Solving Problems - The Way of Phi in Practice -

The birds work in close collaboration with nature – For they are nature – Like us – If we only choose to remember

Dear friend,

Problem-solving is essentially a Linear activity.

In its most basic form, it is about going from

Situation A – Problem

to

Situation B – Solution

A to B, like a Line: Linear.

What can the Way of Phi tell us about problem-solving?

How can we strengthen our Linear capacity through an understanding of The Way of Phi?

What is the Linear?

First of all, the Linear primarily employs the left hemisphere of the brain, which is connected to a Linear understanding of time: there is the past – there is the future, which sits very well with problem solution: First we have a problem. Later, hopefully, we have a solution. So, it's an understanding that we can go from one place to another place.

Also, it is a matter of doing something about the situation. Even though we might say that 'the solution presents itself', it rarely presents itself without some kind of effort.

What about nature?

Now, if we look at nature, which is fundamentally Circular, we might say that nature finds solutions without any effort – they just unfold – and while it may appear that way, this is a question of definition. Because, as I see it, nature doesn't see the problem in the first place. And if there isn't a problem, there cannot be a solution, as these two go hand-in-hand.

If we view something as a problem, then we might want to come up with a solution, but if we don't look at it as a problem, then there isn't really anything to solve. That means that, if we are thinking of solving problems, a part of that is defining the problem. If there is no problem defined, there is no solution to be had.

Phase 1 – Defining the problem

So, the first part is to define the problem. And the better we can define the problem, the better we can understand it and the greater the chances that the solution solves the actual problem, rather than just what appeared to be the problem. This is an important point. Because often, when we look at something as a problem, we see a certain thing.

Let's say I have a problem with the sun shining through the window and blinding me, preventing me from working. That could be a problem. What then is the solution? – Well, that depends.

For if you just look at that problem, the solution could be to have a curtain, or to move the desk or the solution could be to not work at certain times of the day. All of those could be solutions in that they would alleviate the perceived problem. But if we stay on that level, we might not be taking into account everything. Perhaps there is an underlying problem. In this example, perhaps the problem is that my eyes are too sensitive to light because of some medical condition. Then that would be a deeper level to this problem and even though I could shield my eyes, perhaps even wear sunglasses, which would offer a solution to one level of the problem, it wouldn't address the underlying problem of the condition of my eyes. This is an example where the surface level solution does not actually address the more serious problem.

In order to define the problem properly, it is important to look at it from as many different angles as possible – without already 'knowing' what the problem is. Because if we already think that we know what the problem is, very easily we will filter out those things that we do not consider to be the problem, as in the example with the sun in my eyes.

To have an open mind when defining the problem is essential, so that we don't miss any important information. One way to do this is to really try to look at things from many different disciplines, e.g.: how would an engineer see this problem? How would a medical doctor approach it? What about an architect or an interior designer? A biologist, a meteorologist... These would probably all come up with different ideas. The meteorologist would probably say something about the weather conditions and the sun while the medical doctor might say something about the condition of the eyes etc.

By moving through different vantage points – whether we have access to them ourselves, or by employing the expertise others to help us – we improve our chances of understanding the problem. While the quote commonly attributed to Einstein about spending fifty-five minutes defining the problem and five to finding the solution is disputed and might actually originate from someone else, he seems to have emphasised the vital importance of asking questions and formulating problems, rather that going straight for solutions.

In any case, at some point we will once we have defined the problem – while still keeping and open mind that we might not have factored in everything that we need to know, because can we ever be certain? – Probably not. But any case – at some point we will have to say: 'This is good enough. Now I have dived as deep as I can given the current limitations in terms of time, energy etc. This is the definition of the problem and now I am ready to move on to finding the solution.' Then we shift into another phase.

Phase 2 – Finding the solution

When we are looking for solutions to a problem, we really need to keep keeping (!) an eye on the definition of the problem and not get carried away by the solution. Because it's very easy, once the solution-finding, creative parts of the brain start working and begin to come up with solutions, to get enamoured by a solution. And then, very easily, the solution can take on a life of its own. This is analogous to the concept of 'scope creep' where we are setting out to do something, and then while we're working with it, the scope of what are doing is changing. This often happens in small steps and subtle ways, hence the 'creeping'. Over time, this creeping can lead to unwanted situations, such as doing work that we are not actually paid to do, because it wasn't agreed on. Coming back to our problem-solving, this could then mean that the solution no longer actually addresses the problem that we had defined, but rather it's doing something else – perhaps something else completely.

This is not uncommon when working on technical solutions, where the developers come up with all kinds of ideas, thinking 'ah, this is really cool and we can add another feature here and we can design it this way etc etc'. This might lead to an intriguing new technical innovation, but perhaps that innovation doesn't actually solve the problem that we had defined.

So, we need to keep coming back to the definition of the problem and check which parts the solution actually solves and which parts it doesn't solve. Thus we keep working so that eventually and ideally, we arrive at a solution that offers a complete coherence between the problem that we defined and the solution that we provide. This going back and forth between the two, can be a quite time-consuming process, but it is also important, so that we don't lose track of what we set out to do, where we are going, why we are going there and once we have a solution that solves our problem, we know that.

Circular processes

There is also another type of processes that are worth mentioning, which are iterative and in a fundamentally Circular way, where the object is not to find a solution to a problem but rather to refine or optimise a process over time. This is different from the Linear process described above. This iterative process goes through several steps, e.g:

A – Defining the current situation

B – Coming up with proposed changes

C – Trying the process out

D – Evaluating how that trial went

E – Clarifying how the new process differs from the old one

And then we are back at A again: Defining the new baseline, i.e., the new current situation.

What about Dynamic Balance?

If we want to arrive at Dynamic Balance pertaining to what has been discussed above, we need to recognise that sometimes we need to do very much of one thing and much less of another. As an an example we can look at this text wherein a major part was focused on describing the Linear side of things, and then shorter sections described ancillary aspects. This is because the Dynamic Balance point is not always in the middle. In fact, it rarely is. Rather we can use the idea of fifty-five minutes of defining a problem and five to coming up with a solution – regardless of who actually came up with this – as an example of where the Dynamic Balance is 11/12 problem definition and 1/12 solution finding. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, it is better to go with 80 - 20 (the so called 'Pareto principle') and at other times, we might adhere to the Golden Mean, approximately 1,618... to 1, often symbolised by the Greek letter Φ.

The point is that in order to be in Dynamic Balance, we need to be aware of the particular situation that we are in, so rather than giving any formulaic prescriptions, it is about learning to actually feel the balance. Quite literally. To feel things, viscerally, in the body. And in order to be able to do that, we need to keep an open mind and also have access to both our Linear and our Circular faculties. In other words, even when we are involved in a very Linear process, our Circular awareness is still 'online', so that when needed we can lean into that. Otherwise, there is a very obvious risk that we are going to miss something essential.

In these newsletters I have often written from a Circular perspective. Since our society pushes so much for the Linear that I feel that it's important to give more weight to the value of the Circular. However, I have kept the Linear aspect present. And now, in this episode, the message is leaning heavily towards the Linear, while still keeping the Circular present. So, I am not only writing about this, but doing it myself as we go on this journey together. For only in the personal embodiment can The Way of Phi ever be known. This is a living approach. 

When you feel called to start applying philosophy to your life, I am here to support, if I can. To explore this possibility, click here to book a personal meeting online – or if you prefer to meet in person, send me a message, and let's make it happen!

With gratitude,

Christopher