|
If
your neighbor Jim were to tell you "I can't read," he
would be stating a condition, not a problem. The condition exists.
There is nothing either good or bad about not being able to read.
In fact questions of value are irrelevant, for the condition is
neutral. Jim cannot read, and that statement holds no meaning
other than the condition it states.
Jim continues, "I want to be able to read street signs. I
want to be able to read stories to my children at night. I want
to read the newspaper. I want to write the great American novel."
Each of these statements expresses a vision, and now that Jim
has a vision that differs from his current conditions, he has
created a problem. The problem is a recognition that your vision
does not match the current conditions.
desire
to change the condition
Simply because a problem exists, however, does not mean that
Jim will do anything about it. When he decides to resolve
the discrepancy, the the distance between vision and conditions
becomes a creative tension that will drive his creative process
to resolution. That gap will work to close itself. In fact
the distance between vision and conditions can be seen as
potential energy that, as the creative process brings vision
and conditions closer together, transforms into kinetic energy,
driving the process with more and more momentum as it nears
completion. With that analogy in mind, it becomes quite obvious
that a limited vision, one that differs very little from the
current conditions, will have very little potential energy
to begin with and will therefore never get much creative kinetic
energy. A more drastic vision, on the other hand, one that
differs tremendously from current conditions, will have tremendous
potential and kinetic energy.
scope of the vision
If Jim limited his vision to wanting to read street signs,
then he would have very little creative tension. He may have
to work very hard to learn to read street signs, and once
he could do that, then he might very well stop his learning
process. If on the other hand, he decided that he wanted to
write the great American novel, then he would have set up
tremendous creative tension. He might very well start his
learning slowly, on something like street signs. Then he would
learn to read simple stories, like ones he might read to his
children. He might then advance to reading newspapers as he
began writing short stories and maybe even poetry to learn
how words can interact in different ways. During this process,
current conditions are changing. They are spiraling faster
and faster towards Jim's vision, just as Jim's vision is coming
closer to his conditions. Finally, once he had written the
great American novel, Jim would have accomplished all sorts
of other things that he had wanted to do. Since he had done
them in the context of a larger vision, however, they had
not taken nearly as much effort as if they had been singular,
limited creative processes--each requiring his own energy
to start them up and not capitalizing on the momentum created
by the more visionary approach. Vision and conditions are
now one, and there no longer exists a creative tension. Conditions
have changed and now there can be a new vision created to
differ from these new conditions. Jim might now want to win
a Pulitzer Prize--a remotely viable goal, now that Jim can
read and write whereas before, a Pulitzer would have been
beyond comprehension.
sharing the vision
This first part of the example has demonstrated the importance
of setting a proper vision, but what about sharing the vision?
Jim has told you that he can't read. Now let's assume that
he tells you that he wants to read the instruction manual
for his new TV. What he does not tell you, because he's a
little embarrassed, is that he really wants to learn to write
love poetry for his wife. When you agree to teach him to read,
you expect everything to go well, but Jim becomes distracted,
frustrated and disengaged. He is not learning what he wants
to learn, but you cannot know that because he hasn't shared
his vision with you. This disjoints the entire creative process
because the two people involved have created two different
problems.
creating a common vision
This problem compounds itself if you find a whole group of
people whose vision is to read. What do they want to read?
Why do they want to read? Some will want to read street signs.
Others will want to write poetry. Still others will want to
write letters. Others may want to write novels. Everyone's
vision will be different, and if you attempt to teach at this
point, you and they will all become frustrated. You will be
disjointed and distracted since you are trying to teach each
person what she wants to know. The learners will become frustrated
because they are not being taught what they want to know.
What the group needs to do is to create a common vision. Each
person must figure out what elements of their personal vision
are important and which elements are flexible. Would the street
sign people be willing to learn how to write poetry? Would
the novelists be willing to start with poetry? By creating
a vision that includes and adds to the essential elements
of each individual's vision, the group can create a collective
problem that it can be united in solving.
true current conditions
And lastly, what ARE the current conditions? Jim asks you
to teach him and you agree. Little does Jim know, however,
that you cannot read either! So here the two of you are, fumbling
around with books and letters and words, spending a great
deal of energy but getting nowhere. Only after this fumbling
around will Jim discover that you don't read either, and after
much time and energy is spent, you finally get down to creating
the right problem using the proper set of conditions: neither
one of you reads and you both want to write the great American
novel. |
[Our
immediate response to this idea is "No! Not being able to
read IS a problem!" Let us step back for a moment. We have
no problem with the idea that "The wall is white," is simply
a statement of a condition. "It is 10 o'clock," is also a
condition. These conditions simply exist and they are completely
neutral. It is only when we bring a vision to those conditions,
a vision that is DIFFERENT from those conditions, that a problem
is created. "The wall is white, but I want it to be green."
Now there is a problem to solve. "It is 10 o'clock, but I
was supposed to be at work at 9." Now you have a problem.
Many times we encounter a condition and unconsciously apply
a vision to it to create a problem. We therefore assume that
the condition IS the problem. "My shoe is untied." We assume
that that is a problem. In fact it is just a condition. It
only becomes a problem if we are walking around in that shoe
and we don't want to trip over the shoelace. Now we have created
a problem. (If the shoe is in the closet and is untied, then
we expect it to be untied--the vision matches the conditions--and
we have no problem.) "Jim cannot read," is only a condition.
"Cats can't read," is also a condition. We don't expect cats
to read so we do not create a problem there. It is only because
we EXPECT (have a vision) Jim to read, that we create a problem
around it. "Jim should be able to read, but he can't." That
is a problem. "Jim can't read," is a factual, neutral condition
against which no vision has been juxtaposed. Jim's not reading,
in and of itself, is therefore not a problem.] |
|
