Melde Rutledge, II-White Paper: The Perspective of

Being an ObserverBy Melde Rutledge, II-Managing Editor, The Enaction Institute

Melde Rutledge, II is influenced by Lacanian psychoanalysis, Black Psychoanalyst Frantz Fanon
memorial work on Black Skin, White Mask, phenomenology as examined by Martin Heidegger,
Edmund Husserl, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, structural anthropologists Francisco Varela, Fernando
Flores, Hilary Lawson and Humberto R. Maturana and speech-act theory (particularly the work of John
Searle) in his understanding of the "performativity" of our identities. All of these theories explore the
ways that social reality is not a given, but is continually created and open and it is we who close it
through our stories "through language, gesture, and all manner of symbolic social signs."
THE ISSUE OF OBSERVATION

In this interview, I would like to investigate the perspective that fits with what it is to be a human
(O) bserver. In other words, how does one see the world, how does one consider themselves, and who
are other people for someone whose interest is being a human (O)bserver? We can use these
questions to explore how life presents itself to someone as a human (O)bserver versus a non- human
(O)bserver and to leverage that distinction is assess to real personal power.

Interviewer: In your forthcoming book, Enaction Coaching An Opening for Creating the
Logic of Self-Transformation you state that and I read time and time again that Everything
said is said by an observer to another observer, who can be himself or herself. Would you
explain the nature of your work and specifically the part regarding the observer?
Melde: First the statement Everything said is said by an observer to another observer, who can
be himself or herself is from Maturana, Biology of Language, and upon hearing it for the
first time completely redirected my relationship with reality Of course, the observer is part
of the situation he or she observes and as observers; we generate distinctions in a consensual
domain, however there is a builded-in-blindness that we as observers are generating those
distinctions. My work is employing this idea to describe different social forms as consisting
of action observed by further action. Therefore, dynamic forms are understood to be the two
sides of a distinction and its dividing line, taken together. All social action consists of three
values: the marked side, the unmarked side, and an operation separating the two. Watch the
third value, and then one ends up observing the observer drawing the distinction(s)an
observer who, of course, may be oneself.
Interviewer: What part of your own experience as an observer brought you to this point in life?
Melde: When I was a kid I passed a block on the main street of the downtown area of my city.
That city block was concealed by plywood and I wondered why. As the weeks passed, I
revisited the site several times and paid close attention to the construction of a twenty-two

White Paper: The Perspective of Being An ObserverBy Melde Rutledge, II

story bank building. It fascinated me and I wanted to know how they did that! How does one
do that! How does a group of observers dig a hole in the ground and in 7-8 months a
skyscraper arrives!!!

So, I made it my business to find out. I discovered every element

necessary to take a construction from the conception of the idea to complete fruition, absolute
manifestation in physical form. I dont mean just the architectural elements, but all the
relationships and negotiations involved. Naturally, this effort led me to the study of the
dynamics forms in all its myriad aspects.
Interviewer: Why does tradition teach us to conceptualize form as one side of a distinction
whose other side can then be designated in various ways, such as form/matter, form/substance,
or form/content? Also, wouldn't following this tradition lead to the question of what would
happen to the concept of form if its conceptual opposite were altered, for instance if one
shifted from form/matter, taken in a cosmological sense, to form/content in its more artificial
sense relating to works of all kinds. Within this traditional framework; however, how is the
unity of the distinction conceptualized, or how can it be conceptualized?
Melde: This inevitably becomes an issue when form is distinguished from something else to
approach it from a different angle. What is also important to recognize is the quality of the
distinctions made. For instance, the difference between a senior observer and a junior observer
is that the senior observer realizes he is generating the distinction or observation and the
junior observer thinks it is already there. This is autopoiesis at work; we are always
generating our distinctions and creating our cognitive domains.
Interviewer: What happens on the other side of the distinction that is matter, substance, or
content that is simply omitted from consideration and form, and as such, becomes the main
focus of reflection and manipulation?
Melde: For the world to see itself it must first cut itself into at least one state which sees, at
least one other state which is seen, and whatever it sees is only partially itself. We take as a fact
that the world undoubtedly is itself and that is distinct from itself, but, in any attempt to see
itself as an object it must equally and undoubtedly act so as to make itself distinct from itself
and therefore false or foreign to itself. In other words, the world makes itself distinct from itself
by means of the distinction. We take as given the idea of distinction at the idea of indication
and that we cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
Interviewer: What does drawing a distinction offer the observer?

White Paper: The Perspective of Being An ObserverBy Melde Rutledge, II

Melde: Drawing a distinction severs the world into a form with two sides. On one side, the
inside, is the indicated or marked world, on the other side is everything else, that is, the
unmarked world. To observe it is to draw a distinction; that is to say, observation comprises the
operative unity of distinction and indication.
Interviewer: So, observation presupposes an observer, but where, after having drawing the
distinction, are we to place the observer?
Melde: The observer is not distinct from the distinction. He cannot as yet be placed on either
side of the distinction. To decide where he belongs requires a second observer. In other words,
observation uses a distinction but cannot distinguish the distinction it uses. The operative
unity of distinction and indication conceals the second distinction, the distinction between
distinction and indication, that is, the distinction between the observer and the observed, but
note: rarely do people have the clarity to make distinctions of their own. So again we must
draw our attention to the fact that once an individual realizes the he is generating his own
distinctions, he is in a place of consciously, cognitively bringing forth elements in his cognitive
domain. This is what Enaction Coaching teaches, how to make first, second and third order
observations or distinctions with tangible clarity. Making distinctions is making changes, so
we must draw distinctions between first-order change, second-order change and third order
change. First order change can be described as giving a hungry person something to eat. It is
defined as change at the same level as the problem; meaning acting on behavior to obtain a
change in behavior. Second-order change is a change at a different level than the problem state.
It's teaching people to capitalize on their talents so they can eat. Third order change involves
changing the system and this level of change is evolutionary change.
Interviewer: What is the significance of the second distinction?
Melde: The introduction of the second distinction or the second observer is called the reentry
into the form. The first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable,
but, in terms of form, they are identical. The world marked or indicated by the first distinction
is identical with the observer. Only a second distinction can distinguish the first distinction
and thereby the observer who uses it, that is to distinguish between the observer and the
operation of the observation.
Interviewer: Do you mean the first distinction or observation divides the world into the world
with two sides?

White Paper: The Perspective of Being An ObserverBy Melde Rutledge, II

Melde: Yes, it divides the world into a form with two sides, the seen and the unseen. The
second distinction or observation is the reentry of the form into form, of the distinction into
the distinction and divides the seen and the unseen, that is, the observed and the observer. The
first observer is visible only to a second observer. Observation is blind to itself and cannot
distinguish between itself and what is observed. Nevertheless, the observer is of course
invisibly present. Every distinction presupposes itself and thus excludes itself from what it can
distinguish. This is why people become stuck, confused and frustrated in life. Most people
dont make distinctions at all, let alone make second order distinctions wherein they are able
to see their lives as if at a distance. Naturally when looking at a situation from a remote
location one is able to see clearly what is really going on with all the characters involved and
then generally one is able to make better choices. When people dont make distinctions they
spin through life like a leaf swirling with the debris in an open parking lot. Enaction first
identifies the blind spot, then explains how it occurred in the first place and then offers the
tools necessary for enacting ones life with clarity; this means making distinctions
Interviewer: So what the second observer makes visible is the invisible observer and the
invisible reentry into the form which is the presupposition of all observation. Correct?
Melde: Yes, this presupposition creates the asymmetrical difference between the two sides of
the form. There is no way back to the lost unity, the unmarked or formless state of the world.
The world can be observed only by means of distinctions that make the unmarked world
invisible. What the observer observed is the mark world, the world as it really is, however it is,
neither observable nor describable.
Interviewer: So, the form is two-sided?
Melde: Yes, but the observer cannot get to the other side, because the observed world is the
product of the observer. This asymmetry is the condition of an increase in the complexity of
the observation of the observing individual and of the operative closure of observation that it
observes by means of distinctions internal to the person (the observer). This is the whole point
of the blind spot and the paradox.
Interviewer: This may seem dense, but what exactly makes the world both visible and
invisible?
Melde: Observation makes the world both visible and invisible; we could also refer to it as the
marked and the unmarked state, as in marked make a distinction. Observation also makes the

White Paper: The Perspective of Being An ObserverBy Melde Rutledge, II

observer invisible. In other words, something is invisible, but operates as though it is visible. The
observer cannot see himself. There is always a blind spot to observation. The reentry of form is
invisible. It cannot be observed since it has already occurred through drawing a distinction. It
is the invisible presupposition of observation. Therefore, the reentry of form can only be
observed by a second observer. The first observer cannot see himself. He can only be seen by a
second observer, who observes the first observer by means of the distinction between
distinction and indication. In turn, the second observer cannot see himself.