Female Perspectives
in Problem Solving
by Melanie
Anne Phillips
In our external environment women recognize the
four structural measurements of Time, Space, Mass and Energy. However, these are only
useful to women as a snap photo of the state of things. These measurements neither
describe inequities nor help resolve them. In order to seek happiness a woman needs
different means of relating to her environment.
Women, by nature operate in a dynamic relationship
within their surroundings. This relationship extends to both the physical and social
environments. As a result, structural measurements cannot sustain an understanding of
ongoing flux. More appropriate are dynamic measurements.
Structural measurements are made by committing an
item to memory, then observing the same item again. The two views are compared to sense if
the item has changed, the context has changed, both or neither. When examining the
context, one is really looking at the ruler used to measure the item. For example, how
does the performance of a mechanism change when it operates in air as compared to water?
In this case, the scale of measurement (context) becomes air ---> water. The mechanism
is examined in air, then committed to memory and examined in water. The two views are
compared and something is learned about the mechanism. Air and water serve as the
reference or ruler.
Conversely, the nature of an item itself might be
examined for change. In this case, its initial state is committed to memory, then compared
to a later state. The differential suggests either a process of growth or decay (depending
upon how you look at it). This view is often mistaken to be the dynamic measurement. In
fact, it is a structural measurement of dynamics. This difference is essential in
understanding the importance and meaning of female inequity resolving techniques.
A structural measurement of dynamics only
synthesizes an awareness of flow, as it is constructed of points along a line and the
in-betweens are assumed to follow the same path. In contrast, a dynamic measurement of
dynamics has a fluid ruler that flexes in response to the flux of the dynamics. The degree
of flex (which is infinitely variable between two limit lines) determines the intensity of
the dynamics.
Just as structural measurements can describe the
nature of an item as well its context, dynamic measurements describe two aspects of
dynamic intensity: Influence and Presence. Influence is well understood in terms of
magnetism, tidal pull, physical attraction, emotional compatibility. Presence, however,
has been largely unexplored, becoming prominent only in such obscure areas as sub-nuclear
physics and quantum theory. Still, Presence is an essential component of a non-justifying
woman's measurement of inequity, explaining the difficulty many women have in making
decisions they are comfortable with.
By definition, Presence determines the degree to
which something is actually there. By structural analogy, one can see that a marshmallow
and an equally sized piece of lead will have substantially different inertia due to the
density in which they are packed. But this is a structural analogy only. Dynamic Presence
describes the degree to which something exists. The concept that something might exist
more strongly than something else is foreign to many aspects of science and almost wholly
missing from everyday relationships.
One might think, "Do I love him or not?"
Then, we might temper that with, "How MUCH do I love him?" The binary state of
loving or not loving is structural presence, not dynamic presence. It separates love from
hate, dislike, fear, and any number other emotions that might enter into that love. The
concept that love is either present or it is not has no place in a woman's thought. The
alternative concept that love has a density (expressed in "How MUCH do I love
him?") is not any better at describing the essential measurement. The real concept
here is how strongly love exists and then how wide ranging it is.
If love stands alone from like, care for, empathize
with, respect, and many other related emotions than one could use a structural measurement
and determine if it were there or not. If love is made up of many different things, it is
still a structural view, as it sees the whole as the sum of its components. But if love is
a whole brain phenomenon that indicates a direction rather than a state - if love is a
vector pointing to the direction of flow, then anything pointing in that hemisphere is
love. The more directly north it points the more Presence it has. The longer the vector
the more Influence it has.
So the relationship between Presence and Influence
are something of a cross between being complimentary and inverse. If there is no Presence,
there can be no Influence. But if there is not Influence, there can be no Presence.
However, if either Presence or Influence exists than the other can operate anywhere in its
full range. The overall Intensity is determine by the complimentary relationship of
Presence and Influence working together. Both need exist to some degree in order to have
any Intensity at all, which effectively creates limit lines at either end of the scale.
This is as close as a woman should get to binary states: there is something to measure
(both Presence and Influence exist) or there is not (one or both are absent).
The trouble women get into is when they measure one
when the other is not there. This lies outside a dynamic appreciation and is the realm of
female justification. This kind of justification results in thinking "I love him, so
why do I want to stay home and watch TV with my cat?" Love is present, but the
influence is zilch.
For women, a way to evaluate Love or any other
internal or external dynamic is to move one step up from the essential measurements such
as Presence and Influence and concentrate on measurements at the same level as Intensity.
From this point of view, it does not matter what combination of Presence or Influence
exists, one only need experience the Intensity directly and act upon that in the direction
and degree appropriate. How much is the love worth to you? How much will you do for it?
How much negative baggage will you entertain and still find the Intensity is positive?
"How much" is the external equivalent of
internal Intensity. When we feel any emotion to any Intensity, it will determine "how
much" of this or that in the external environment, whether that be people or things.
This means we do NOT have to give our unconditional love. We do NOT have to commit our
undying loyalty. The Intensity of our emotions is the only valid yardstick for meting out
love, loyalty, commitment, or obligation.
As beings of a dynamic mentality, the intensity of
our emotions continually flexes in response to flux in the world around us. Therefore,
what may be a valid commitment on one day is no longer valid the next. Fickle? Adaptable!
Looking internally to measure the degree of
Intensity of our feelings is an activity that can tie us in knots. In this doomed endeavor
we are seeking to take a snap photo of our inner state. We are justifying ourselves into a
structural view by hoping to stop our dynamic emotions and "get a fix" on them.
Certainly we need something to anchor on, and therefore the desire to map out our feelings
is understandable. However, due to our dynamic minds, we are looking in the wrong place
for our anchor. In fact, our ruler is flexible and will give different readings each time
it is employed. The ruler is our emotional dynamic itself.
We have been taught that consistency is good. We
have been educated to look for an objective reality that does not vary. This is not our
way. Not by nature, only by suppression.
When we let our emotions free, the world seems to
reel around us. Sometimes things are good, sometimes bad, sometimes both at the same time.
Sometimes we have no feelings at all. Sometimes our feelings are strong in one area and
non-existent in another. But all of this is true to our essential operating system.
Still, an anchor is necessary - a place to stand.
As one might imagine, our anchor is also a dynamic one. In fact, the techniques we can use
to evaluate our environment remain the same ones no matter where or when we want to use
them.
These external evaluations reflect the Mass,
Energy, Space and Time of the environment, but in a dynamic sense. They are (in the same
order) "How Much", "What Direction", "Beginning When",
"For How Long".
Dynamically, "How Much" describes the
amount of force brought to bear. This is the equivalent of Mass. "What
Direction" is the female measurement closest to the concept of a "goal". It
is the equivalent of Energy, so we can see that a woman's "goal" is not an
object but a direction. "Beginning When" establishes a starting point. This can
be in the past, present, or future. Time exists not as a progression but as a palette of
choices, downgrading it to a more spatial view. Women see linear time as external, making
it the equivalent of space. "For How Long" measures duration. It is the female
equivalent of time, measure not in sequence but in lingering.
The unjustified structural view sees Mass, Energy,
Space and Time as external. Measurements of the internal universe are seen as the
"process equivalents" of Knowledge = Mass, Thought = Energy, Ability = Space,
Desire = Time. Structuralists have the greatest difficulty in equating Desire with Time.
Ability as Space is difficult for them, but can be worked around. Knowledge as Mass and
Thought as Energy provide them no difficulty.
Still, when they carry their logic through to the
end, Ability and Desire are the rational choices to describe those internal processes of
Space and Time (although the concepts will not "feel" very correct).
Structuralists see one system operating externally and an equivalent process working
internally. However, when it comes to USING the system, rather than just describing it,
they focus externally, tending to ignore the internal and measuring the external in terms
of Space and Time.
In contrast, women have only one set of
measurements that they use to measure both changes in Space and changes in Time. But women
only employ it externally. So they do not measure their inner state at all, letting it run
wild. However, when women use the systems rather than just examine the system, they tend
to focus on Space, both externally and internally, ignoring Time.
The above descriptions are for the operating
systems only, at the biologic level, below the ability of Consciousness to bend them. At
the conscious level, either Structuralists or Dynamicists may learn to justify, which
effectively means unconsciously adopting the method of the other. This technique
effectively masks unresolvable inequities or redistributes unsolvable problems so that
they become invisible and cease to bother the conscious, allowing for more attention to be
paid to inequities and problems that can be dealt with by effort alone.
There is quite a difference between recognizing a
problem or inequity and making plans to deal with it. Unjustifying women will use the
standard four evaluations in recognizing the difficulty but only three in planning a
response. Using all four to recognize the difficulty is the only way to cover all the
bases and make sure nothing sneaks in where we aren't looking. However, when we make a
commitment or an obligation, we intentionally choose one of the four measurement as an
area we will no longer look. In this manner we can suffer all kinds of adversity without
losing our sanity in order to accomplish our purpose. Still, it should be noted that this
is a justification that does not respond to the actual overall readings of the moment but
to an expected more favorable state later. As a result it depends on a particular future
which may or may not occur, and thereby requires pinning ones hopes on a toss of the dice.
We choose not to make the best choice for now, hoping that will lead to a better choice
later. This is essentially a goal-oriented view and is not within the domain of
unjustified female thinking.
In using only three of the four evaluations in
planning a response to difficulties, we allow ourselves an "escape clause"
should the situation change (or should our own flexible emotions change). If we lock in
all four, we are deciding How Much, What Direction, Beginning When, and For How Long.
There is nothing else we can shift should things evolve. As a result, if we are off course
or the earth changes under our feet, we can do nothing but absorb the tension. The tension
builds until we are forced to stop evaluating the external situation by one or more of the
four evaluations. If we drop one, it is first level justification. If we end up dropping
all four, it is fourth level justification. At this point we are wound up tighter than a
clock spring. If any additional trouble befalls us, we have no further recourse but to
snap, which leads directly to snipers with AK47s.
Much better, it seems, to simply make our plans for
response using only three of the four evaluations and venting tension slowly as we
re-evaluate from time to time.
Finally, which three we choose is completely
arbitrary. Sometimes it is better to look at it in reverse and exclude the measurement
that we least care about. For example, we might desire to improve a room. How Much? The
whole room. What Direction? To make it cleaner. Beginning When? Now. We drop "For How
Long." That way we can just continue as long as we feel like it and stop when the
motivation erodes.
But what if we know we only have 10 minutes? Then
For How Long is 10 minutes. Beginning When is still now. What Direction? Still to make it
cleaner. How Much? We leave that open. Can't you almost feel those butterflies if you are
trying to get a certain amount done in certain time? Can't you almost feel the relief of
not worrying about How Much, but just working for the 10 minutes you have?
Easy unless you are under pressure. But say guests
are arriving in 10 minutes. Then you race around like crazy trying to make the room
perfect before they get there. This probably cannot be achieved so you are bound to be
disappointed. You have locked in all four evaluations and there is no way out. But let any
one of the four loose and the tension will vanish. What Direction could be lost. Then we
don't have anything like a goal, so we simply work in the room for 10 minutes starting
now, with no expectation or purpose. Or we could drop the How Much and just work on
whatever we see in that room that bothers us without feeling we must get the whole thing
clean. Dropping Direction is as difficult a thing for women as equating Desire with Time
is for Structuralists. But it can be done with training.
The important point is that we have left a safety
valve so there is no disappointment with whatever level we actually achieve and therefore
no anxiety. However, if we are forced by the demands of our job or other outside influence
to lock into all four, we can at least hope to set limits in one or more of the four
evaluations so that we limit our anxiety. The way to do this is to look at each of the
four areas and see how much you are "expected" to get done. Then, one by one,
you try lowering your performance against the expected performance and "feel"
the degree of anxiety that you relieve. After checking all four evaluations, one will
prove to cause the least anxiety if you fail to meet expectations. This is where you
choose to "fail". You intentionally perform less fully than you are capable of
in order to allow some fluff in the rigid four so that anxiety has somewhere to fill up
other than in yourself. Unlike keeping one open, Anxiety cannot be immediately vented, but
at least it can be stored until you can vent it later at home. Just remember to vent it or
it will hang around like fat on your thighs and just build up over time as more "four
point" demands are made on you until it clogs the mental arteries, forcing you into
fourth level justification and complete breakdown.
Governments, Religions, Clubs, and Businesses often
seek to impose four point demands on their members. At first, the organization gets
everything it wants from its members. But when the capacity to store is exceeded, the
members snap, leading to revolution, factions, splinter groups and disloyalty. This is
essentially what occurred in America in the 1960s when the four points were all fixed and
the pressure forced society as a whole to erupt.
A structuralist approach to venting the anxiety of
one's members is to define areas of "zero point" demands within the framework of
society so that anarchy has its reign, but in a manner that does not threaten the
structure as a whole. This was instituted in the Roman Games, Public Executions and
Violence in motion pictures in America. The blind spot is the collective effect on the
collective unconscious of the society as a whole, where in violence begets violence
forcing the four point screws to be even more tightly tightened, ultimately leading to a
strain beyond tolerance in which the screws are snapped like so much kindling. Zero point
arenas only delay the energy, allowing it to build, but they do not truly vent it.
A woman's approach would be to accept less that
complete conformity to begin with, allow for one point to float freely thereby venting the
anxiety in ordered chaos, rather than the structuralist's organized anarchy.
In the end, it is up to us as individuals to
exercise unjustified problem solving, and by so doing, we influence the establishment much
as the butterfly that flaps its wings and brings a hurricane.
