A Framework of Images
Something closer to somethingness might be found in the images we create and display. Many iconographers and scholars of religion and spirituality suggest that images do a much better job than words in conveying something about the most important “things” (ideas possessions, hopes) in our life. We can often draw it better than we can say it. Such, for instance, was the case with Carl Jung when he produced many extraordinary images in his Red Book (Jung, 2009) while “going mad” (“creative illness’) during his years (1913-1916) living at Küstnacht (Jung, 1963).
Jung’s images portrayed something broader and deeper than the words accompanying these images in his Red Book. Furthermore, Jung considered the source of these images to be from a different source (unconscious) than his words (though words in Jung’s Red Book were written in an old Germanic form that itself conveyed something of the deeper roots even of the words in his revelatory book).
Given the potential pathway of images from the word-based foundation of nothingness to a potential of somethingness, I wish to describe an image-based process that expands on our exploration of the psychological of nothingness. For many years ago, David Halliburton, as a member of eight different departments at Stanford, provided a brilliant interdisciplinary perspective when we consulted together. One day, at the end of a session with a group of college faculty members, David and I looked at all the graphic representations we had placed on flip chart pages handing all around the room and recognized that we had seen these representations many times before in working together on many other projects.
We recognized that there were three basic representations that could be applied to any problem being encountered. One of the representations is a “monad” (one). It is a representation that is based in one core theme/issue/goal — everything radiates out from this monad. A variant is the journey that begins and ends at the same place, while going to many places and viewing many perspectives along the way. It would be the Mobius strip and is Wizard of Oz (it always is a matter of going back to Kansas) and the Odyssey (going back to Ithica). The core monad provides the energy, from which everything radiates outward. It is vital-centric. This representation is very Asian.
The second representation is the ‘dyad” (two). It is a representation that is based on the tension between two opposing forces/perspectives/worlds. It is good and bad, left and right, ying and yang. Carl Jung built his whole theory of personhood around the dyad. Four-fold representations are simply two dyads set together. The opposition provides energy and keeps the world in balance. This representation is very European. The third representation is the “triad” (three). There is thesis, antithesis and then synthesis. It is moving forward, beyond the oppositional tension. It is the arrow with a tip coming to the focus. This representation is about progress and resolution. This representation is very American.
David and I found that we could take any issue/problem/plan, etc. and place it in any one of these three representations to produce insight. Furthermore, we found that most people and most groups begin with a fundamental assumption (paradigm) based on one of these three representations and that we could be of greatest value by helping them see their issue/problem/plan from the other two representations.
