Question Structures for Directing the Field of Awareness
Fieldwork Mapping Series, #4
Previous post in this series:
Next post:
In this post, we continue our in-depth instruction on the fieldwork mapping practice. In our first post in the series, In-Depth Instruction for Rigorous Observation, we conducted a high-level scan of what we’re up to. Then we took a look at the differences between working solo or with a partner. In this post, we will go more deeply into the carefully designed structure of the facilitation questions.
As we begin, we must acknowledge that the field of awareness is our most powerful instrument of observation as we move forward in our investigations of subjective experience. We will be bringing the field of awareness to the virtual material properties of the experience of feeling. Specifically, at this point in our study of fieldwork, we want to bring our awareness to the experience of feelingmind.
To succeed in our goal, we will need to pierce through habits of attention which tend to fixate our awareness upon sensory perception and cognitive processing. Even in the realm of feeling, mood and emotion, we have been taught to place our attention upon either the somatic sensations of our physical body or the cognitive processes that inform and interpret what we feel. Useful, yes, but this is not the ground of experience. This is not the foundation of being we seek.
Fieldwork enables us to break these habits and bring our awareness to the actual experience of feelingmind through the use of carefully crafted questions. Let’s take a look at how they work.
The Structure of Our Fieldwork Questions
Fieldwork relies upon a set of simple yet powerful questions to direct the field of awareness in such a way as to facilitate the collection of very precise observational data about the deeply private, inner experience of feeling. The structure of these questions is key to their effectiveness. Let’s take a look at this structure as it shows up in the questions about virtual material properties.
In the context of the flow of fieldwork mapping, we introduce these questions about virtual materials after we have reached two key milestones in the process.
First, we have identified a specific feeling experience to map, and we have given it a name that feels appropriate and accurate to the experience.
Second, we have gently entered the experience of the feeling by inviting a gentle, spontaneous description of what this feeling experience is like.
These two steps have enabled us to tune the filters of our field of awareness to bring the experience of that specific feeling state to the foreground, and then to prepare to overlay the space of our field of awareness carefully over the space inhabited by the affect field of that feeling state. At this point, we are ready to further refine our awareness filters to first identify the location of the affect field, and then to bring forward the properties of virtual materiality inhabiting the affect field.
To do so, we use very precise questions that both narrow our filters to specific spatial and virtual material properties and open our awareness to seek and accept the broadest possible range of values for those properties. The most direct and simple way to ask about the virtual material properties, as one example, might be the following:
What virtual material qualities does this feeling have?
For someone with a natural ease or lots of experience in bringing these qualities into awareness, and for a state that they find familiar and easy to access, this simple question could be enough. But for most people, getting started requires a period of training in just how to bring this more subtle feeling information to the surface. And even after we have developed the skill, when we are mapping states that have lived for most of our lives beneath conscious awareness, we benefit greatly from whatever support structures we’re able to provide.
Here is where the standard fieldwork question structure serves best. And here are the components of that structure.
1. Getting Specific About Our State
Our first adjustment to the base question is to add specificity to help the field of awareness stay focused on the specific feeling state we are choosing to observe. To do this, we simply make sure to name the feeling state, using the exact wording we have used in identifying the state.
What virtual material qualities does this [feeling state name] have?
Simply re-articulating the name we have given to the state we’ve chosen to map will bring to the foreground the actual feeling experience that prompted the choice of that name. It’s a great way to make sure we’re on track as we move into the observation of this specific state.
2. Narrowing Our Filter to a Specific Property
Once we’ve gotten specific about the state we’re observing, it helps a great deal to narrow our awareness filter to highlight a specific virtual material property. Our filter will foreground very different information when we choose to focus on temperature, for example, as opposed to color.
For the rest of our question adjustments, we’ll choose to assemble the elements of the question regarding qualities of substance.
What qualities of substance does this [feeling state name] have?
Choosing this narrower focus and making it explicit in the language of our question supports us in overlaying this specific filter for more precise observation of our feeling experience.
3. Getting More Specific
Our second adjustment to the question is to support the field of awareness in locking into the actual feeling experience, to make sure we do not get distracted into story or imagination in responding to the question.
What qualities of substance does the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state name] have?
This helps keep our filters entrained on the primary feeling experience.
4. Adding Permission for “Not”
Our next adjustment to the question is to loosen the requirement that there be the qualities we are asking for, giving explicit permission for our observation to maintain fidelity to the actual experience by being open to there being no such qualities at all. Basically, we say, “If it does have these qualities, what are they? (And if it does not, no worries.)”
If the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state name] has qualities of substance, what are those qualities?
This adjustment supports us in fully prioritizing our actual experience rather than trying to fit it into any perceived expectations implied by the question.
5. Adding Permission for Pre-Articulated Perception
Our next adjustment provides even more space for us to prioritize our actual experience rather than imply a need to fit our experience into the inferred expectations of the question. It does this by enclosing the question in a parenthetical invitation to say or not say what the answer to the question might be.
If you were to say that the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state name] has qualities of substance, what would you say those qualities are?
This adjustment creates even more support for us to fully honor our actual experience rather than trying to conform to any perceived expectations. It makes answering the question take on a form something like, “Well, I might not actually say this for sure, but if I were to try to put words to it, I might say this.”
6. Adding Permission for Vagueness
Our next adjustment gives us even more space, permitting us to make reference to a virtual material property as a rough comparison rather than a definitive equivalence. It does this by allowing us to say what properties the feeling “seems” to have.
If you were to say that the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state name] has qualities of substance, what would you say those qualities seem to be?
This is a breath of fresh air. We get to be vague, to test out a possible comparison, to draw a connection through approximation and let ourselves off the hook for requiring that our answer be unequivocally correct. Whew!
7. Providing Yes/No Test Options
In our next adjustment, we take advantage of the fact that we generally find it easier, when making comparisons, to say more quickly what something is not, rather than defining right away exactly what it is. We do this by providing some explicit choices for us to “try on” and either accept or reject as possible or likely as we explore our feeling experience in comparison to the virtual material properties.
If you were to say that the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state name] has qualities of substance, would you say it seems more like a solid… a liquid… a gas… or some kind of light or energy?
Again, this takes the onus off for getting the answer right as we we’re taking a test or something. We are exploring, and in our explorations, it is very helpful for us to test a few rough guesses on the way to a more refined assessment.
8. Adding Permission to Go Beyond
Finally, we add an invitation to prioritize faithfulness to the experience itself over any categories that might seem to come with the particular virtual material property in question. We do that by explicitly adding a prompt to consider something that has not been suggested as a possible answer.
If you were to say that the actual, felt experience of this [feeling state] has qualities of substance, would you say it seems more like a solid… a liquid… a gas… some kind of light or energy… or something else?
This is an especially potent adjustment when placed at the end of such a list of test options. We’ve gone through the process of testing one possible value after another, which tends to have the effect of refining our perception of what is actually there. If we wind up getting through the list having more or less declined every option, this invitation tends to bring that refined perception to the surface and give it full permission to be named as having any form at all.
Sometimes in asking this question, especially in the moving phase of the fieldwork process, I will add a note to the effect of, “We don’t need to obey laws of physics here. It’s possible to have a liquid light or a solid gas, for example.”
What Our Questions Make Possible
The questions we use create a type of filter over our field of awareness. The structure of these questions supports us in operating our field of awareness in a way that could be seen as similar to operating a microscope. The microscope is much simpler, with a single knob controlling the distance of the slide from the lens in order to focus the image. We look into the microscope, turn the knob one way, notice if things get more or less in focus, and adjust accordingly. Very quickly, we are able to focus the lens and see what there is to see.
We’re inviting a similar process with the questions that direct, focus, and filter our field of awareness to optimally collect specific information about our actual, lived experience of a feeling state. The filters added by the questions overlay the territory of feelingmind, suppressing some and amplifying other available information.
Perhaps this is similar to the way we might add a stain to a cell preparation in order to see certain features of the cell that would otherwise be invisible. That color in which the cell organelle is outlined is not a natural feature of the cell. But it strongly corresponds with the underlying structure, enabling that structure to enter our awareness.
Or perhaps it is like using a certain frequency of radiation, the x-ray, to scan a part of the body to reveal bones and other structures that are invisible from the surface. The final image we examine has only a rough but convenient correspondence to the underlying physiology of the body, and the body has no inherent x-rays, no inherent digital sensor or graphic display.
The filters we apply interact with the realm of feelingmind in such a way as to create a clear and tangible effect, and we “read” that effect. In just the same way that the variable intensity of x-rays passing through the body and landing on the sensor generate an image that corresponds to the underlying reality of the broken bone we are examining, the filter we apply will create an “image” that corresponds to an underlying reality of the portion of feelingmind we are examining.
As we engage in this way, we are acting as a skilled operator of our instrument, the field of awareness, rigorously collecting our observations, one data point at a time.
A Scientific Process: Hypothesis / Test / Revision
We can think of this as a kind of micro-science. Holographically, the process resembles the larger scope of the scientific method. We engage our instrument and invite ourselves to hypothesize about our observation by offering a tentative answer to our operating question. As we generate this possible answer, we simultaneously are perceiving the imagined manifestation of that answer overlaid upon our actual experience, testing how well it fits. If it matches, great! If not, we continue to adjust our “focus” until we get a match.
I like to tell people who are just starting with fieldwork mapping that it might feel like they’re making things up when they’re answering these questions. I say, “That’s right. You are making it up. We’re using a part of the brain that generates multisensory images of materiality in everyday life as a test against which to compare the nebulous, ineffable experience of feeling. You ‘make up’ an image and test it out. If it matches, you keep it. If it doesn’t, you come up with a variant. Give yourself permission to go for it!”
Now, I have no idea whether the story about “parts of the brain” is accurate. But no matter. I am confident that the process I describe fits with the underlying topology of how our conscious experience is structured as we carry out a task like this. It’s too advanced for us to get into at this point in our investigations, but I will be laying that out for you down the line.
What is important is that we get the hang of operating this very sophisticated instrument of observation within ourselves. For most of us, after a little practice, something begins to emerge that feels absolutely and indisputably “right” about our answers. We feel secure that they correspond to something true and real about the unique characteristics of our feeling state. We learn pretty quickly that we can trust this fitting process, and that enables us to move forward with our observations.
At this point, we find ourselves going through a process involving cycles of hypothesis, test, and revision until we found a match. When our hypothesis matches, we experience a signal of confirmation or congruence. A “yes,” a sense of things clicking into place, a resonance — there are many ways to put words to this, and its essence may differ from one person to another. At that point, we move on to the next question and repeat the process.
This process of overlaying a hypothesized representation of our lived experience, a candidate being tested for inclusion in our broad repertoire of maps of experience, is central to our ongoing map management and navigation activity in everyday life. (See Maps Within Maps and Building Good Maps.) Here we employ this natural process in the fieldwork method, through the use of these questions, in order to collect high-resolution observations of the experience of feeling.
Support for What’s Actually There
These accommodations open the door for fully intuitive and vague articulation of possible answers as a way to work toward greater precision. Speaking these answers out loud (or writing them down) gives us the opportunity to interact with their form. It is easier for us to interact with possible specific data to say, “yes, this” or “no, not that” than to come up with complete words for our inner experience out of whole cloth.
We want to maximally reduce the pressure to “get it right,” and provide the opportunity to gradually construct the answers that best match our actual experience through an interactive process. In the course of answering these question prompts, we start by articulating a hypothesis (e.g. “maybe it’s a solid”) then assessing the fit of that hypothesis, either accepting, rejecting, or modifying it until it finds its way to a best fit with our experience (“actually, it’s more like a thick liquid”).
Along with supporting the spaciousness for a gradual emergence of clarity in our observation, it is also essential for us to make space for the possibility that we have pointed our gaze in a mistaken direction. Maybe there’s actually nothing to see on our slide. It’s completely possible, for example, that the name we’ve given to what we perceived originally as a feeling state is not a feeling state at all. It’s possible that there is no affect field to bring into awareness corresponding to the name that was given.
In this case, we want to make sure to allow ourselves to come up completely empty-handed. “There’s nothing here to find.” And to take that as a valid observation to feed back into the process as a whole.
This completely open permission to find whatever there is to find, including nothing, is essential to our practice of good science.
Reflections
In the course of this series on fieldwork mapping, I would like to ask for your feedback about how well you are able to put these instructions to work. Where do you struggle, what comes easily, and what suggestions do you have for improving how this series supports you and others in doing the mapping? Thank you!
And of course, if you have not yet subscribed and would like make sure to keep up with this series and beyond, please do subscribe. Consider signing up for a paid subscription to participate in the live Engage meetings, where you’ll be able to get your questions answered and more.