To understand (ba) Basho is is essential to understand Fields, or the creative space from which ideas and phenomena arise.
This entails a way of seeing  fields, which is problematic because in fact fields (like quantum effects ) are invisible to the human eye.
To envision this way of seeing takes some rewring of the manner in which we view the world, when we lookm upon it as a discrete object(s). To see fields with the human eye may then be impossible, so one must call upon other manners of sensing. This involves the intensification of sight or a non-analytical approach to seeing. An analytical or instrumental approach to pehenomena operates by taking structures apart. The epistemology of dissection best suits a description of way of knwoing the world to know. In contrast the way of envisioning fields utilizes an epistempology in which subtle sensing and creative imagination are prominant. Central to this way of knowing is an ability to immerse oneself in ones experience and perceptions and then utlizie ones creative imagination to concretely come into contact with the phenomena of the world. A great example of the contrast in styles is the manner in which Goethe and Newton undertsood color.

Goethe color theory sees the generative filed of color as the interplay of  light and shadow. Whereas through his prism Newton analyzed color by dissecting it from the single light source from which it spang; viewing color in isolation from its source field of light, Goethe when he gazed through the prism noticed that the seperation of a ray of light into color occured when he moved the prism from fields of light into shadows.

The following examples of how both Goethe percieved color in contrast to Newton is a wonderful illustration of how one can percieve phenomena springing from their generative source or field.

But the example continues and in so doing illustrates how this manner of percieving a part as particular emergence of a whole rather then dissecting the part can make a powerful difference in practical life. In the example given I will show how Toyota underlying Goethean ethic has allowed them to surpass Ford in the production of automobiles.

  Newton attempted to understand color by isolating himself in a dark room allowing

only a small oblong opening in the shade for a shaft of sunlight to enter and penetrate a

prism which split and refracted different colors upon the wall.  Newton then defined the

phenomena of color as corresponding to the degrees of refractability which otherwise

colorless sunlight displayed when filtered through a prism.

  Newton’s attempt to show that certain colors can be reduced to different

angles of refraction which could explain colors by numerical measurement was too

tempting an explanation for those convinced of the sole reality of thought and abstraction. 

Thus modern science adopted it as a suitable description of color and thereafter the

existence of color was always correlated with its degree of refractability.

   Newton also tried to imagine a mechanical model of light whereby “the dispersion of

colors by the prism was explained in terms of light corpuscles which all moved at the

same velocity in a vacuum but at different velocities in a glass” (Bortof 1996). According

to this model Newton considered the speed of imagined light particles to be the basis of

our objective experience of color. In this attempt Newton was not successful, but his

numeric explanation of color and refractiblity is still accepted today for providing an

adequate representation of the reality of color.

   In contrast Goethe uncovered the primal phenomena of color as the interplay of

darkness and light which are reflected in the colors of the sun and the sky.

                                                                The Blue Spectrum

    “On a clear day the colors of the sky overhead is a brilliant blue, which becomes

       lighter in shade as the angle of vision decreases towards the horizon. But if we were       

       to go up to a mountain, the color overhead would progressively darken until it

      becomes black. When we look at the sky overhead, we are seeing darkness through

      the atmosphere which is illuminated by the sun. The quality of blue we see depends

      on the thickness of the atmosphere through which we are seeing the darkness of outer

       space. The greater the thickness of the atmosphere the lighter the shade of blue.

     When we look at the sky we are looking at dark through light, and the effect of this is

      to lighten the dark into progressively lighter shades of blue as the proportion of light

      filled medium increases. Thus the origin of blue is the lightening of dark which

      occurs when dark is seen through light. In this way Goethe learned to see the coming

      into being of colors” (Bortoft 1996).

                                                               The Red Spectrum            

       “ The origin of red and yellow can be discovered in the changing color of the sun.

         When it is overhead on a clear day the sun is yellow and the darkness in color

          towards red as it moves closer to the horizon at sunset. In this case we are looking

          at light through the atmosphere, and the role of this medium is now to darken what

          is seen in proportion as its thickness increases. If we were to go higher up, the sun

          would become whiter as the atmospheric thickness decreased. Thus the origin of

          yellow, orange, and red is the darkening of light which occurs when light is seen

          through dark. Here also Goethe learned to see the coming into being of colors in

          the  phenomena itself” (Bortoft 1996).

Ford Motor Company and Toyota Motors took very different approaches to auto

making as they grew after WWII. Although they were both in the same industry

and courted the same type of customer they followed radically different approaches

to doing business.

Ford looked at the world as if it were definable by a preconceived mathematical

model in much the same manner as Newton viewed color. Newton believed color

could be reduced to its angle of refractability.  Ford held a similar view about

manufacturing which it equated with the economics of scale.  In this view all the parts

and processes of manufacturing automobiles were separated only to be recombined

in the end product.

Organizational theorist Thomas Johnson has provided an excellent analysis and

comparison of the similarities of approach between Newton and Ford and what he

concludes is as follows:  After WWII the problem which beset automobile makers was in

how to build many varieties of cars without having to construct a separate plant for each

model. Fords solution was based on a preconceived idea on how that could happen. The

 River Rouge plant was built after WWI and was a classic model of mass production

where the model T was assembled.. It employed an approach called a continuous

production line where the process of manufacturing process was so mechanical it

could continue non-stop. “It was a useful model if you were going to mass produce one

car, one color , one way “ (Johnson 1999).

 River Rouge’s low cost and good quality were achieved by building something

according to a massive scale and then running it at the highest possible throughput rate

you could (Johnson 1999) If the plant was in continuous operation it would serve to keep

your cost down.

 One problem with this style of manufacturing however was that you could not produce

different varieties very efficiently. Because in a continuous flow line you would always

have to stop and change machinery to adjust to the new variety. For example, if you

wanted to change color it had to be done by switching the paint booths. Other parts would

then have to be switched in the same manner by pausing to change the shop around to be

retooled. The solution of Ford was to break up the plant into separate units which could

each specialize in one aspect of the manufacturing process. One plant for painting, one

for welding and riveting, one for stamping etc.  By breaking up the manufacturing

process into separate units one could maintain a continuous flow in the line and then ship

all items to a final assembly plant.  Every item of the manufacturing process had to be

scheduled carefully with the flow of parts everyday. When a blue car is being made a

blue part must come in etc. This was the solution of Ford Motors and it is known as

manufacturing according to the economics of scale. The final product was seen

as a mere amalgamation of all the disconnected parts.  It all worked well enough for Ford

however with the exception that much time was lost in shipping parts about and there was

additional overhead in having to maintain many separate plants. This worked well

enough that is until Toyota and other Japanese car manufactures entered the American

market in force in the 1970s.

 In contrast to Ford’s continuous flow system Toyota’s approach continuous flow system

much as Goethe understood color. They were sensitive to the many particulars of the

operation. They found that what kept cost low was maintaining the continuity of the flow.

This approach was partly inspired by circumstance. The fact that the Japanese economy

was in ruins after WWII and that they did not have the resources or the space in Japan to

build numerous factories meant that they would have to work with just one automobile

producing plant.

 Working under such conditions they had to cut the time for changing equipment to

produce varieties to well below anything a manufacturer could do in America.

By the 1970’s the change over rates were down to minute fractions of what was assumed

possible in the USA. “We had stamping presses that took eight hours to change and they

changed them in 20 or 30 minutes (Johnson 1999). Their continuously flowing line

would see red cars followed by blue followed by green according to customer demand.

They had enormous variety at low cost because they had a system where they were able

to build every work station to a scale that consumed resources no greater than what was

needed to make one order at a time, to fill one order at a time (Johnson 1999).

 Just as Goethe perceived the color spectrum as a shading of light and darkness

the vast variety of colored automobiles where the product of the one production line

and the team of individuals who worked it.

Instead of a preconceived mathematical model of reality they looked at each job, each

particular aspect of the process and worked from there.  They built one order at a time

holding the relationship between the people involved in the manufacturing process as

having foremost importance. The whole world view was radically different than the

mechanical economy of scale model.

  Johnson’s analysis of the difference in production is astute. “When I talk about the

world view of Goethe and the world view of Newton. Then it dawned on me one day

what this is. This is the mechanism versus a living system (1999)

  The previous example of a what Johnson describes metaphorically as a living versus a

 mechanical approach to organizations draws heavily upon the way of creating knowledge

 inspired by a holistic understanding of the universe. This way of seeing the world accords

 itself with principles of self-organization, interdependence and diversity. In many

 significant ways it mirrors the knowledge creating organization studied by Nonaka (2000) with

 its values placed upon tacit knowledge, the unification of knowing by doing, and the

 insight of cross disciplinary teams which is nurtured in the caring atmosphere of ba. A ba

 which merges organically with other bas to transcend the limitations of each individual

 and group and converge upon the source of a truly innovative way of understanding what

 they do, and performing with utmost excellence all it is that they know.

   Imagine if you will such a place of knowledge creation, such a ba, where intensification

of creative imagination was cultivated, much like Goethe’s exact sensorial imagination.

 A place where archetypes could express themselves in a unique historical situation and

 live through their particulars. These particulars would be imagined and shaped by the

 intensity of a cross disciplinary team which transcended each individual and indeed the

 sum of itself through participation in the ba. The creative energy which could be

 harnessed within this meeting place would be enormous. The need however for an all sustaining ethic of care,

 to guide the process would be essential.

 references:

Nonaka (2000) http://www.dialogonleadership.org/interviewNonaka.html

Johnson, Thomas (1999) interview with Claus Otto Scharmer www.dialogonleadership.org

Bortoft , Henri 1996 The Wholeness of Nature  Lindesfarne Press , New York 1996