CityVP Manjit in Paradox Wisdom Club Mentor • Bank of Montreal MCCC Toastmasters Dec 16, 2018 · 4 min read · 1.0K

The CityVP Window

The CityVP Window

Buzz Submitted by : Dr. Ali Anani

Buzz : Is Self-Awareness a Remote Dream?

Adapting on the Johari Window Dr Ali Anani ask questions about awareness and self-reflection
The Johari Window is the starting point for Dr Ali Anani's Buzz linked above called "Is Self-Awareness a Remote Dream?" and my personal answer to that question is that self-awareness is as remote as we are.

I am not a fan of 2x2 Boston Consulting Matrix grids though they do offer food for thought and that is because in simplifying conceptually rich information, we continue do the thinking for others who need 2 x 2 grids to provide simple means of superficially interacting in the virtual revolving door that is called social media.  There is one thing adapting a concept to explain it to people but totally another to see and recognize how one can practically use a model, which ironically is why we model complex thinking to begin with.  So as I draw out the "The CityVP Window", the title of this 2x2 should inform others that this is me creating an alternative world view to the Johari Window based on what is practical for me and the starting ground of that practicality is discovery through playing with this personal reformulation.

The first thing to point out is my use of YOU-YOU and OTHER-YOU.  I will outline after presenting the CityVP Window the other aspects of relationship.   The person I am interacting with is the "OTHER YOU" - the other becomes a "You" because I am acknowledging a relationship.  Otherwise I am talking about strangers and models like the "Johari Window" are stranger-centric.  Why?  It is because they are based on one size that fits all and we know this idea of contemplating conception based on the mass is a product of mass-industralization, mass-production, mass education and mass media.  So first I will outline The CityVP Window :

I do not care about the unknown-unknowns as showcased in the Johari Window because the context is way beyond that living space that I exist in.   Nature did not give us the capacity to "know" 7 Billion human beings - there is a finite capacity to the number of people we personally can interact with or touch and for most of us that may not even amount to a few thousand people.   This mass way of looking at things isn't 21st Century thinking, it is simply importing 20th Century mass mind to a century where we do not need to have a many-to-many relationship, but can actually interact on a one-to-one basis (again recognizing the limits imposed on us when one-to-one is not personally sustainable).  The many-to-many relationship is "Polyadic" or in simpler English "more than 3 people".  I am also not invested here in a triadic relationship, because that is the beginning of mass relationship, so I am neither the Polyadic Guru or the Triadic Teacher.  I am introducing one more word here which is Monadic and to explain that I will utilize the intro an abstract by Professor Joseph Sonnenfeld.  The chief difference to his explanation is that he is talking about research criteria and I am talking about one-to-one (dyadic relationships) and self-reflection (monadic relationship).

Dyadic Wisdom then is the opportunity where the YOU-YOU and the OTHER-YOU meet in total uncertainty, but this wisdom comes through the doors of Monadic Learning and/or Monadic Privacy but ultimately both of these two monads sits on the foundation stone of Dyadic Relationship.  There is no Dyadic Wisdom if there is no Dyadic Relationship to begin with.

The Dyadic Relationship is grounded in the certainty we naturally and instinctively reach for but which we also disparage more and more as thinkers introduce the reality of uncertainty that certainty is bound in.   So Dyadic Relationship is between the YOU-YOU and the OTHER YOU.  Marriage is a symbolic meaning of this dyad but the OTHER YOU is not necessarily someone whom we marry - it is the reality of relationship.   When we relate to a guru or some famous person or dead philosopher, that is not a dyadic relationship.  That is a monadic relationship and a monadic relationship is all YOU-YOU, because the OTHER-YOU is a figment of imagination, there is no relationship with image.  That OTHER YOU is not involved in a relationship with YOU-YOU for it's monadic relationship is with the MASS MARKET.   We cannot even call that entity the OTHER YOU because the "Other" does not exist for the simple reason they don't know YOU-YOU.  What they do know is a mass ideology to the MASS-YOU.   Their YOU-YOU is connected to MASS-YOU and this can be seen by simply placing our own feet in their shoes and look at the world they are seeing or interacting with as they see it.  Everyone has a YOU-YOU but the difference between Monadic-Dyadic relationship (OTHER YOU) is very different to the Triadic/Polyadic relationship (MASS YOU).  I am not touching the mass or strangers here - if I don't know who you are, you are not my "OTHER YOU".

We must not disparage certainty simply because we are now exposed to certainty.  Thanks to the Internet there is more information available that we can convert from MASS YOU to OTHER YOU.  In other words we can move from depersonalized world of mass communication to the personalized and customizing world of dyadic relationship.  An individual relationship to an authors mind can create an OTHER YOU based on the ideas and not the being of an author.  When we cross over to the being rather than the idea we can relate to we become invested in cult thinking or group thinking, we make the shift from the dyadic into the triadic.   We are all well versed in the triadic relationship because we exist in a many-to-many mass consumer system.  Our consumption is as consumers rather than individuals relating with other individuals  Consumption as marketing value so I do not deride that as value - if I were to deride it, then I should try to build my home with mud or whatever free resource is available and free myself from a materially intelligent world. 

There is value in a triadic and polyadic relationship but there is significantly more value in monadic and dyadic relationship.  We can be professionals in triadic and polyadic relationship and mass information vehicles like the Johari Window can serve that professional relationship - a relationship which is a relationship with image and not being.  We are not anywhere near familiar with the personal relationship at the monadic and dyadic relationship.  We know that to be true because we as a society are not really good at self-reflection and we don't view relationships as dyadic in practice.  We continue to talk in generalities about the human condition rather than form the OTHER YOU - a one-to-one relationship which means that if your mothers name is Mary, we continue to have a relationship with the mass idea of mother and not the personal being called "Mary".  When Mary becomes an idea called "Mother" we apply mass prescriptions and if we make generalizations about "mothers" then we may totally lose sight of the OTHER YOU and embrace again MASS YOU.

The OTHER YOU is not simplistic as the Walpiri Counting System but there is a profundity in that number system which we have lost in our mass culture.  Even as a network being, we need to find our individuality and relationship with the OTHER - or the the most important "OTHER" - which I have called the "OTHER YOU" - the you have a direct relationship with.


umair aslam Mar 6, 2019 · #11

Be that as it may, the dream self is in any case largely disengaged from the waking self when it comes to being aware of accurate memories of the past and of future plans. The dream self largely lacks the capacity for self-reflection or full self-awareness.

CityVP Manjit Dec 19, 2018 · #10

@Harvey Lloyd Remember that what I am addressing here is a dyadic relationship. Social media is naturally polyadic (many-to-many) and so if there is any loss of being, it is in the group being which ceases to be a one-to-one relationship. We are not short of the WE relationship, we are short of the OTHER YOU. You are my OTHER YOU. When Ali Anani is talking to you, you are his OTHER YOU and when you are talking to Ali Anani, it is Ali Anani who is your OTHER YOU. So I am taking the dyadic. The OTHER YOU is the unique relationship between two and/or intimacy. The OTHER YOU ceases to be in a triadic relationship or in conversations which involve more than 3 people.

Young people have moved the personal relationship online. They are the first generation to do this. Talk to a young person how they use the virtual space and it is a weave of one-to-one personal relationships. There are also group relationships which are facilitated through group video chats. It is the way they make one-to-one personal even on a public space that fascinates me. It is a new way of interacting. Young people have OTHER YOU relationships, but it is a challenge for us because of our inherited bias for group discussion and group thinking.

+1 +1

#8 Respect for human value once lost leads to social chaos and then to social re-structuring. I agree completely with your clarification. May be some values should be anchored and not meet disrespect with disrespect because this shall lead too the formation of fractal cycles that only scale up.
Your example and explanation of the respect value is a great example of explaining the you you and you others.

+3 +3
Harvey Lloyd Dec 17, 2018 · #8

#7 In your thoughts consider the value "respect" i can disagree with you but i can not be disrespectful. My "you you" holds this value. My "other you" experiences disrespect. Does the rule apply that "you you" has formed? In a static view the answer is yes. In a dynamic view i have now been given permission to make the value dynamic. To the scale that one was disrespectful i can now be disrespectful. Given enough cycles where does this end up?

Can i ever retain the original static value of respect? Who goes first?

Once the nuclear reaction of disrespect is unleashed within dynamic values it is hard to regain social stability of the atoms constantly splitting. This is but one value that is interlaced with many others that form the fabric of a successful society. When these begin to break down along identity lines then the fabric begins to unwind. History does not tell a bright story about restoration. It talks of revolution where a remnant emerges to fire up the loom of static values and rebuilds atop the ruins.

Maybe this time though we might find restoration.

+3 +3

#6 This is a very interesting point that values are static (or should be). But like static electricity, they can be charged and changed. Your comment throws many ideas in my mind and I am at the moment absorbing them.

+2 +2
Harvey Lloyd Dec 17, 2018 · #6

#5 I would think that evolution is inevitable between the two. We move from not knowing towards knowing as experience and circumstances require. But is this really the question.

My thought is that timeless values can not evolve. They are static. How we deploy them is dynamic.

Currently we are attempting to rewrite these values and within social media they are being commercially evolved. The reality is that you can't live in that world, but "other you" can for a period. At least until the cognitive dissonance takes food from the table.

But static values tend to cause wars. The question is will the release from static values create peace? I would say that here in the US its not working out well as we evolve into dynamic values in lieu of the static ones that built our country.

In history the degree in which we felt our static values were threatened we escalated defensive postures. This was seen as the reality. Now with dynamic values each threat is met with new values. Rome went through this over its 400 year stint as a superpower. We no longer live under the rule of Rome. So something broke its back. Dynamic values i would portend is at the root.

+2 +2

#4 Thank you @Harvey Lloyd for sharing your comment and thoughts.
I am asking myself now if the You YOU and YOU OTHER YOU have the ability to coevolve. If not, then with time the diverse paths and cognitive dissonance will build up.

+2 +2
Harvey Lloyd Dec 17, 2018 · #4

The you you is experiencing cognitive dissonance. The you, you see here online, is incongruent with the other you. But online demands certain constraints in order to achieve some feedback that you you finds "Good".

The cognitive dissonance arises when you you and other you are so gapped within reality of you you existence that we cannot reconcile the differences. Something must give. We have the road to reconciliation of our own other/you you or we now have a cause that gives us meaning. Each has its challenges as we experience life. But the latter exposes a one to many relationship that is disruptive.

Your cognitive dissonance is now being reflected in my "other you". I must choose to discuss with my you you the value of this claim and determine if it works well in my own existence. If i tell my other you to reject this new reflection i run the risk of loosing my own mass connection and if i tell my other you to accept this i now risk my real relationships.

Social media has brought forward and exposed weak values that have been dicentigrating for some time. Social media has been amping up the assault on values for sometime. The one to one relationship is to be celebrated but is only part of the professional environment as we sense that diversity is something we must have. Diversity can only be understood from a one to many relationship. Recent policy and identity group formation now controls the many and ultimately the one. We have become a herd. Social media reflects this herd, leaving the one on the sideline of reality of their you you.

Great post as always and you are knocking on the door of the issues we face as a civilization. I am still hung up with Nietzsche and his writings of God is Dead. There has to be a set of transcendent values that we all aspire. Then the you you and the other you can find resolution within the one to many relationships of our modern world. #1

+2 +2