Disambiguation Using Natural Language: An Example

Let’s say at work, you are at odds with a co-worker whose style is very different than yours. It’s an example of how making the effort of applying the OKIC compass for the most basic activity of disambiguation would work.

1 – Express difficulty of challenging situation

I am frustrated with my co-worker. I cannot understand their inability to do anything without formal a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). It makes it impossible to innovate.

2 – Reflect on timeless characteristics of any specialized term you use. Determine which one you mean, e.g. I associate SOP with domination right now.

Inquire: Which of the following is most relevant to your experience of “SOP” at this time?

Navigation-wise, this becomes a map because you have disambiguated to a term present in OKIC. This takes practice and effective tracking. Rigidity leads to Figure Series E. Domination leads to Figure X. Enduring leads to Figure X.

3 – Reflect on a timeless characteristic (contained in one or more form) that you can apply to any generalized but not essential term you use. In information terms, this is a tag.

Inquire: Which of the following is most relevant to your experience of “innovate” at this time?

Creativity leads to Figure X, change to Figure Series X, and surprise to meta-phenomena.

OKIC carries the following distinction from other sense-making procedures. You can glean a number of quick and easy insights by reading these few simple word choices and that begs a few questions. This is disambiguation. In machine learning terms, it can be understood as sparseness of dependencies.

But how is disambiguation different from psychologizing, or imposing expectations? Will OKIC be different from any number of books about workplace sensitivity, creative self-expression, et cetera? Just ahead… answers to these questions and an introduction to one of the most unusual but critical features of OKIC: binds.

Disambiguation, as well as the psychology of changing one’s mind, is truly just a starting place. OKIC is an encoded path to humanity structuring its informational presence in the world so as to be in accord with natural, generative functioning instead of working at cross-purposes to each other. To put it differently, the point is for the already known processes in psychology to be integratable with a larger, info-friendly complex system such that humans can use the intelligible parts from all fields to locate and re-orient to be experience and generate in increasingly optimal ways again.

One of the most compelling and also most elusive sources of understanding that makes OKIC different from existing systems – and also transformative and relatable – is the bind. For instance, the following encoding of what is termed a bind in OKIC carries information in a way that effectively blends modern psychoanalytical, logical and natural language tools but does so in a way that uses abstraction dynamics like tension, omission, and counterfactuality (aka hypotheticals, or “what ifs”).

Up shortly will be a fun Sandwich Shoppe analogy that will make the above geometric encoding readily relatable. But first, let’s make a first go at it in this encoded form, just to get the rest of the story out of the standard operating procedure (SOP) and innovation co-worker example.

For the purpose of demonstration, let’s decide that the right characterization of SOP in this case for the OKIC-inquiring co-worker is rigidity.  Rigidity, being in OKIC a tension, is informed by the above geometric encoding (you just have to take my word on that).  The rigidity tension plays as Missing Y when X is Intent, Y is Logic, and Z is Perspective. X, Y, and Z are each what is known as a behavior. Thus, the experience of rigidity is related to missing logic. Refer to Figure Series E for a sneak peek at the rigidity-logic relationship and how it gets unbound.

Navigation-wise, by which I mean within any system, a tension like rigidity makes itself felt through the XYZ Bind represented by the central area of three symmetrically overlapping circles. Notice that the XYZ Bind is contained by an equilateral triangle as well. In OKIC, the bind that includes rigidity is known as the “I Can’t Relate” Bind. The combination of tensions and “what if” possibilities in it are:

*Maps to example of rigidity related to SOP and innovation tension

Why binds are so important will become more obvious when I introduce the invariant structure and foundational geometric encoding that is OKIC. In short, binds help hide stuff and simplify complex stuff. There are bad aspects to that like deception and confusion. The aspects generally experienced as good are those associated with rationalization: specialization, prediction, and storytelling. In terms of OKIC, you will come to understand these as the result of often positive constraints (the most fundamental one being time), ones that give access to all kinds of complex social dynamics and physical structures (both collective phenomena) that combine with existing knowledge and experience in novel ways. Rationality is covered in the next chapter to expand the same dynamics to arrive at the even more useful time-constrained yet integrated experience of future sense.

Typically, we are limited to looking at the context of situations in terms of the people and organizational history involved, in which case our own feelings about various personalities, the past about which some know and others do not, or how someone reminds us of this or that other person or situation become unavoidable to grapple with in our own effort to be thoughtful. For this reason, it can often be an exhausting, frustrating, fruitless exercise to “process” (navigate) problems with another person or a group.

The kaleidoscope can quickly seem full of abstractions that represent the worst! What OKIC is, is the system by which we are always able to relate to a given context through forms that are timeless. “The worst” is not just separation from another, wholeness, rightness, whatever. Those are inevitable experiences. “The worst” is separated and lost – unable to navigate or orient at all because we have become disconnected from something essential to our experience of being part of something bigger than ourselves, bigger even than our human families.

Back to the co-worker example. Stalemated conflicts require that something “give way.” If neither party completely jumps ship (screw you and your “SOP” or screw you and your “innovation”), what will give way is an assumption. This is easy to understand, though we also understand, not always effective long-term or from one context to another.

Is there a long-term option (hint, timeless)? What will it take to generalize our hard work so as to meaningfully relate it from one context to another? This is the kind of essential navigation we tackle when we engage through OKIC.

In the case of the co-worker averse to SOP-rigidity, asking the question “What logic is missing for you here? Why is it not logical to you to do this without an SOP?” And ask for specifics. It is possible that certain information and or/reassurances will help the person relax the requirement. On the other hand, the person may raise valid concerns that can only be addressed by bringing a more structure approach. That may require changes that others had not anticipated but when pointed out do seem valid and worth improving.