I joined the call about 5 minutes late today, but I enjoyed listening in and found the discussion very helpful. A question occurred to me towards the end of the discussion, but I decided to save it for a post instead of asking on the call.
Does the field communique undergo development? What is the relationship of the field communique to notions such as “cognitive frame” or worldview? I am thinking here of the (Piagetian) pre-operational child. What is real to him (what the field communique communicates as “true”) is that there is “more” water if you pour the contents of a wide glass into a narrower one, or if you make a clay ball into a snake. It is “bigger” or “higher” and so there is “more” stuff. Later, the child will grasp the concept of conservation and it will be simply apparent to him that there is actually the same amount, but it now occupies space differently. Is this a temporal development or transformation of the field communique?
One reason I ask is because we discussed on the call today how the field communique is invisible, in essence; it cannot be seen or operated on directly, and so instead we inquire into the nature of the objects “communicated” to us within the context of the communique. In Robert Kegan’s terms, the field communique is “subject” for us, not object; but over time, in Kegan’s model, the subject transforms into object and we now have access to a new “space.” So, over time, is it fair to say that the field communique at one point in time (the unconscious telling of a given “stage”) may eventually become “object” or “content” for us at a later time?
Best wishes,
Bruce