Variations in the Actualization of Psycho-social Forms

Speaker A One of the important issues relating to differences of opinion and debates which occur within the community of which we're part of is that the forms that I've described, the psychosocial entities exist independently of their actualization which doesn't surprise you. In other words, there is such a thing as level three work however that gets actualized by in a particular organization or in a particular firm a level three department is created or a level three manager is appointed. It is obvious that when a form is actualized part of it will be part of its times, its circumstances, the local culture all sorts of things will get in there. You won't even notice they get in there. Furthermore, the person implementing it or advising on it will be bringing their own perspectives, their own biases. So empirical reality will never be a match for the form and that we ought to allow 100 different ways to describe the manifestation of this form and not worry that people argue among each other because they're actually observing the manifestation. Particularly there's a lot of people here, they're quite empiricist oriented. They're more oriented to what they see and who interact with than what's happening in the mind. But if we can accept that the actualization of the form and the way that's described can be very variable and some of it may be a function of error but a lot of it will be function of the fact that physical reality is different to mental social reality. I would like, if possible, this I would like my own work to be developed within a wiki fashion because it's basically, I believe it's common sense. And then that one would be able to click onto it and get lots of different ways that people have actualized or have observed in reality, in different contexts or from their own biases or whatever, without denying their validity of what they've done. Right? Of how if we use this example level three work looks or how level seven work looks I believe if we can understand that there's this interplay between the transcendent reality and the actualized reality reality yeah. And that one's moving backwards and forwards between the two because in the actualization you maybe discover that the way you've articulated that transcendental form is slightly different right. You've not quite got it right and then you can make a correction to it but you're correcting that form. Okay? I think that this would be actually a positive benefit. It will go along with this philosophy of potential and freedom. If you were a practitioner levels of work practitioner working in Vietnam or Thailand where the culture is of indirectness the whole notion of accountability would have to be handled totally differently because in fact the culture only permits certain things. You would want to see how other people in that culture were describing what they'd done and how they did it. It wouldn't help you all that much seeing what somebody in manhattan is doing, or Columbia or London. So I think at the level of practice, we've got to appreciate and tolerate and welcome diversity. I think Elliot now and then got into problems with wanting to sort of be the enforcer. There's one way. And this got him into trouble and led to mistakes because he tried to somehow move from an abstract, formal level and then just collapse all the steps into what A must do B and B must do C. And, of course, then people exploded and the situation prescriptive about it. That's right. Which was exactly the opposite of what exactly say. Which is enabling. Yes, exactly. Autonomy.