SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

**EXCUSE ME**
Problem solving begins
with defining the problem —
not the solution

Welcome once again to UnMind, the podcast of Great Cloud, my Zen name, also published on Substack, and as my DharmaByte in the newsletter of the Silent Thunder Order (STO) - visit www.STOrder.org. Please let me know if there is a subject you would like to hear about in a future segment. We are pioneering a creative, collaborative approach to establishing true Zen community (Skt. sangha) in the USA. We invite you to come aboard the raft. If you are in the Southeast, visit www.aszc.org for our schedule.

"Excuse Me My Dear Aunt Sally," in case you are unfamiliar with the expression, is a mnemonic I learned in high school for remembering the proper sequence of arithmetical operations to be performed in solving quadratic equations: solve the exponents first; then do the multiplication; then the division; the addition; and finally, any subtraction called for. If you do not follow this sequence exactly, you will not get the right answer.

Setting aside for now the question of what may be the larger point of getting the right answer, as well as the question of the potential arbitrariness of the "givens" of any equation — i.e. the initial values attributed to "x" and "y" — XMDAS provides an analogy for the process of solving any problem, from a design-thinking perspective. Let's look at each of the five steps, one at a time. From writing a book to simplifying our life, it works.

Determining what value lies under the radical in an exponent (X) is roughly analogous to defining the reason for pursuing any problem, whether in a professional setting or in everyday life. "What's it all about, Alfie?" or "What's the meaning of this?" as my grandfather would sternly demand, when we were caught roughhousing, in my younger days. He didn't realize what a profoundly central question he was asking.

I find myself at the intersection of Zen and design-thinking, when confronting the various aspects of daily life. Zen practice and the discipline of design-science, as one of my many mentors, R. Buckminster Fuller, termed it, are both generalist worldviews oriented to a problem-solving mentality as an approach to navigating the challenges of life in our times and developing the specialist skills necessary to that endeavor. Key to finding the best solution to any problem is developing the best definition of the problem.

In the professional context, working for the benefit of a client company, the first step may involve redefining the client's own definition of the problem they are asking you to solve. One of the values of using outside consultants is that they ostensibly are not subject to the same tunnel vision of insiders, though of course they may be hindered by another sort of tunnel vision. The process outlined is meant to mitigate against this. Returning to and redefining the focus of the initiative is a crucial part of the process.

It should be noted that someone writes down the ideas on a whiteboard for all to see.

The second step, doing the multiplication (M), is likewise analogous to brainstorming, engaging in the uninhibited free association of any and all factors that may have a role in developing the final solution to the given problem. This is where thoroughness and lack of prejudging come into play. Best done as a form of playful "What-if" scenarios.

The third, division (D), correlates roughly with sorting the various free-ranging comments into groupings or categories of related items, like the familiar "One of these things is not like the others" theme from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

The fourth, addition (A), suggests fleshing out the various distinct categorical groupings with other items that may not have occurred to anyone on first consideration.

Finally the fifth step, subtraction (S), involves setting aside all the various components and considerations that are not immediately necessary at this point in the project, for later development, scaling down the scope of the first phase of solution iterations to include only the most important and germane elements. Prioritizing, in other words.

Needless to say, and so I will say it emphatically: this is not a one-and-done process. It will be necessary, in virtually every case, to revisit the exponent several times to see if we have wandered too far afield from the original problem definition, and to reexamine the other four steps again as we proceed. Everything is a work-in-progress.

There are some provocative prompts to the process that can be brought to bear when the creativity seems to lag, such as positing the "Worst Possible Solution" — imagining that if we wanted to subvert the objectives of the project altogether, how would we do it? Oftentimes, conjecturing the most negative outcome in opposition suggests a different positive approach that we otherwise would not come up with.

We can apply this design-thinking approach to our Zen practice, emphasizing problem definition over leaping to a solution, based on the underlying premise that within a thoroughgoing and complete definition of any given problem, the solution will be implied.

It becomes clear that, while as Master Dogen reminds us, "Zazen is not step-by-step meditation," the process of our Zen life moves through several distinct, if overlapping, phases, if not exactly stages. The difficulty with conceiving the arc of our experience as progressing through stages is that we will inevitably be looking to the next stage, assuming that it will be more advanced. And consequently, missing the reality of the present moment. As the old Ch'an poem reminds, "Not understanding the Way before your eyes, how will you know the path you walk?"

Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon us who find ourselves in the unenviable position of being regarded as teachers or exemplars of Zen to address this issue, when students or followers express a sincere aspiration to insight, and confusion as to its meaning, or the common experience of "plateauing" — the sense that no progress is occurring.

Let us attempt a correlation of the fivefold sequence of the process outlined above with the general arc of the narrative of a typical Zen pilgrim’s progress. As always, your results may vary, and the map is never the same as the territory.

X — Let's begin with the exponent of Zen - what is the root of the problem? What lies under the radical, waiting to be solved? What is the source of our suffering?

We can derive some guidance from the written record, of course, where we find such definitions as the reification of a non-existent self, unsatisfactoriness with the causes and conditions of our existence, et cetera, which are, of course, not very satisfactory. The problem of existence, and our place in it, begs the question: Is it really a problem?

It is more important to personalize this problem definition than to generalize it. What is troubling you immediately, in space and time? As Master Dogen says in "Genjokoan":

If you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point. If you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.

So the problem, if it is a problem, must be hiding in plain sight.

M — Brainstorming intentionally, rather than allowing the monkey mind to hijack the process, we embrace our world of complexity and distractions from all four spheres of activity and influence — the personal, social, natural, and the universal realms — in which we find ourselves. All apparent barriers to solving the problem.

The root of the problem we might logically assume to manifest on the personal level; but we cannot ignore social demands of family, friends, colleagues and strangers; nor the many ways in which we connect with the world of Nature; and even the universal, especially in a time when technological evolution has revealed so much of our macro- and micro-cosmic context.

D — Sorting through the matrix of all dimensions impinging upon us and considering how to group them into relatively discrete aggregations, analogous to the "five skandhas" of the traditional Buddhist model of sentient being, may help to overcome the daunting asymmetrical nature of the scope of our interconnectedness and diminishing influence on outcomes, as we move from the personal to the social, natural and universal realms.

Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness accompany a growing sense of humility at the vastness of the enterprise. But at least we are beginning to comprehend it. Recognizing the problem is the first step; visualizing or modeling it is the second.

A — After articulating the many components of our living situation we come up with, writing them down in a mind-mapping exercise, and sorting into relatively discrete — if overlapping — categories, we can now review each to see if we have inadvertently left out any elements that may prove to be relevant or important. Are they complete?

S — At this point, the problem may be well-defined, but any point of taking action is still obscure. Subtracting what is inessential from consideration at the present time, leaving what is necessary to address first and foremost, we come to a point of taking action. No process of problem-solving is effective unless it leads to appropriate action. Resistance to doing so is based on fear of the unknown, unintended consequences, and the desire to maintain the status quo. "Fall down seven times get up eight": we succeed by failing.

Once the "problem" is stripped down to a limited set of actionable items, we can begin the prototyping phase of the project. This involves trial and error, experimenting with various promising approaches, assessing progress, and adjusting as necessary.

The current trope in the business world is "agility," the ability to recognize when we are off-course, and correct accordingly. It is an apt expression on the personal, as well as the corporate, level. The main difference is that we should be able to get ourselves to risk a change in behavior on a strictly personal level much more easily than it is to sway others into compliance with our definition of a solution.

In summary, most of us approach Zen with an initial curiosity or motive — X, the root exponent — derived from the unsatisfactory nature of living in today's world, drawn to Zen by a hunch that it seems focused on this very issue, buttressed by impressions from reading books and hearsay. As Matsuoka-roshi would often say, people go though life with a sense of something missing. They don't know what it is, but they definitely know it's missing. Eventually they come to Zen hoping to find it.

This is typically followed by a phase of "doing my own research" — M, multiplication — perusing more books on the subject, pursuing podcasts and documentaries, attending lectures and joining groups. There is a nearly inexhaustible smorgasbord of entrees on offer in today's spiritual materialism market. The multiplier effect often lends more confusion than clarity as to our initial purpose — the exponent of Zen — where we started out.

Once we have surveyed most of the approaches on offer, we begin to categorize them — D, division — as to sameness and difference, effectiveness and convenience, the whole gamut of judgment calls that we generally apply to any other activity or pursuit. They break down into such categories as various styles of meditation, our personal bibliography of books that we choose to read and re-read, teachers we choose to follow, and support groups with which we engage and disengage. As well as those we reject.

Much of this trial-and-error testing and analysis is aimed at rationalizing our resistance to making the effort sustained required to realize any long-term positive effects. We resist change, if on an unconscious level. In my first book, "The Original Frontier," I devote an entire chapter to the various lame excuses we make up for evading the hard work of meditation, beginning with the most common cop-out, "I don't have the time." These are followed up with suggested workarounds, under the rubric, "Damn your lousy excuses."

Over time, we cobble together our own Frankenstein monster of a practice path, adding to the mix — A, addition. Hopefully, we settle upon a combination that seems to work. In Zen, it usually comes together as a balanced combination of buddha-, dharma-, and sangha-practice, a 3-legged stool consisting of: time on the cushion; studying the teachings; and participating in Zen community. And, in a non-monastic setting, finding a reasonable, operable schedule of training.

Eventually, we begin to minimize or eliminate — S, subtraction — those activities and preoccupations that have proven to be peripheral rather than central. As Master Dogen asked, if you want to find drinking water, do you drill a lot of shallow wells, or one deep well? He also recommended focusing on the central method, rather than the surrounding protocols:

When first you meet a master, without engaging in incense offering, bowing, chanting Buddha's name, repentance and reading scripture, you should just wholeheartedly sit, and thus drop away body and mind.

Again, over the span of our lifetime, it is likely that we will cycle through this process many times, disappointed by unmet expectations and buffeted by the whims of fortune. As Matsuoka-roshi would often encourage us, "Just don't give up." The reality that Zen points to does not change with the vicissitudes of fate.

More design thinking to come in the next installment of UnMind: "It's Not About That."