm proposing a fourth code to help us put all the fuss about networks in perspective and to accurately anticipate a quadriform society emerging. Thus far, I'm calling this fourth a "spatial code" though the code is still in process and conforming to the process code. These four codes show up in the four spaces I explored last week.

Codes of honor take hold in emotional spaces outside the code of law. These honor codes regulate competition among rivals on a team, violence among combatants in battle and betrayals among criminals orchestrating a heist. Honor codes define what is dishonorable and just cause for retaliating, rejecting or killing the offender. There is no forgiveness or hearing other sides to an offense. Honor codes enforce "an eye for an eye".

Codes of law replace codes of honor in physical spaces. These codes give rise to amazing institutions in the public or private interest. Codes of law privilege accuracy over hysterics and conjectures. They replace plots of revenge with the formal administration of adversarial justice. They deal with persistent objects and objections as if truth can be verified objectively, empirically and consensually. This emphasis on "things" ensures that adhering to a code of law operates in failure mode where problems get endlessly worse and solutions become more and more costly.

Codes of process replace codes of law in social spaces. These codes reframe objects and objections as impermanent and developmental phases in ongoing processes. Codes of process privilege connections between things over verification of things. Facts get seen as "this too shall pass" and "this is becoming something else". Nouns become verbs which implicate cycles, transitions and evolutions. The process must be trusted to avoid getting derailed or caught up in "pushing the river". The emphasis on processes gives rise to relational networks of working deals, translating interests and making reciprocal connections.

Codes of space replace codes of process in paradoxical spaces. Processes must begin and end with wonder, innocence and not-knowing what's next. Codes of space privilege helpfulness over networks of connections. Tangential processes come together in places of incomprehensibly vast possibilities which give rise to synchronous innovations. These "nodeless" points of convergence replace objectivity and/or subjectivity with spaciousness and mysteriousness. Adherence to the code of space reverses the figure/ground of knowns and unknowns. This reversal has transformational effects on problems, disconnects and failures to realize improvements in the other three spaces.

A different kind of space

When Marshal McLuhan conceived of the emerging global village, he was impressed by the instantaneous communication made possible by electric media replacing messengers, parcels and conveyance systems.. He imagined that the electronic age would shrink the distance experienced by the time it takes things to travel to and from us. This way of seeing space is congruent with representational paintings that show how near and far things are located. It's also a congruent way to see space when information came into our homes after centuries of going to the concert hall, bookstore or friend's front porch.

McLuhan was a student of visual arts, poetry, history, fiction writing, advertising and media. He estimated that we had become excessively visual in our sensory diet and were due for a recalibration. He foresaw us returning to the acoustic and iconic sensibilities of illiterate tribal villagers. There was nowhere else to go within his outlook from the oppressive world of being wedded to printing presses and other mechanistic technologies. He perceived the magazine advertising and television programing of the seventies showing us the way free of printed words, type-headed thinking and linear seeing. He considered James Joyce to be a prophet of this change in our sensibilities.

McLuhan was also a college professor and author. He was in the business of saying what he knew. I suspect it seemed pointless to say what he didn't know or appreciate how much value he got out of not knowing what to think. He dwelled on delivering insights to us that we caught glimpses of without seeing the patterns he recognized. For all these reasons, it's no wonder that McLuhan thought of space as distance, not emptiness, accommodation, spaciousness or mysteriousness.

When we follow in McLuhan's footsteps, we naturally go crazy about networks and see them everywhere. We think networks span the distance, shorten the distance and even eliminate the distance. We see physical networks comprised of wires, pipelines, pavement, rail lines, software, scheduled routes and any other capital investment in tangible connectedness. We also see relational networks of intangible connectedness where investments have been made in social capital, reputations, credibility, trust and other dimensions of interpersonal reliability. We see natural phenomenon as networks as well. The term "network" gets debated as so many frames of reference come into play.

I first read McLuhan in 1970, in the middle of getting my undergraduate degree in architecture. I was ingesting his insights while learning how to design spaces and places for uses that fit into their contexts. Space as distance took a backseat for me to space as inviting, functional, inspiring or confining. It's this different kind of space that can help us give networks their proper due instead of going crazy and seeing them everywhere. I'm finally being able to articulate this emergent awareness in my mind after lots of note taking and reflecting. I'll share more of this awareness with you soon.